Gyroscopic Investing

But not just gay marriage:
https://fireflydove.wordpress.com/2009/ ... -marriage/

Desert wrote: I'm officially bored with the topic.  Maybe it's good to occasionally happen across an issue and be able to honestly say "I don't care."

Ditto. Sooner or later it will be like trying to talk about miscegenation. Eventually nobody cares anymore.

I am tired of the issue too, but ...

If we allow "marriage" to occur between any two consenting adults then we need to call a "joint living agreement" between two consenting adults,  who are jointly capable of reproduction, something other than marriage.

The distinction is profound.

And miscegenation is practiced all the time, here and around the world.  It just isn't institutionalized as much here.

Simonjester wrote: the discussion has gotten understandably old around here (we have just trudged through a big one on it) but it was a well thought out libertarian argument none the less.. it mirrored my own, "i don't care if they get married" ( or have a contract), i just don't like, and inherently distrust top down government policy changes that effect and redefine major institutions,

good article

WildAboutHarry wrote: I am tired of the issue too, but ...

If we allow "marriage" to occur between any two consenting adults then we need to call a "joint living agreement" between two consenting adults,  who are jointly capable of reproduction, something other than marriage.

The distinction is profound.

And miscegenation is practiced all the time, here and around the world.  It just isn't institutionalized as much here.

Why?

My wife and I don't have kids, and are past child-bearing age - should our union have a different name from other straight couples who have kids?

[quote=jafs]Why?

My wife and I don't have kids, and are past child-bearing age - should our union have a different name from other straight couples who have kids?[/quote]

Because "traditional marriage" has religious, cultural, and biological attributes (historic and current) that "gay marriage" does not.

And what I82start said.

So, then, our union (and all the unions of non child bearing straight couples) shouldn't be called "marriage" any more?

It seems sort of silly to me.

I don't care what people call their relationships, personally. 

jafs,

You are right.  A union between a male and female should be called marriage.

Other forms should be called civil unions, domestic contracts, etc.

And it is not the fact of having children, it is the potential for such to occur (however likely or remote), that makes marriage fundamentally different from other social/familial arrangements.

WildAboutHarry wrote: jafs,

You are right.  A union between a male and female should be called marriage.

Other forms should be called civil unions, domestic contracts, etc.

And it is not the fact of having children, it is the potential for such to occur (however likely or remote), that makes marriage fundamentally different from other social/familial arrangements.

I agree. Give them the same government benefits of power of attorney, taxes, etc. that a married couple has, but call it a civil union, etc. instead.

If it's the same except in name only, what reason exists not to use the common, standard name?

Pointedstick wrote: If it's the same except in name only, what reason exists not to use the common, standard name?

Perhaps just for specificity. Kinda like when you check the block for "divorced" vs "single". Also perhaps because then it can appease both sides; the liberal-side for giving equal rights to people that want to join together legally, and still keeping marriage legally distinct and more religiously-oriented/heterosexual for the conservative-side.

Some people want to expand the definition of the term "marriage" in order to antagonize the people that don't.  That's pretty much it.

WildAboutHarry wrote: jafs,

You are right.  A union between a male and female should be called marriage.

Other forms should be called civil unions, domestic contracts, etc.

And it is not the fact of having children, it is the potential for such to occur (however likely or remote), that makes marriage fundamentally different from other social/familial arrangements.

That doesn't make sense to me either -  many straight couples are incapable of having children.

I personally don't care what we call them, as long as any names involve completely equal legal rights, in other words, marriage doesn't give couples any extra rights.

But you all realize that the boat has sailed, right?  The SC recently decided that gay/lesbian couples have the right to get "married".  This whole question of civil unions for them instead is no longer an issue.

Greg wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: If it's the same except in name only, what reason exists not to use the common, standard name?

Perhaps just for specificity. Kinda like when you check the block for "divorced" vs "single". Also perhaps because then it can appease both sides; the liberal-side for giving equal rights to people that want to join together legally, and still keeping marriage legally distinct and more religiously-oriented/heterosexual for the conservative-side.

Except that "divorced" and "single" aren't identical, they're different.

The issue's been decided by the SC, so it's not an open question any more.  I'd personally be ok with civil unions, etc. as long as they offered the identical set of legal rights/privileges as marriages.  But most people who were against gay marriage were really also against those sorts of unions.

We have something like 1,000 laws that involve married couples - it's a lot easier to just let people get married than to create a new union with all of the same rights/privileges.

jafs wrote:But you all realize that the boat has sailed, right?  The SC recently decided that gay/lesbian couples have the right to get "married".  This whole question of civil unions for them instead is no longer an issue.

Would you say that abortion is a settled debate?

People will only take the Court's overstepping so far.  Now they're redefining a word and concept that were around long before they were, and expect everybody to just swallow it because they say so.

Well, in one sense, that it's a legal right for American citizens, it is and has been a settled question for about 40 years now.

People view the moral dimension of it differently, and feel strongly about their view of that.

I don't always agree with SC decisions either, of course.  But, there is a great tendency for many on the right to want to continually "re-litigate" issues that have been resolved at high levels.  And, whether or not the court is "overstepping" is a matter of perspective, of course.

For example, I live in KS, and the state has lost numerous cases about school funding at the KS SC level and they still aren't complying with those decisions.  That indicates a basic lack of respect for our system and how it's supposed to function to me.  They tried to tie judicial funding to decisions they wanted, and now they're trying to make it a lot easier to impeach SC justices.

On some basic level, our system relies on the good faith of those involved to comply with the structure.  If a legislature passes laws that are found to be unconstitutional by SC, and then they just ignore those rulings, they're not acting in good faith at all.

Xan wrote:

jafs wrote:But you all realize that the boat has sailed, right?  The SC recently decided that gay/lesbian couples have the right to get "married".  This whole question of civil unions for them instead is no longer an issue.

Would you say that abortion is a settled debate?

People will only take the Court's overstepping so far.  Now they're redefining a word and concept that were around long before they were, and expect everybody to just swallow it because they say so.

People will only take it so far?  Like then what?  You foresee some sort of rebellion on this issue?  I certainly don't. Talk about a fruitless effort. Let's say the state of Texas successfully seceded on this issue. Then what?  They simply disallow gay marriage. What have they gained?  What have the "real" married couples of Texas gained by restricting the "definition" of marriage in the legal realm to one man and one woman?

There's never been a universally accepted definition of marriage. Churches and communities and governments have been bending and changing to new norms for hundreds of years. And the only reason the government gets involved is the legal efficiency gained by allowing couples to enter into a pre-formed legal arrangement.

Like Desert, I have become extremely bored with this topic, but for what it says about a tribe's willingness to control something to almost no benefit to itself to send the right social signal to others.

jafs wrote: For example, I live in KS, and the state has lost numerous cases about school funding at the KS SC level and they still aren't complying with those decisions.  That indicates a basic lack of respect for our system and how it's supposed to function to me.  They tried to tie judicial funding to decisions they wanted, and now they're trying to make it a lot easier to impeach SC justices.

On some basic level, our system relies on the good faith of those involved to comply with the structure.  If a legislature passes laws that are found to be unconstitutional by SC, and then they just ignore those rulings, they're not acting in good faith at all.

I would agree with that, but also add that if the people find themselves fighting the system all the time, maybe it's a sign that they feel the system isn't working very well for them. It's definitely important to comply with the rules, but it's going to be hard to maintain societal order and harmony when there are people who don't like the rules, or even the game itself. At a basic level, this is the problem that federalism was supposed to address, and local control is another extension of the principle.

I don't know the details about school funding in Kansas, but if the people of Kansas generally express an unhappiness with the way schools are funded, and express it by electing representatives who try to bypass or ignore around state supreme court rulings, that seems like it's a signal that the people feel their democratic will is getting overridden.

The process is important, but it'a also important to remember that the process was put in place by people, for people. If the process is hurting the people, maybe it's not a very good process.

Pointedstick wrote:

jafs wrote: For example, I live in KS, and the state has lost numerous cases about school funding at the KS SC level and they still aren't complying with those decisions.  That indicates a basic lack of respect for our system and how it's supposed to function to me.  They tried to tie judicial funding to decisions they wanted, and now they're trying to make it a lot easier to impeach SC justices.

On some basic level, our system relies on the good faith of those involved to comply with the structure.  If a legislature passes laws that are found to be unconstitutional by SC, and then they just ignore those rulings, they're not acting in good faith at all.

I would agree with that, but also add that if the people find themselves fighting the system all the time, maybe it's a sign that they feel the system isn't working very well for them. It's definitely important to comply with the rules, but it's going to be hard to maintain societal order and harmony when there are people who don't like the rules, or even the game itself. At a basic level, this is the problem that federalism was supposed to address, and local control is another extension of the principle.

I don't know the details about school funding in Kansas, but if the people of Kansas generally express an unhappiness with the way schools are funded, and express it by electing representatives who try to bypass or ignore around state supreme court rulings, that seems like it's a signal that the people feel their democratic will is getting overridden.

The process is important, but it'a also important to remember that the process was put in place by people, for people. If the process is hurting the people, maybe it's not a very good process.

But, the system is designed so as to have 3 separate branches, check and balances, and fundamental rights.  That doesn't mean everybody will always be happy with it, especially if they think all that matters is the "will of the people".

Actually, in KS people are generally upset with the way the legislature is acting in regards to education, even people that voted for Brownback, who promised while campaigning to "protect education funding".

If the legislature doesn't like being held to their constitutional obligations in KS, they have the option of amending the constitution to remove that obligation, which would be the right way to go from where I sit, instead of trying to re-make the system to make the judicial branch less powerful/independent.

MangoMan wrote:

moda0306 wrote:
There's never been a universally accepted definition of marriage. Churches and communities and governments have been bending and changing to new norms for hundreds of years. And the only reason the government gets involved is the legal efficiency gained by allowing couples to enter into a pre-formed legal arrangement.

Exactly. A friend decided to have a secular wedding officiated by his best buddy who was 'ordained' online, which is very common these days. His father told him if he didn't get married in a church and by a priest, the wedding was a sham and he would not consider his son married and any future children would be 'bastards'.  I want to vomit.

And as for homosexuals, I think they should have the same opportunity as heterosexuals to be miserable. Let them marry.   Who freaking cares? I have more important things to worry about.

You think it's a sham too, or you wouldn't have put "ordained" in scare quotes.

Xan wrote:

MangoMan wrote:

moda0306 wrote:
There's never been a universally accepted definition of marriage. Churches and communities and governments have been bending and changing to new norms for hundreds of years. And the only reason the government gets involved is the legal efficiency gained by allowing couples to enter into a pre-formed legal arrangement.

Exactly. A friend decided to have a secular wedding officiated by his best buddy who was 'ordained' online, which is very common these days. His father told him if he didn't get married in a church and by a priest, the wedding was a sham and he would not consider his son married and any future children would be 'bastards'.  I want to vomit.

And as for homosexuals, I think they should have the same opportunity as heterosexuals to be miserable. Let them marry.   Who freaking cares? I have more important things to worry about.

You think it's a sham too, or you wouldn't have put "ordained" in scare quotes.

The question is... When isn't it a "sham?"  Should Jewish weddings not be recognized as they deny that Christ is their savior and therefore aren't holy under the eyes of God?

If the key takeaway here that marriage is a sham, or divine authority is a sham, then look no further for agreement!

Since many straight people don't "live up to the traditions and commitments of marriage", that seems like an odd thing to hold gay people to before they can call themselves married.

But I'm very glad to hear that you are in favor of complete legal equality - most people who oppose gay marriage also actually oppose real equality.

Many substantive changes come about through the actions of legislatures and courts, and rightly so.

Simonjester wrote:

Simonjester wrote:

flyingpylon wrote: Some people want to expand the definition of the term "marriage" using government force in order to antagonize the people that don't. and to gain legal rights from government that they should already have and that should not be connected to marriage anyway That's pretty much it.

fixed that for you....


I for one would HAPPILY give up my (legal) marriage to my wife... in favor of a civil union contract.. and have no problem with gays having the same contracts and legal rights.. i also have no problem with gays being married before god in the eyes of any church willing to do so... and i don't mind a gradual change occurring to the meaning of the word marriage if it happens naturally when gays live up to the traditions and commitments of marriage.... what i don't like is government forcing it... history is nothing but a long string of examples of horrific and endless unintended consequences every time this sort of forced social engineering gets tried.

jafs wrote: Since many straight people don't "live up to the traditions and commitments of marriage", that seems like an odd thing to hold gay people to before they can call themselves married.

But I'm very glad to hear that you are in favor of complete legal equality - most people who oppose gay marriage also actually oppose real equality.

Many substantive changes come about through the actions of legislatures and courts, and rightly so.

i am not talking about what they call them selfs.. if they want to use the word who am i to complain... i am talking about naturally occurring cultural acceptance of the words "new" application, that when a gay says married they mean basically the same thing as what married means now (without the man woman part).. just because we (heterosexual couples) don't all live up to the traditions and commitments of marriage,doesn't mean that the meaning of the institution has suddenly changed, some people just have a "bad" marriage, or a "different" marriage.. the definition can be both flexible and resilient if the changes happen on their own..

I see.

Sure, over time, people will probably come to accept it more, for a lot of reasons.  Just as we have with interracial marriage (which was made legal in all states by a SC decision).

But I do think that there's a lot more variation in straight marriages than people seem to believe.  It's not just a few "bad" marriages or a few "different" ones, there are all kinds of ways in which straight people conceive of and live in marriages.

jafs wrote: I see.

Sure, over time, people will probably come to accept it more, for a lot of reasons.  Just as we have with interracial marriage (which was made legal in all states by a SC decision).

But I do think that there's a lot more variation in straight marriages than people seem to believe.  It's not just a few "bad" marriages or a few "different" ones, there are all kinds of ways in which straight people conceive of and live in marriages.

I do not wish to turn in this to a religion topic, but I will offer that interracial marriage is not prohibited in the Christian Holy Scriptures as interpreted by the LCMS (the prohibition in our society was a man-made rule) but homosexual relationships are specifically prohibited.  Thus, man came around to abide by God's will for interracial marriage, and veered from God's will by endorsing sodomy, whether called civil unions or other terms.  Homosexual state approved relationships are another man-made rule.

... Mountaineer

Where is the prohibition on lesbian relationships exactly?

And, if you don't follow all of Leviticus, then you're just picking and choosing - there's a long, long list of things there that are forbidden.

Do you agree that it's better to send your virgin daughters out to be raped than allow homosexuality?

jafs wrote: Where is the prohibition on lesbian relationships exactly?

And, if you don't follow all of Leviticus, then you're just picking and choosing - there's a long, long list of things there that are forbidden.

Do you agree that it's better to send your virgin daughters out to be raped than allow homosexuality?

I am a Christian, not a Jew, and I adhere to the traditional confessional Christian method of Scripture interpretation.  Christ said, "I have come to fullfill the Law, not abolish it".  What do you think this means? 

Edit:  If you wish to continue this discussion, perhaps we should take it up in the religion thread, if you wish to go beyond this thread topic of gay marriage.

Edit:  To answer your lesbian question, see Romans 1:26-27.

... Mountaineer