Scwarzenegger announces veto on Californian gay marriage bill

[edward]

It is not just a religious issue. Marriage between a man and a woman is an institution that has been observed for thousands of years. Among ancient primitive tribes there were marriage ceremonies long before the written word. It is the basis of the strength of the family unit and without that strong family bond there would be no modern man.

They/You can call it whatever they/you want but leave the word marriage out of it.

All of the talk about not being able to see a gay partner in the hospital is not accurate. Many states recognize gay unions, and allow all the benefits and rights of survivorship etc that marriage allows.

In light of the fact that ,unions, life partners, and other terms give the same legal benefits as the term marriage, why is it then necessary to use the sacrosanct term marriage??

 

[arildno]

It is not just a religious issue. Marriage between a man and a woman is an institution that has been observed for thousands of years. Among ancient primitive tribes there were marriage ceremonies long before the written word. It is the basis of the strength of the family unit and without that strong family bond there would be no modern man.

False.
The vast majority of European common folks choice of co-habitation prior to the 19th century was NOT a religious or officially recognized MARRIAGE.
That is one of the main reasons why church officials denounced the "lower classes" for "living in sin".

Marriage in the Europe has mostly been an upper/middle-class phenomenon, more to do with property transactions and political alliances among the families than "love".
These are also the major reasons behind marriage-similar institutions within "primitive tribes" as well.

 

[honestrosewater]

I have an idea. Let's call all women second-citizens. They can have all of the other rights that male citizens have. But we all know that women were not historically citizens. Only men were citizens. So let's not ruin the name citizen by letting it apply to women. What's a name? (Don't ask this second-citizen)

It's a matter of law. The US is a nation of laws. No one else is talking about the laws. It looks like the people trying to ban gay marriage want an unconstitutional law. Does our Constitution not matter to those of you who are trying to ban gay marriage? Do you want to throw away equal protection?

Whatever, I'm stopping. I'm going to be sick.

 

[Art]

While looking up the history of marriage I came across this;

From the 1690s to the 1870s, “wife sale” was common in rural and small-town England. To divorce his wife, a husband could present her with a rope around her neck in a public sale to another man.

Makes one positively nostalgic for 'the good old days'

 

[honestrosewater]

If it's so difficult to recognize the difference between the actions of the government and the actions of other institutions, call them all civil unions or whatever - just call them all the same thing. Calling one set of rights 'marriage' and another set of rights 'unions' is not equal. And you can't say that the name is insignificant - just look at the change in the polls between approval of "marriages" and "unions".

 

[edward]

These are also the major reasons behind marriage-similar institutions within "primitive tribes" as well.

No it was a matter of evolution and survival of the fittest. The stronger the family bond the more likely the family was to survive.

 

[Art]

I have an idea. Let's call all women second-citizens. They can have all of the other rights that male citizens have. But we all know that women were not historically citizens. Only men were citizens. So let's not ruin the name citizen by letting it apply to women. What's a name? (Don't ask this second-citizen)

Historically women didn't have the same rights as men so I think that should be rolled back too.

Under English common law, and in all American colonies and states until the middle of the 19th century, married women had no legal standing. They could not own property, sign contracts, or legally control any wages they might earn.

p.s I'm kidding for those who didn't know

 

[arildno]

No it was a matter of evolution and survival of the fittest. The stronger the family bond the more likely the family was to survive.

As for the foolish socio-biological ideas you and vanesch have espoused:
Our closest relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees live their life in as little heterosexual monogamy as possible.
Your "survival" arguments are simple false.

 

[faust9]

It is not just a religious issue. Marriage between a man and a woman is an institution that has been observed for thousands of years. Among ancient primitive tribes there were marriage ceremonies long before the written word. It is the basis of the strength of the family unit and without that strong family bond there would be no modern man.

They/You can call it whatever they/you want but leave the word marriage out of it.

All of the talk about not being able to see a gay partner in the hospital is not accurate. Many states recognize gay unions, and allow all the benefits and rights of survivorship etc that marriage allows.

In light of the fact that ,unions, life partners, and other terms give the same legal benefits as the term marriage, why is it then necessary to use the sacrosanct term marriage??

Why is the term marriage sacrosanct? Marriage was a way of joining families and were(still are in some places) arranged to do just that. How is forcing one's childeren to wed sacrosanct?

All right here's the skinny. No matter where you get married under whom you get married or your religion of choice the marriage in the states eyes is a simple contract. That contract bestowes certain rights to both parties such as access to monies, property, as well as life and death decisions. It's a contract. Nothing sacrosanct. Nothing grandeous. Nothing special in the eyes of the government. Marriage has been a contract for thousands of years---a contract to join families for arranged marriages.

Now with that in mind, how many contracts must be state sanctioned? Not a lot. You don't have to have a state endorsement to buy a car. No license is needed to buy a house. No writ of state approval is necessary when buy stocks or putting your dog to sleep or going to the dentist or having a vasectomy. There are a million and one things men and women do any given day that involge contracts written, verbal, implied or otherwise with no state involvement. So it begs the question as to why the state deams it necessary to control this one aspect of the American life.

Because marriage is nothing more than a contract(laws don't include the word love or feelings or sexy or anything of the sort because those are intangible where as the sharing of resources is completely within the relm law) it should not need state sanctioning other that a possible post-wedding day registration to allow a couple to file taxes jointly and to declare to the rights of each partner with regards to the contract.

It is a contract and should not be regulated by the state the way it is today. There is no reason to limit gay couples from joining---none. Creating a Civil Union with all the same rights as a marriage is STUPID because the contract in both cases would be the same so the language associated with the sharing of resources and the like should also be the same. Marriage is not some magic word that brings flowers when your sad or puppy dogs to hurt children or beautiful women pouring beer on midgets to Happy Gilmore. Marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people with no guarantee of children or responsible parenting or any other excuse given for not letting gays wed.

Anybody who's been divorced knows that marriage---as far as the state goes--- is a contract.

Now, will allowing gays to web make any of the detractors here worse spouses? Will any exhisting marriages fall apart because the gays are comming? Will gay marriage destroy the fabric of space time? No. With that I'd like to hear from the nay-sayers why they feel gay marriage is so wrong. How will gay marriage change your life? How?

All this hullabaloo is just sillyness to say the least. People are panicking about the demise of American culture---look at where we are today w/out gay marriage and tell me how allowing anybody to partake of this contract will somehow destroy our culture. Silliness---keep Uncle Sam out of my life. His job is to protect me not to mother me or baby sit me or tell me how to drink my kool-aid oh yeah!

 

[Art]

As for the foolish socio-biological ideas you and vanesch have espoused:
Our closest relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees live their life in as little heterosexual monogamy as possible.
Your "survival" arguments are simple false.

I don't follow your argument? On the one hand you seem to say marriage serves no useful purpose and on the other that gays should be allowed to marry? Can you clarify by explaining what you interpret the point of marriage to be or do you think it should be abolished for everyone?

 

[vanesch]

I have an idea. Let's call all women second-citizens.

I'm all for equal rights between couples of all sexes, but I do have to say that the word "marriage" between gay people, ... , well it makes me think of Mr Bean sketches (two hairy, bearded blokes coming into the church, one with a black smoking and the other in a white dress with some flowers, music playing and mothers crying...) and I cannot suppress a smile .

To take your example, it is as if feminists would like to have the word "woman" scrapped and call them "man" to enforce "equal rights between the sexes". Sorry, the word is taken.

 

[edward]

As for the foolish socio-biological ideas you and vanesch have espoused:
Our closest relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees live their life in as little heterosexual monogamy as possible.
Your "survival" arguments are simple false.

Prove it. We are not chimps. Your comparison is ludicrous

 

[faust9]

Prove it. We are not chimps. Your comparison is ludicrous

No, we're 98.56% chimp.

 

[arildno]

I don't follow you're argument? On the on hand you seem to say marriage serves no useful purpose and on the other that gays should be allowed to marry? Can you clarify by explaining what you interpret the point of marriage to be or do you think it should be abolished for everyone?

I have tried to stay clear of that part of the debate that goes on whether or not the state, in principle, should confer benefits on some forms of co-habitation and not on others.
Definitely an important issue, but as it happens to be real social benefits in having a marriage in our days, there's your "usefulness" of being married.

As for the quasi-biological explanations given, I merely pointed out that they are nonsensical, and largely irrelevant.

 

[arildno]

Prove it. We are not chimps. Your comparison is ludicrous

Since your argument didn't include anything specifically human that is not present among bonobos, your argument is invalidated by the fact that bonobos live perfectly well in a totally different manner than us.

 

[vanesch]

As for the foolish socio-biological ideas you and vanesch have espoused:
Our closest relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees live their life in as little heterosexual monogamy as possible.

Education of the youngsters is not such a high burden with bonobos as with humans, so a long-term stability of the couple to raise kids has no advantage in this case. It is the investment over several years needed to successfully raise kids which induce the necessary stability of the couple, which needs to invest very strongly in that, and should only do that if there is a serious Darwinian advantage attached to it.
Interbreeding small groups of individuals can raise kids collectively if this is not a heavy burden, but when it comes down to long-term investments, you better only concentrate on those in which you have a high genetic content.

EDIT: there's indeed an advantage to changing partners which is, the more you MIX your genetic material with many others, the higher the chances are that you will produce successfull kin, so a priori "screwing around" is genetically favorable. But this can be offset by the investment in *raising* the kin.

 

[arildno]

Education of the youngsters is not such a high burden with bonobos as with humans, so a long-term stability of the couple to raise kids has no advantage in this case. It is the investment over several years needed to successfully raise kids which induce the necessary stability of the couple, which needs to invest very strongly in that, and should only do that if there is a serious Darwinian advantage attached to it.
Interbreeding small groups of individuals can raise kids collectively if this is not a heavy burden, but when it comes down to long-term investments, you better only concentrate on those in which you have a high genetic content.

Nonsensical blather, which is irrelevant besides.

 

[Art]

I have tried to stay clear of that part of the debate that goes on whether or not the state, in principle, should confer benefits on some forms of co-habitation and not on others.
Definitely an important issue, but as it happens to be real social benefits in having a marriage in our days, there's your "usefulness" of being married.

As for the quasi-biological explanations given, I merely pointed out that they are nonsensical, and largely irrelevant.

I agree that all people male and female should have equal rights as should all co-habiting couples. I agree that gay couples should have exactly the same civil rights and benefits as hetro couples with the same civil ceremony available to all. I think where I and other people have reservations is where gay couples insist on a 'right' of going through the same religious church ceremony as hetro couples. Like Vanech it just seems a little Monty Pythonish to me. I also don't think it would be right to force religions to perform such ceremonies against their beliefs although if the gay community wished to start their own off-shoot religion then that would be fine with me and probably most others as well.

 

[CJames]

Education of the youngsters is not such a high burden with bonobos as with humans, so a long-term stability of the couple to raise kids has no advantage in this case. It is the investment over several years needed to successfully raise kids which induce the necessary stability of the couple, which needs to invest very strongly in that, and should only do that if there is a serious Darwinian advantage attached to it.
Interbreeding small groups of individuals can raise kids collectively if this is not a heavy burden, but when it comes down to long-term investments, you better only concentrate on those in which you have a high genetic content.

EDIT: there's indeed an advantage to changing partners which is, the more you MIX your genetic material with many others, the higher the chances are that you will produce successfull kin, so a priori "screwing around" is genetically favorable. But this can be offset in the investment in *raising* the kin.

Evolution takes place through natural selection and so why should the government be stepping in and artificially saying what is more viable in terms of evolution? If gay people exist then there must be a reason, or at the very least they are not a problem.

 

[faust9]

Education of the youngsters is not such a high burden with bonobos as with humans, so a long-term stability of the couple to raise kids has no advantage in this case. It is the investment over several years needed to successfully raise kids which induce the necessary stability of the couple, which needs to invest very strongly in that, and should only do that if there is a serious Darwinian advantage attached to it.
Interbreeding small groups of individuals can raise kids collectively if this is not a heavy burden, but when it comes down to long-term investments, you better only concentrate on those in which you have a high genetic content.

Can you supply data supporting your position that gay couple cannot give longterm support to children? Can you support your position that longterm stability is acheived when there is a near 50% divorce rate among married adults? Can you provide a scientiffic study showing gay couple somehow abuse or damage children at a rate higher than heterosexual males? Can you? I think not.

You are working in a relm of suppositions. Well in the mid 1700's scientists supposed mice(and life for that matter) sprang from linen and wheat not sperm and eggs. It took real science, not suppositions, to quite such stupid notions.

 

[Art]

Can you supply data supporting your position that gay couple cannot give longterm support to children? Can you support your position that longterm stability is acheived when there is a near 50% divorce rate among married adults? Can you provide a scientiffic study showing gay couple somehow abuse or damage children at a rate higher than heterosexual males? Can you? I think not.

It appears the data available is too scant to draw conclusions one way or the other

A Marriage Made in History?
By Don Browning and Elizabeth Marquardt
New York Times, March 9, 2004

CHICAGO — Both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage make their case with hypothetical arguments about its social effects and claims about the history of marriage. Unfortunately, we know next to nothing about the first subject, and proponents of same-sex marriage have mischaracterized the second.

The body of sociological knowledge about same-sex parenting is scant at best. The numbers of gays and lesbians raising children are so small relative to the population, and their visibility so recent, that there are no rigorous, large-scale studies on the effect of same-sex marriage on the couples' children.

Steven Nock, a leading scholar of marriage at the University of Virginia, wrote in March 2001 after a thorough review that every study on this question "contained at least one fatal flaw" and "not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research." Is it wise, then, to develop social policies that go to the heart of family life without better knowledge?

http://www.americanvalues.org/html/marriage_history.html

 

[edward]

Since your argument didn't include anything specifically human that is not present among bonobos, your argument is invalidated by the fact that bonobos live perfectly well in a totally different manner than us.

They are not us. Bonobos live perfectly well using a sticks to gather termites from dead logs.

You are trying to use one varity of Chimp to try to disprove the evolution of man and the family unit?? Not very scientific.

 

[vanesch]

Nonsensical blather, which is irrelevant besides.

Ah, an irrefutable argument :-)

Well, look at this, just a random selection of works on the issue:

The Descent of Man is a much more daring book than The Origin of Species, yet Browne downplays its radicalism, presenting it largely as an endorsement of the Victorian status quo. And so for Browne, Darwin "believed that biology supported the marriage bond," and "although he rejected the outward trappings of the established Anglican religion, he subscribed wholeheartedly to its underlying values and the presumed onward march of civilization." Again, "the 'higher' values were, for him, self-evidently the values of his own class and nation." Although Browne doesn't praise Darwin's purported use of biology to reinforce conventional mores and gender roles, today many on the Right do. Browne's reading explains (albeit unintentionally) why these modern conservatives find Darwin so attractive. Longing for a way to defend traditional mores, they are entranced to learn that Darwinism may supply a biological basis for them.

Unfortunately, Browne's reading doesn't do justice to Darwin's full argument. While it's perfectly true that in The Descent of Man Darwin claims that some traditional virtues are sanctioned by nature, he also shows that a great many traditional vices are grounded there as well. Kindness may be natural according to Darwin, but so is cruelty and lust. Maternal instinct is natural, but so is infanticide. Monogamy is natural, but much more so is polygamy. Courage is natural, but so is cowardice. Care toward family members is natural, but so is euthanasia of the feeble, even if they happen to be one's parents (here Darwin mentions the practice some primitives have of burying their sick parents alive). If Darwin provides some examples of virtue in nature, he also presents nature's shocking immoralities.

What eventually becomes clear in The Descent of Man is that Darwin's view of nature points not to Aristotle or Aquinas, but to Thomas Hobbes. Nature may on occasion sanction certain traditional virtues, not because these virtues are intrinsically good, but only because at the moment they happen to promote biological survival. If circumstances should change, and these virtues no longer promoted survival, then for Darwin they would cease to be virtues. In the end, the only permanent and unchanging moral imperative is the drive for self-preservation.

from:
http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/spring2004/jwest.html

 

[arildno]

I think where I and other people have reservations is where gay couples insist on a 'right' of going through the same religious church ceremony as hetro couples.

They don't have that in Norway. Individual priests have, however, chosen to give a "blessing" to the few gay partners (we're partners in Norway, not wedded)

I also don't think it would be right to force religions to perform such ceremonies against their beliefs

A point where we are in full agreement.

 

[Townsend]

Is it wise, then, to develop social policies that go to the heart of family life without better knowledge?

Why should the government be involved in developing social policies? If we let that happen then pretty soon all of America would be in church on sunday morning...

As far as I am concerned, the less the government is involved the better...

 

[TRCSF]

I think where I and other people have reservations is where gay couples insist on a 'right' of going through the same religious church ceremony as hetro couples.

You're working under the idea that marriage is a religious ceremony. I am an atheist. So is my wife.

 

[edward]

Why should the government be involved in developing social policies?

In the long term national security is affected by social policies.

 

[arildno]

Ah, an irrefutable argument :-)

Well, look at this, just a random selection of works on the issue:


from:
http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/spring2004/jwest.html

Socio-biological "explanations" of human behaviour is patently false.
To take just a single point:
The turn-over rate of social customs is so fast that to say that human behaviour is dominantly determined by evolutionary concerns, is just sheer nonsense.
But, when you accept that it isn't a dominant factor, then you've stepped out of the explanatory constraints set by a strictly Darwinian theory.

 

[Townsend]

In the long term national security is affected by social policies.

What is the purpose of national security?

 

[vanesch]

Can you supply data supporting your position that gay couple cannot give longterm support to children?

Can you supply data of where I claimed that ??

Can you support your position that longterm stability is acheived when there is a near 50% divorce rate among married adults?

There are sociobiological reasons for that too!

Can you provide a scientiffic study showing gay couple somehow abuse or damage children at a rate higher than heterosexual males? Can you? I think not.

Did I say so ??

 

[faust9]

Can you supply data of where I claimed that ??



There are sociobiological reasons for that too!



Did I say so ??

Education of the youngsters is not such a high burden with bonobos as with humans, so a long-term stability of the couple to raise kids has no advantage in this case. It is the investment over several years needed to successfully raise kids which induce the necessary stability of the couple, which needs to invest very strongly in that, and should only do that if there is a serious Darwinian advantage attached to it.
Interbreeding small groups of individuals can raise kids collectively if this is not a heavy burden, but when it comes down to long-term investments, you better only concentrate on those in which you have a high genetic content.

Your assertion of stability is ungrounded IMHO.

 

[Art]

You're working under the idea that marriage is a religious ceremony. I am an atheist. So is my wife.

No I'm not far from it. I thought I had clearly defined the role of civil unions.

In fact I don't know about the US but in the UK and Ireland the only way you can get legally married is by the state. After going through the religious part and the priest pronounces you man and wife you are still not legally married in the eyes of the state until you sign the civil register.

 

[Gokul43201]

What is the purpose of national security?

To protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens, no ?

<not my turn ?...sorry>

 

[faust9]

No I'm not far from it. I thought I had clearly defined the role of civil unions.

In fact I don't know about the US but in the UK and Ireland the only way you can get legally married is by the state. After going through the religious part and the priest pronounces you man and wife you are still not legally married in the eyes of the state until you sign the civil register.

We are not in a country with an official religion. Strawman! Marriage is a contract in the united states---that's it.

 

[Art]

We are not in a country with an official religion. Strawman! Marriage is a contract in the united states---that's it.

Wha... ? Am I missing a point you are making here?