[bizzt]

Originally Posted by Gibble

Your religion can still only permit marraige between a man and a woman, but why can't those that don't prescribe to your beliefs also have the freedom to be married in the eyes of the law.

Why is marriage such a big deal to people then? Is it Commitment? Not too much of that happening in the world anymore! Is it just to have the option? but you didn't answer my other question

Where did Marriage Start?

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by bizzt

Legalized Marriage has always been between Man and Woman! Anything outside of that was not legalized... Let me ask you something. Where did Marriage Come From? Who created the Instiitution of Marriage? Did the Government not incorporate Marriage from Religion? If it did then should it not be Religion that tells us what Marriage should be? It is just like a Men's Club having to yield to allow a Woman to have access to it! Where does it end?

All things "end" Tim.

And especially those things which refuse to adapt to the times!

I don't care where it "came from", I care where it is GOING!

I mean really, think about it! WHY would a social group, in ANCIENT TIMES, choose to channel people into a "man-woman" marriage? Because it is the smartest strategy to promote the prolonged propegation of that group, pretty simple self preservation isn't it! And it supports the raising of children by providing for them, and this is what helps to continue the "group". Right?

And if you want to argue, where did it come from,... it came from BIOLOGY first! And arguably, so does the impetus for same-sex relations!

Right? (Look up "Bonobo's", it's a sub-species of Chimpanzee, and "sex" is a HUGE part of their social structure, and that's BOTH cross-sex partners, and same-sex partners!)

Besides, haven't we "learned" yet that Religion has ENOUGH trouble just telling us what RELIGION IS!? Haven't we seen history show us over and over that everytime religion has ventured OUTSIDE of it's own province, the results ain't so great, to outright DISASTEROUS!?

Times change.

Religions change. (and I'm sure there are isolated and/or primitive cultures where same-sex "marriage" has no stigmatism to it at all.)

Society's need's change,... the "group survival" is no longer at steak is it?

Values change.

And RIGID systems are left behind, or simply break under their own weight.

thanks,
J

[bizzt]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

All things "end" Tim.

And especially those things which refuse to adapt to the times!

I don't care where it "came from", I care where it is GOING!

I mean really, think about it! WHY would a social group, in ANCIENT TIMES, choose to channel people into a "man-woman" marriage? Because it is the smartest strategy to promote the prolonged propegation of that group, pretty simple self preservation isn't it! And it supports the raising of children by providing for them, and this is what helps to continue the "group". Right?

And if you want to argue, where did it come from,... it came from BIOLOGY first! And arguably, so does the impetus for same-sex relations!

Right? (Look up "Bonobo's", it's a sub-species of Chimpanzee, and "sex" is a HUGE part of their social structure, and that's BOTH cross-sex partners, and same-sex partners!)

Besides, haven't we "learned" yet that Religion has ENOUGH trouble just telling us what RELIGION IS!? Haven't we seen history show us over and over that everytime religion has ventured OUTSIDE of it's own province, the results ain't so great, to outright DISASTEROUS!?

Times change.

Religions change. (and I'm sure there are isolated and/or primitive cultures where same-sex "marriage" has no stigmatism to it at all.)

Society's need's change,... the "group survival" is no longer at steak is it?

Values change.

And RIGID systems are left behind, or simply break under their own weight.

thanks,
J

Can't say I completely agree (Maybe just the religious side in me ) but understand the argument nonetheless.

Merry Christmas J!!

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by bizzt

Very True J standards do change and what we thought that women went through horrible times before Women's lib was not the case when you were living back then. It was probably a good life for them.

Thanks J

Tim

???

You understand that MANY people here in the "South" used that SAME ARGUMENT to suggest that Slavery wasn't really all that bad either, and that many of the slaves LIKED it! Heck, this was still in TEXT BOOKS around here as recently as the 1970's. From time to time, it can STILL be found in rural schools!

There is simply NO WAY that NOT BEING ABLE TO VOTE, was "probably a good life". Hell, the "men" of this nation went to WAR over that over 200 years ago!? And started a whole new nation out of it!...

Freedom of choice, is ALWAYS better than NO CHOICE AT ALL.

Always. It is a philosophical, and a MATHEMATICAL fact. (It is one of the basic principles of the Economics of a Free Market system, and HOW that system, "produces the most efficient outcomes". NOTE: that means "economicly efficient".)

thanks,
J

[alex_holker]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

Always. It is a philosophical, and a MATHEMATICAL fact. (It is one of the basic principles of the Economics of a Free Market system, and HOW that system, "produces the most efficient outcomes". NOTE: that means "economicly efficient".)

Actually, it only produces the most efficient outcomes when the social costs and benefits are taken into account. But in this particular case, I do not think there would be likely to be any significant effects on the rest of the community, positive or negative.

Alex

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by bizzt

Then Where did Marriage start?

The Majority of Course . Not too sure Gibble!

So why CAN'T marriage be described between Man and Woman to the exclusion of all others? What is wrong with that? It is like saying there is no seclusion in anything. A Men's Golf League. That is Discrimination!! Seriously Gibble where will the Government draw the line? Scouts used to be for only Boys now it has to accept Girls. WHY? Girls have Girl Guides . I know these people are not affecting your life if they get married and they are not affecting mine either! Sure times change and we must change with the Times but does heritage matter? I guess I am more concerned about my rights and my religious Heritage etc... I know they MIGHT not be infringed on but they probably will sooner or later.

What's wrong with it?

ONE: By your own arguments, it is derived from "RELIGION", and to do this would there-by represent an action of Gov't that is by definition, "promoting the establishement of Religion".

TWO: Also by your own arguments, "WHERE DOES IT END?"... Why can't the Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate holidays, and birthdays? How can the Mormons claim to have MORE Holy Books to add to the Bible that other Christians don't? "Why can't Christianity be described as just "true" Christians?"... whom will define that?... for how long? What happens when those people fall out of favor/power?...

Because Tim, EVERY injustice in history, ECHOS throughout history ever after it, causing continued problems and strife, even long after it is corrected. Want support of that? Is "Slavery" over in this country? Are we still inundated with legal arguments about "Reparations" being paid to African Americans about it!?... Are women NOW a MAJOR force in the politics and economy of the nation?... HOW MUCH DIFFERENT would our nation be now, if they could have started down that path of development EARLIER than they did?... Did we TRY "Separate but Equal" as a nation before? Did it work? Do we now have a HUGE MESS of a school system to fix and clean up because of it!?...

How much is THAT ALONE going to cost us to FIX!? How much is it costing us RIGHT NOW, because it is BROKEN! (and if you want a better idea of just how bad it is? Check out the Public School system down here in New Orleans! <shakes his head,...> Oh man,...)

"The Problem" is, that your solution gives ALL the benefits to you, AT THE EXPENSE of another group, AND, by allowing same-sex marriage, NONE of your benefits are reduced! NONE!... So there is a "solution" available, which can redistribute "social equity" in such a way that MAKES NO ONE ANY WORSE OFF, and helps to make a few people BETTER OFF!!! (That's called, "Parato Improving", and it is always the most "efficient" solution.)

How can a rational person oppose such a solution? Especially when the "social cost" is seen in a "fully costed" light, and we see long term penalty to ALL of society,... (at so many levels)

Now this next one, I don't really know?...

Scouts have had to accept Girls!??? since when? I was in Scouting for a LONG time, and I've not heard this?

J

[bizzt]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

???

You understand that MANY people here in the "South" used that SAME ARGUMENT to suggest that Slavery wasn't really all that bad either, and that many of the slaves LIKED it! Heck, this was still in TEXT BOOKS around here as recently as the 1970's. From time to time, it can STILL be found in rural schools!

There is simply NO WAY that NOT BEING ABLE TO VOTE, was "probably a good life". Hell, the "men" of this nation went to WAR over that over 200 years ago!? And started a whole new nation out of it!...

Freedom of choice, is ALWAYS better than NO CHOICE AT ALL.

Always. It is a philosophical, and a MATHEMATICAL fact. (It is one of the basic principles of the Economics of a Free Market system, and HOW that system, "produces the most efficient outcomes". NOTE: that means "economicly efficient".)

thanks,
J

Sorry J you didn't get me. Women probably liked the life they lived. For example my Wife wants to be a stay at home Mom. In this world that is unheard of but to her she just wants to do that. I was talking about the life they lived not some of the Freedoms they did not enjoy. I agree that there was certain Freedom's that Women did not enjoy and should have been able to have those Freedoms!! I guess I should have explained myself better.

Tim

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by alex_holker

Actually, it only produces the most efficient outcomes when the social costs and benefits are taken into account. But in this particular case, I do not think there would be likely to be any significant effects on the rest of the community, positive or negative.

Alex

Hey Alex,

...sorry, I don't follow what your drivng at here? (and remember the caveat I added, "economic efficiency", which has a specific meaning in this case.)

thanks,
J

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by bizzt

Can't say I completely agree (Maybe just the religious side in me ) but understand the argument nonetheless.

Merry Christmas J!!

Thanks Tim; you too!

J

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by bizzt

Sorry J you didn't get me. Women probably liked the life they lived. For example my Wife wants to be a stay at home Mom. In this world that is unheard of but to her she just wants to do that. I was talking about the life they lived not some of the Freedoms they did not enjoy. I agree that there was certain Freedom's that Women did not enjoy and should have been able to have those Freedoms!! I guess I should have explained myself better.

Tim

...I wasn't trying to "get you" guy

Just offer perspective.

But, as you point out above, the perspective may not apply?... but to some degree? maybe it does?

And actually, my cousin's wife is a stay at home mom! My sister is. My old college roommate's wife is! THREE of my fraternity brothers wives are,...

See how much better a freedom of CHOICE is?

I understand your meaning, and I think you mean, it's not as prevalent as it once was, but it is not "unheard of" by any means,... My sampling alone is pretty high, and it's not even complete.

Pleasure as always!
J

[bizzt]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

What's wrong with it?

ONE: By your own arguments, it is derived from "RELIGION", and to do this would there-by represent an action of Gov't that is by definition, "promoting the establishement of Religion".

TWO: Also by your own arguments, "WHERE DOES IT END?"... Why can't the Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate holidays, and birthdays? How can the Mormons claim to have MORE Holy Books to add to the Bible that other Christians don't? "Why can't Christianity be described as just "true" Christians?"... whom will define that?... for how long? What happens when those people fall out of favor/power?...

Because Tim, EVERY injustice in history, ECHOS throughout history ever after it, causing continued problems and strife, even long after it is corrected. Want support of that? Is "Slavery" over in this country? Are we still inundated with legal arguments about "Reparations" being paid to African Americans about it!?... Are women NOW a MAJOR force in the politics and economy of the nation?... HOW MUCH DIFFERENT would our nation be now, if they could have started down that path of development EARLIER than they did?... Did we TRY "Separate but Equal" as a nation before? Did it work? Do we now have a HUGE MESS of a school system to fix and clean up because of it!?...

How much is THAT ALONE going to cost us to FIX!? How much is it costing us RIGHT NOW, because it is BROKEN! (and if you want a better idea of just how bad it is? Check out the Public School system down here in New Orleans! <shakes his head,...> Oh man,...)

"The Problem" is, that your solution gives ALL the benefits to you, AT THE EXPENSE of another group, AND, by allowing same-sex marriage, NONE of your benefits are reduced! NONE!... So there is a "solution" available, which can redistribute "social equity" in such a way that MAKES NO ONE ANY WORSE OFF, and helps to make a few people BETTER OFF!!! (That's called, "Parato Improving", and it is always the most "efficient" solution.)

How can a rational person oppose such a solution? Especially when the "social cost" is seen in a "fully costed" light, and we see long term penalty to ALL of society,... (at so many levels)

Now this next one, I don't really know?...

Scouts have had to accept Girls!??? since when? I was in Scouting for a LONG time, and I've not heard this?

J

Ok I C your point that injustices to a certain group have been made! Homosexuals want to Marry OK. I don't like it and probably never will! I can see repurcussions happening because of this. As for the Scouts thing up here in Canada Scouts had to Accept Girls. Not just scouts though but also in Beavers, and Cubs. People were about to Sue or some argument like that. Basically the "Option" was not available for some people and they decided to take action! I don't think that is fair but that seems to be the Trend of this day and age. . Sorry that maybe a bad thought but that is just the way it looks!

Tim

[bizzt]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

...I wasn't trying to "get you" guy

Just offer perspective.

But, as you point out above, the perspective may not apply?... but to some degree? maybe it does?

And actually, my cousin's wife is a stay at home mom! My sister is. My old college roommate's wife is! THREE of my fraternity brothers wives are,...

See how much better a freedom of CHOICE is?

I understand your meaning, and I think you mean, it's not as prevalent as it once was, but it is not "unheard of" by any means,... My sampling alone is pretty high, and it's not even complete.

Pleasure as always!
J

Out with the old and in with the New lol...

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by bizzt

Why is marriage such a big deal to people then? Is it Commitment? Not too much of that happening in the world anymore! Is it just to have the option? but you didn't answer my other question

Where did Marriage Start?

I expect UNEQUAL treatment "under the Church", by definition. Even different sects of the same faith don't treat the same issues the same way.

But why can't it be about EQUAL treatment "under the LAW"? And in a pluralistic society that already tries to have an equal treatment of different faiths?

If a society has some people whom are "more equal than others", then it doesn't have "equality" at all!...

Is that REALLY "good enough"?

Is that "living up" to the "promise" of America?

...no one ever promised these principles would be "easy" to live by, or with, but they did promise that it would be worthy!

J

[alex_holker]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

Hey Alex,

...sorry, I don't follow what your drivng at here? (and remember the caveat I added, "economic efficiency", which has a specific meaning in this case.)

thanks,
J

I probably should have described it as the positive and negative externalities. Say you are building a factory, and you ignore the externalities. That effectively means you don't worry about any pollution, the costs of cleaning it up, or the material and energy usage of the process, just the costs to you and the company.

Alex

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by bizzt

Ok I C your point that injustices to a certain group have been made! Homosexuals want to Marry OK. I don't like it and probably never will! I can see repurcussions happening because of this. As for the Scouts thing up here in Canada Scouts had to Accept Girls. Not just scouts though but also in Beavers, and Cubs. People were about to Sue or some argument like that. Basically the "Option" was not available for some people and they decided to take action! I don't think that is fair but that seems to be the Trend of this day and age. . Sorry that maybe a bad thought but that is just the way it looks!

Tim

I've never said I "liked it" either,... (I guess I really don't care about it in that way?)

But I DON'T like knowing that my own Freedom and Equality is dimished by restricting it in this way!

And I'm pretty sure, from your own arguments even, that the "moral question" of the issue, is not for me, or you, to answer, it is up to those individuals involved in that decision. Same for an inter-racial marriage. Same for DIVORCE!... (I'm listing things in reverse order of their stigmatisms in recent history,... I'm NOT arguing how moral they are or not,... I'm just trying to show how THIS issue has the SAME arguments, and can easily have the SAME solution,... let individuals answer for the morality of their OWN lives, THEMSELVES, when it comes to such issues as these.)

EDIT: And that's a MAJOR BUMMER about the scouts man!... Wow, sorry to hear that one. Man oh man am I sorry to hear that,... I LOVED being in Scouting!!! Girls would have changed it a BUNCH!

But, as I said earlier, no one said it would be easy, and mistakes will be made in a democratic-republic, free, open, and equitable society. And I think that judge DID make a mistake. (If they had Girl Scouts too,... )

I don't know the particulars, but it just sounds like pretty sad news to me.