California Proposition 8

[Chip]

So the defintion of marriage is wrong and needs updating for the modern world.

Wrong.

The definition of marriage "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE" is the definition of marriage participants.

It is what it is and no rational modification is required.

But I suppose the next thing you'll propose is that cats should be included in the definition of dogs and that men should be allowed "by definition" to use the women's dressing room at the gym ... ... .

You can't rationally change the accurate definition of a term to agree with your pre-conceived ideological coping mechanisms.

You make an argument for change and a great argument for making sure that political decisions must be removed from bigoted hands like yours.

No I don't -- how you could irrationalize to that conclusion is likely revealed in your projection about bigotry.

BTW are you gay?

Irrelevant.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The definition was invented by man and like all defintions can and will change.

You are a dinosaur.

Marriage is ridiculous and there is no argument for denying gays the right to enter this stupid 'contract'

 

[Chip]

You are misinformed. Marriage has been constantly changing since human beings first learned to use fire.

http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20050506-000006.html

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html


If you don't believe internet sources, you could always pick up a book or two.

http://books.google.com/books?q=his..._group&resnum=11&ct=title&cad=bottom-3results

Seems strange, doesn't it, that there would be over 154,000 books about the history of marriage if marriage has never changed?

Your irrelevant target of "marriage has never changed" is meaningless with respect to the foundational definition of marriage being "between a MAN and A WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE".

The relevant matter is that accurate, long-standing, time-honored, cross-cultural traditional definition of marriage I just reiterated, not the inappropriate overly broad inapplicable question of whether "marriage has 'changed'".

Also, no matter how many appeals to "A"uthority you make, none of them will contradict the LCD definition, and at best you will be presented with local examples of aberrations that violated, not revised, the foundational lowest common denominator definition of marriage participants.

If you need to make an authority appeal in your attempt to grasp the reality of the definition I present, take a poll of the correct sampling populous ... which is all (or as many as possible) children of the age of six previously un-coached by "others" with specific regard to the poll.

There you will find the truth of the matter of the true nature of marriage: an overwhelming vast majority reflecting the essence of the time-honored, long-standing, cross-cultural, traditional definition of marriage participants at its lowest common denominator accuracy, untarnished by adult pre-conceived ideological bias ... and you will understandably find that definition to be "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE".

 

[Chip]

The definition was invented by man and like all defintions can and will change.

Indeed ... but it will likely take a long time before a cat will be called a dog, a man will be allowed to pretend to be a woman and dress in the women's dressing room ... and for marriage to truly be anything other than "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE" ... if ever.

You are a dinosaur.

And you are a mutant.

Now, see how irrational it is for you to unprovokedly initiate name-calling.

Try to keep your posts to the subject sans ad hominems, and you'll spend less time being masticated and expectorated.

Marriage is ridiculous

Not to the overwhelming vast majority.

It sounds like you've had a bad experience with marriage.

Granted, around 50% of marriages end in divorce, but that only means that the man and woman likely didn't even know who they were, let alone whom they should marry.

Marriage between a mutually attracted and psychologically compatible man and woman is a seriously beautiful thing and provides great and needed stability to society.

and there is no argument for denying gays the right to enter

Wrong.

The argument is definitive propriety.

Because marriage is definitively appropriate only "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE", it is definitively INappropriate for two men or two women to marry.

That is the rational common sense argument for denying marriage to gays.

this stupid 'contract'

Yes, it sounds like you've definitely had some personal "issues" with marriage.

Care to come clean about them?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The US constitution states that all men are born equal etc.

Do you think that means women aren't born equal or that the words were used to include women?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You have been bent into defense, defense, defense against "status quo" attacks, as you have stated, to the degree where you appear to have become every underdog's champion in this genre.

This was my favorite part of your post. You know who else was a champion of the underdog, who challenged the status quo, who argued relentlessly against the deeply entrenched religious hierarchy? Jesus did, so I'm in good company.

I think people should be equal before the law, you believe that discrimination on religious grounds is acceptable. You seem comfortable denying to others the rights you claim for your own--and you justify it with tradition. The might is right, status quo has a long history of being advocated by those who stand on the backs of others.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

But I suppose the next thing you'll propose is that cats should be included in the definition of dogs and that men should be allowed "by definition" to use the women's dressing room at the gym ... ... .

Your analogy is fallacious, if you were to do it correctly you would be noting that heterosexual cats and dogs can go to all the shows and heterosexual men and women can use each others bathrooms now under the law--AND IT IS ONLY HOMOSEXUAL CATS, DOGS, AND PEOPLE WHO ARE DENIED THESE RIGHTS BY LAW. The current law is based on religious bigotry not on any rational basis.

Your response to Dawks question about your sexual orientation is not irrelevant as you said it was. You have said that you are a counselor, if that is more true than Siho's claim to a major in biology then you will know that self-hate can make a person lash out viciously at others like themselves. Some of the most relentless slave trackers were slaves themselves. Some of the worst gay haters are actually repressing homosexual feelings (Ted Haggard comes to mind), and even a casual acquaintance with MtF transsexuals will show you that in an attempt to deny our femininity we take up the most violent and masculine jobs and sports: the military (particularly the Special Forces), construction, logging, all the traditionally "male" dominated careers. In sports we tend to the extreme again: martial arts, boxing, power lifting, motorcycle racing, and fighting. All of this is done in an attempt to deny to ourselves and to pretend to others that we are something which in reality we are not.

People who are secure in themselves and in their own sexuality don't need to regulate the sexuality of others. Fear drives gay hate and repression, just like it does the treatment of blacks, latinos, Jews, or any other group that does no inherent harm.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Hang about

Equality is for WASPs

If you are black, gay, yellow, communist etc then equality is not for you.

The nazis were notorious for persecution of these kind of groups.

Discrimination is for those kind of groups.

Only problem is the Jews

I mean WASPs hate them but they have all the money.

Tricky one

 

[Segep]

Your irrelevant target of "marriage has never changed" is meaningless with respect to the foundational definition of marriage being "between a MAN and A WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE".

And you're still wrong. Same sex marriage has occurred throughout history in France, Greece, Japan, China, Africa, South America, as well as several prominent Native American tribes. Again, you could look this stuff up yourself if you weren't so willfully and proudly ignorant on the subject.

 

[Segep]

Try to keep your posts to the subject sans ad hominems, and you'll spend less time being masticated and expectorated.

ten dollar words do not an effective argument make.

Yes, it sounds like you've definitely had some personal "issues" with marriage.

Care to come clean about them?

irrelevant

 

[Segep]

Everything posted by every poster is their opinion.

What's important is that mine rings true.

LOL classic! It's true because I say it is and I am the foremost authority on the matter!


keep up the good work Chip

 

[top gun]

Top gun, your argument is interesting. However, mere custody issues won't stand in the way of already religiously bonded bigamists from seeking legal legitmacy.

So why not bigamy? For it surely will follow on the heels of gay's rights to marry.. Bigamists have been pushing for some time to have legal marriage status.

I can see a BIG rewrite of family law code at this point...once the snowball starts rolling..

DANGER DANGER ANOTHER SIHOUETTE STRAWMAN ALERT!

The fact that someone "might" try something in absolutely NO way makes it right to stop someone else from doing something that does not have the same ramifications and hurts NO ONE.

It's very simple. Any two adults can enter into a legally binding marriage contract. All adults who want to adopt children or have children are under the jurisdiction and all the rules contained therein of Domestic Court.

Easy... very easy...

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Untrue.
My premise, the accurate foundational definition of marriage participants, remains sound.

It wasn't the the word "marriage" to which I refered. I was thinking about the other words that you use with cavalier disregard for their time-honored meanings, words like: equality and equal protection under the law.

Untrue.
The long-standing, time-honored, cross-cultural, traditional definition of marriage always was and presently is "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE".

Your facts are incomplete:

In Japan (THE GREAT MIRROR OF MALE LOVE by Paul Schalow, Stanford, 1990), Chinese men and women under the Yuan and Ming Dynasties (PASSIONS OF THE CUT SLEEVE by Bret Hinsch, Berkeley 1990),

Native Americans tribes (THE SPIRIT AND THE FLESH: Sexaul Diversity in American Indian Cultures, Boston, 1986) and THE ZUNI MAN-WOMAN by Will Roscoe, Albuquerque, 1991),

Many African tribes (THE AZANDE: HISTORY AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS by Edward Evans-Pritchard, Oxford, 1971, THE LIFE OF A SOUTH AFRICAN TRIBE by Henri Junod, London, 1927),

In the Middle East (THE ARAB OF THE DESERT: A Glimpse Into Badawin Life in Kuwait and Sau'di Arabia by Harold Dickson, London, 1951 and SIWAN CUSTOMS by Mahmud Mohammad 'Abd Allah, Harvard African Studies 1, 1917),

South East Asia (STONE MEN OF MALEKULA by John W. Layard, London, 1942) and (MARQUESAN CULTURE by Ralph Linton) and (THE INDIVIDUAL AND HIS SOCIETY: The Psychodynamics of Primitive Social Organization by Abram Kardiner, New York, 1839)

Russia (MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY IN CAUCASIA: A Contribution to the Study of North Caucasian Ethnology and Customary Law by Louis Luzbetak, Vienna, 1951)

Other parts of Asia (THE KORYAK by Waldemar Jochelson, Leiden, 1905-8)

South America (HISTORIA DA PROVINCIA SANTA CRUZ by Pero de Magalhaes de Gandavo, Sao Paolo, 1964)

Obviously you don't read enough history.

Never did that definition say "except for blacks because they aren't fully human".

Not only do you not know enough world history, you don't know enough Chrisian history.

The errors of some on the right are just as wrong as the errors of some on the left; inappropriate exclusion that violates definitive propriety is just as erroneous as inappropriate inclusion that violates definitive propriety.

No violation of definitive propriety is ever rationally considered a revision of foundational definition.

An appeal to simple tradition, no different that female circumcision or slavery.

Even if some localities thought they could exclude blacks from marriage, that does not mean that was in any way an alteration of definition but merely a definitively inappropriate aberration ... and likewise, just because some localities think they can include gays/lesbians in marriage, does not mean in any way shape or form that the definition of marriage is altered, but that they are proposing a definitively inappropriate aberration.

Anyone can see from my sources above that this was very widespread even though you don't like it.

No you haven't.

What you have posted is your allusion to anecdotal violations of the foundational LCD definition of marriage.

Not anecdotal, but researched sources by scientists and Universities.

I have accurately denied that your examples reflect the foundational LCD definition of marriage that has never changed from time immemorial.

You have denied, but so far there is no evidence of your accuracy.

Everything posted by every poster is their opinion.

Perhaps, but the difference is that mine are supported by research citations and yours are not. It's the difference between "prejudice" and "bias", prejudice has no basis, bias is based on something.

What's important is that mine rings true.Yours, doesn't ... no matter how many erroneous out-of-context appeals to "A"uthority you make.

No sources, no proof, nothing but you telling us about world history? I think the "ring of truth" is actually just a ding-a-ling in your head.

If you really want to take an opinion poll, the correct sampling populous is all (or as many as possible) children of the age of six previously un-coached by "others" with specific regard to the poll. There you will find the overwhelming vast majority reflecting the essence of the time-honored, long-standing, cross-cultural, traditional definition of marriage participants at its lowest common denominator accuracy, untarnished by adult pre-conceived ideological bias ... and you will understandably find that definition to be "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE".

So you are going to deny scientific research and rely on 6 year olds? I think this says volumes about your attitudes and agenda.

I deleted the rest of you post because it was just a personal attack--again without basis.

 

[Sihouette]

The fact that someone "might" try something in absolutely NO way makes it right to stop someone else from doing something that does not have the same ramifications and hurts NO ONE.~topgun

That is your opinion. What hurts and doesn't hurt is a highly subjective subject..

I would venture to say that the majority of Californians voted down gay marriage because they subjectively perceived that society condoning gay sexual unions might set an example for kids to follow that places them emulating a new set of edicts that would quietly (yet potently) promote homosexuality.

We've been round and round about this before. You say it's no problem. I say it is a problem. You say gayness is genetic. I say it is learned via conditioning. You say so what? I say it matters. You say social learning is irrelevant. I say it is paramount...

And so on..

Suffice to say that the majority of people in CA feel the way I do. But your teams of lawyers will fight to overturn that sentiment.

You also want me and the rest of voters to ignore that gays being married will set a legal precident for other deviances, such as bigamy, to follow. We however cannot ignore that since we know how lawsuits work. If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander. And thus will bigamy work it's way into legality too.

You want us to ignore that very real and probable possibility. You want to call it a straw man argument. You want to call it "covert hatred". You want to belittle people who bring it up. You want to change the subject when it does. You are trying every trick in the book to beat down that subject so it is either shunned or ignored outright. And yet the very backbone of American law rests on precidents exactly like this one. And you know damn well that in the name of "equality", other non-hetero or bigamist groups will lobby for inclusion in the marriage description.

That's why I've asked you to describe the language you would have to include bigamists, since they will be included eventually if homosexuals overturn the Will of the People and get what they're after...

And you know it..

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That is your opinion. What hurts and doesn't hurt is a highly subjective subject..I would venture to say that the majority of Californians voted down gay marriage because they subjectively perceived that society condoning gay sexual unions might set an example for kids to follow that places them emulating a new set of edicts that would quietly (yet potently) promote homosexuality.We've been round and round about this before. You say it's no problem. I say it is a problem. You say gayness is genetic. I say it is learned via conditioning. You say so what? I say it matters. You say social learning is irrelevant. I say it is paramount...
And so on..Suffice to say that the majority of people in CA feel the way I do. But your teams of lawyers will fight to overturn that sentiment. You also want me and the rest of voters to ignore that gays being married will set a legal precident for other deviances, such as bigamy, to follow. We however cannot ignore that since we know how lawsuits work. If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander. And thus will bigamy work it's way into legality too.You want us to ignore that very real and probable possibility. You want to call it a straw man argument. You want to call it "covert hatred". You want to belittle people who bring it up. You want to change the subject when it does. You are trying every trick in the book to beat down that subject so it is either shunned or ignored outright. And yet the very backbone of American law rests on precidents exactly like this one. And you know damn well that in the name of "equality", other non-hetero or bigamist groups will lobby for inclusion in the marriage description.That's why I've asked you to describe the language you would have to include bigamists, since they will be included eventually if homosexuals overturn the Will of the People and get what they're after...And you know it..

"If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander." quoth Siho, practicing the first Christian virtue.

You are so afraid that you would condemn millions to 2nd class citizenship because of something that YOU imagine might happen.