[ckphilli]

Originally Posted by Ent

Granted, though obviously it doesn't mean it's wrong either.

Of course mon ami, of course.

[nittiley]

Originally Posted by Ent

Well I'm sorry, but I wrote it. Can you please address the actual issue instead of trying to tell me what I meant to say?

i wasn't trying to place words in your mouth..you wrote your statement & that was mine. i paraphrased you for simplicity's sake, & should have made that clear. sorry about that!

your position (from the statement) appears to be that you feel marriage is intrinsically (& limited to) the majority of humans' preferences, which are heterosexual. you based that upon the factors you listed.

my paraphrase translated to marriage being enforced (& limited) by the majority, also based on the factors you listed. i added that it was exclusionary, because it is excluding a segment of the population that's different. and imo, it doesn't matter if that segment is 0.00001%, or 10%, or whatever %. or what the darn difference is.

the whole issue seems backwards to me.. if religion is to be non-judgmental, loving your neighbour, etc. it seems as if i should be the intolerant person, and someone from a religious institution should be fighting for the rights of some overlooked, marginalised group in society. yet it's the opposite.. i felt this way through this entire issue, a bit incredulous.

if a gay person can or can't get married, it doesn't affect my life -- so why should i care? i care because i stupidly hope we can do better, & do it better together instead of all these separate bloody fighting factions. those chimps can avoid warfare successfully & simply, while humans can't even tolerate homosexuals getting married --> what does that say about us as a species?

really.. what is wrong with us?

i don't fault you personally, ent. like all of us, you too, are a product of your environment. i'm not railing against you, because i truly believe you mean well & want to do what's right. but i get fairly disgusted at human behaviour in general when issues like these crop up. there are a lot of wonderful elements regarding the human condition, yet.. it seems as if we're so much less than we could be. i hope that makes sense.

[buffoon]

In view of the fact that, in those societies and nations where this issue is currently most heavily debated, past persecution of gays has ended, equating the refusal of marriage (to the same) to the infra-specific warfare that humankind is prone too, seems hardly conducive to the debate.

Even the Catholic church, to many the archetype of anachronisms, staunchly opposes any and all attempts of persecution of gays.

It just will not, like many other denominations, marry them. And there is not and should not be any way of forcing the issue by imposing secular standards upon a religious body that would (should imposition succeed) have to go against its most fundamental principles.

Equally, as pointed out before, the reverse is just as invalid.

Since this question originated in the US (as far as this thread is concerned), such dire consequence should find ample preclusion by way of the nature of the constitution. Same thing applying to states of similar constitutionality.

Changing any religious group's outlook on this matter is, by common sense, something best left to the members of that group. Certainly not to non-members, as long as it's kept an internal affair and not superimposed upon the general public.

Chimps, by the way, may hold a distant relevance to the topic but not if comparisons are made on false premises.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/science/22chimp.html

They even eat babies, the disgusting primates

Something we have, for the most part, overcome and probably not least by the good offices of Chick fil A

[WendyM]

Originally Posted by Ent

From my perspective, the debate hinges on this question: Is there anything intrinsic to marriage that means it is an exclusively heterosexual deal?

Nice distillation of the morass into a key point.

Originally Posted by Ent

I believe that the combined weight of traditional, religious, biological, and social factors all point toward marriage not being enforced as heterosexual but being inherently heterosexual. I'm still waiting for any argument(s) in favour of a broader definition.

I would agree with that as concerns tradition and religion. Not so much regarding biology and society. And I know I've been gone from this discussion for a long time, but you left out legal factors. The challenges of the last few years in the US have not been to redefine marriage. They've been to define it where previously no definition existed, for the sole purpose of excluding gay marriage. There's no point to that except discrimination. If it's traditional, we've all agreed that tradition is not a strong enough factor to avoid change. Religion only applies to the religious. Biologically, there may be evolutionary factors that support homosexuality (why does it feel good to stimulate the prostate, for example). True, homosexuals can't reproduce, but many heterosexual couples can't or choose not to reproduce as well, which is no barrier to them getting married. Socially, what is the case for preventing gay marriage? These are all things that are legal:

• Childless heterosexual couples, married or otherwise
• Divorce
• Unmarried parents who live together
• Single parents
• Childless homosexual couples
• Homosexual parents
• Sperm donors

I'm not making the case that all of these are positive things or good for families or society. But they're all legal. So if our concern is for the sanctity of marriage and the family, why do we only change laws to prevent gay marriage? Is it not a little crazy that you can have a single mother who has been divorced three times raising children from four different men and all of that is completely legal, but you can't have a legally married homosexual couple raising a child one of them gave birth to? With half of all marriages ending in divorce, those seeking to prevent gay marriage in order to protect the nuclear family are protecting something that no longer exists as a standard. I think that in the past the social argument held water, but it seems to me a hard case to make these days.

[nittiley]

my apologies to ent for my burst of intolerance..

i was worked up in a bit of a lather when i last posted (although not an excuse). religions have every right to create & maintain whatever belief system & rules they choose, so thanks for the reminder buffoon.

i've always fully supported the separation of church & state -- including that religions are fine, & have beneficial aspects. just as long as there are clear lines of delineation in society, or least, as much decency & fairness as possible when those lines can get fuzzy .

i was also remiss about this:

The principal tool needed to end the historical enmity between science and religion... a look at some models from science (part 4), then examine some models from religion (part 5). Once we’ve identified what’s of lasting value—that is, the time-tested teachings—in both traditions, the next step is to spell out their complementary roles in addressing the life-threatening challenges facing humankind.http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ard-men?page=2

thus, religion & lack thereof --> it's all good . as far as it helping solve this dilemma, well, i'm hoping it will somehow.

& i forgot to specify exactly which chimps i was referring to -- they were the bonobos.

One special feature observed in bonobo society is the low level of aggression between individual bonobos. Bonobos are less apt to engage in physical conflicts and confrontations with other groups of bonobos. Their generally peaceful society is attributed to the evolution of a highly complex social system.
http://www.zoosociety.org/conservati...obo/WhatIs.php

i knew they had highly sexualized behaviours, but after reading the above article, they truly do pertain to this thread:

There is also a higher frequency of homosexual behavior among bonobos of all ages

suffice to say the chimps don't have marriage or religious issues to sort .

humans certainly appear to be more closely related to the ngogo chimps behaviour-wise (save for dining on infants..
good grief -- we're looking civilised now!!)

wendy's:

With half of all marriages ending in divorce, those seeking to prevent gay marriage in order to protect the nuclear family are protecting something that no longer exists as a standard

just echoing her quote, & as i mentioned earlier to ent, approximately half of the "traditional marriages" become polygamous anyway:

In sociobiology and zoology, polygamy is used in a broad sense to mean any form of multiple mating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

so legally sanctioned polygamy, single parents, etc. are acceptable -- is the only group left out the homosexuals? (& that's not counting ridiculous things like marrying a toaster or something). that highlights the unique unfairness of this particular issue..

[Ent]

Originally Posted by WendyM

I would agree with that as concerns tradition and religion. Not so much regarding biology and society.

I agree that society is debatable, though I've tried to defend my case as much as possible. I'm confident about biology though. There are biological differences between men and women, partly but not exclusively reproductively, that make the two complement one another. I know it's cliched, but the marriage allows them to do together what they couldn't do apart. These differences are as critical to a marriage as the commonalities.

And I know I've been gone from this discussion for a long time, but you left out legal factors.

Intentionally. The law is important, but the law should follow what other things say. When "legal factors" are imposed from the top instead of reflecting the situation as society views it, they tend to break things.

The challenges of the last few years in the US have not been to redefine marriage. They've been to define it where previously no definition existed, for the sole purpose of excluding gay marriage.

I disagree. They've been to formalize the definition in law. Remember that marriage pre-dates both your laws but your nation by thousands of years, and for most of the lifetime of that nation the government has been content merely to recognize it. Only now that there's pressure to recognize it as something different are they finding it necessary to say just what that "marriage" thing they recognize actually is. In much the same way when people propose that polygamy is just a natural extension of marriage it became necessary to formally state "No, we acknowledge marriage only between 2". Previously marriage was already between two people, the government just didn't think anyone would be daft enough to suggest otherwise.

These are all things that are legal:

• Childless heterosexual couples, married or otherwise
• Divorce
• Unmarried parents who live together
• Single parents
• Childless homosexual couples
• Homosexual parents
• Sperm donors

I'm not making the case that all of these are positive things or good for families or society. But they're all legal. So if our concern is for the sanctity of marriage and the family, why do we only change laws to prevent gay marriage? Is it not a little crazy that you can have a single mother who has been divorced three times raising children from four different men and all of that is completely legal, but you can't have a legally married homosexual couple raising a child one of them gave birth to? With half of all marriages ending in divorce, those seeking to prevent gay marriage in order to protect the nuclear family are protecting something that no longer exists as a standard. I think that in the past the social argument held water, but it seems to me a hard case to make these days.

To some degree I agree. It may be worthwhile pointing out that there are still some sixty million married couples in the USA alone, but the situation is nevertheless quite pitiful.
However, I don't like the line of reason that follows it. There's been significant talk earlier about the slippery slope or camel's nose fallacy and I'm trying* to avoid using it. Still unless I misunderstand you your argument is "well the camel already has his head in, so we may as well let the rest come into the tent too"! In more serious terms, you're using an already problematic situation as justification for letting the situation degrade further. While this line of argument is quite common, it doesn't really have a foundation.
Perhaps you're trying to say that it's gone so far that the best answer is to cut your losses and get out, but if that were the case I'd have to ask why homosexuals are trying to get in! Apparently marriage and the "nuclear family" still has a lot worth fighting for, and instead of ditching it a better response may be to question and try to resolve some of the other issues.

*Though I do think that social questions must consider the "Camels nose" effect because changes never stop at the clear cut limit you try to stop them at.

[buffoon]

Errhhh.............just so we can get away again from going ape , bonobos are not chimpanzees. Closely related, yeah, but not the same.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by Ent

...................Intentionally. The law is important, but the law should follow what other things say. When "legal factors" are imposed from the top instead of reflecting the situation as society views it, they tend to break things......................

.......not to preempt Wendy and not ignoring but merely not addressing your other points (for now).........by this argument we seem to progress from a previous one that what the majority feels is not necessarily right.

Where we can no doubt agree on what you state above as well as on the latter one, reminded by me, I don't see that the first one is applicable here.

In a totalitarian form of state the superimposing of measures (will of ruling body) that run contrary to public desires, may work (at least for some time), in democracy it won't. It's tried often enough, for sure, but is not only short-lived where successful, but also perilous to the imposing body.

That, as agreed, makes rulings in the spirit of societies' (majority) desires neither wrong nor right. But requires them to be honored.

Incidentally, the fact that a majority of US states voted nay does not reflect public opinion. It most probably did at the time of last elections but there's been a sway since, with elected state governments, however, still in their tenure.

[buffoon]

........and I'd agree that using an already problematic situation as justification for letting the situation degrade further can hardly be deemed wise policy.

But without substantial evidence of that actually happening, this would be merely a supposition based on the presumptions of problematics, degrading and unwarranted permissiveness towards all of them.

[WendyM]

Originally Posted by Ent

Intentionally. The law is important, but the law should follow what other things say. When "legal factors" are imposed from the top instead of reflecting the situation as society views it, they tend to break things.

Sometimes. But where the law is discriminatory, it cannot always wait for society to catch up.

Originally Posted by Ent

I disagree. They've been to formalize the definition in law.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Ent

To some degree I agree. It may be worthwhile pointing out that there are still some sixty million married couples in the USA alone,

I wonder how many of them are previously divorced though. I don't wonder enough to look it up or anything, but I'm married. That doesn't mean I couldn't or don't have four ex-husbands.

Originally Posted by Ent

Perhaps you're trying to say that it's gone so far that the best answer is to cut your losses and get out, but if that were the case I'd have to ask why homosexuals are trying to get in!

Something they'd probably wonder too after being married a few years.

Originally Posted by Ent

Apparently marriage and the "nuclear family" still has a lot worth fighting for, and instead of ditching it a better response may be to question and try to resolve some of the other issues.

My point is that if we're looking to society to tell us what it deems important, society is resoundingly saying that the concept of two married parents who stay together forever is not important. Actually, society would tell you the concept is still important, just not the reality. So we allow all of the situations I outlined (and many more) under the premise that individuals have the right to do what they want as concerns their family - marry, divorce, have kids, whatever - and we'll not prevent that. But when two people want to enter into a commitment, raise a family together, build a life the way heterosexuals can, we tell them no because one has body parts that don't fit into the other the way we think they should. We tell them they don't have the right to do what they want as concerns their family and we force their children to be illegitimate. I'm not making the argument that it's gone to hell anyway so let's install an express elevator. I'm making the argument that all of us who are straight have options to create and destroy our bonds and family as we choose, at the expense of our spouses or our children or whatever else. And everybody agrees that's not a great idea, but it is and should be legal. No one is suggesting we ban divorce. But when two people say they love each other and would like to have the same commitment as straight people and raise their children as married parents, we balk. Because somehow that's the thing that would destroy marriage. Seems ludicrous to me.

[nittiley]

for crying out loud, another oops..
but thanks, i'd much rather know!!

before i pack all the apes, chimps, etc. back to the jungle (& trying to sort this)

bonobos:

are humankind's closest relatives, along with chimpanzees
http://www.bonobo.org/

Some argue that chimpanzees should be categorized in the same genus as humans, Homo, based on the fact that chimpanzees and humans diverged only 4 to 6 million years ago
http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/chimpanzee

so we're most closely related to chimps & bonobos. although i'm ready to throw most of the apes into the same genus as well!

mandatory thread connection:

if bonobos are our closest relatives.. have they demonstrated that the way human society is structured regarding issues of marriage (for apes, it would be called co-mingling relations) it causes social discord, while their (complex) social structure promotes peacefulness (because they accept all ape sexual behaviour)?

i say, yes --> the tolerance promotes peace.

wendy brings up a valid point here, as many a truth is said in jest --

Something they'd probably wonder too after being married a few years.

if ent is worried that heterosexual marriage will be invalidated &/or diminished if gay people are allowed all aspects (including naming rights) to marriage.. imagine what would happen if we suddenly threw open the church doors & every church embraced gay people in the same manner as they do for traditional families.

given that there are more similarities between humans than there are differences, i'm assuming that gay people would end up in the same boat as the rest of us. meaning the concept of marriage is great, but as wendy mentioned, in reality --> people are going to get divorced, re-marry, not marry, etc.

right now, marriage for the homosexual community is something elusive & unaccepted (or at least not fully accepted world wide, hopefully that's safe to say without gathering stats ). if we imagine gay people having complete rights just like everyone else.. what would the outcome likely be? i've mentioned to ent my opinion about the sanctity of a man & woman's marriage being untouchable by anyone else's marriage, & stand by that.

so isn't it likely that once gay people have all their rights, they discover marriage isn't any guarantee of companionship perfection & stability -- & don't bother getting married as much? maybe after how they had to fight for it, they wouldn't take that route. but the overall trends for heterosexual marriage (at least for the past ten years in the states) are declining. see: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriag...rce_tables.htm.

so we who have the privilege/civil right aren't even bothering as much..!

i think that says more about marriage than anything else can. in essence, it's a formalised, legal situation (& sometimes a religiously blessed situation). beyond that.. it isn't much, since people can be just as committed (or not committed) without all the trappings. i'm not trying to kill the romantic idea of marriage either, because romance is also present in relationships that aren't formally recognised. it's just that the situation is more on the order that reality is going to loom large, & it always seems best not to ignore it .

but what if gay people ended up being the ones that kept the institution of marriage together, & for the large part, heterosexuals chucked it?

[nittiley]

yes, this thread really will end soon, at least regarding my posts in it.. so no one needs to fret or anything

are some religious proclamations examples of rankism when those outside the religious body are negatively affected?

it doesn’t appear as if 'demean' or 'humiliate' applies to the church’s treatment of gay people (love the sinner, hate the sin i’m assuming?), but is taking rank occurring regarding the issue of marriage? is having a traditional, religious belief system proclaim exclusive rights in one area -- which is not exactly undermining 'fair competition,' yet is not being fair either-- actually rankism?

Examples of rankism include all the ignoble isms (racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, ableism, etc.), as well as bullying of every kind, predatory lending, corporate corruption, sexual abuse, and pay-to-play politics. Whenever rank in one realm is used to undermine fair competition and so win rank in another realm, that’s rankism.

Regardless of the level of relationship...Rankism is a degrading assertion of rank. It’s what’s happening when a person, a group, or nation acts as if it outranks another and attempts to demean, humiliate, or exploit it.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...-relationships

[Drabdr]

So the Supreme Court will Rule on Same Sex marriage.

My prediction: same sex marriage upheld, 5-4.

Majority goes with Disparate Treatment under the Law.
Minority: States Rights.

[ckphilli]

Originally Posted by Drabdr

So the Supreme Court will Rule on Same Sex marriage.

My prediction: same sex marriage upheld, 5-4.

Majority goes with Disparate Treatment under the Law.
Minority: States Rights.

I'm interested to see the judgement. Should be a key indicator of how far we've come as a country.

[ckphilli]

A little linkage for those wondering:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/s...-politics.html

It is yahoo of course, so keep that in mind.