California State Measure Results

[Peikko 1,575]

Of course there is. The marriage contract is unlike other contracts because the participants do not get to decide how the contract works, the state does.

And this is precisely the problem, and why government should get out of the business. Imagine that - people deciding for THEMSELVES how their marriages should work, rather than the government deciding for them. What a radical concept.

Well, again, it's down to the idea that society is organized as family units - I don't think there is a society anywhere where the notion of family has broken down to be utterly meaningless.

So - if you have no family, life and your place in society is meaningless....got it.

Not really, I just envision chaos as a result of your world view.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Of course there is. The marriage contract is unlike other contracts because the participants do not get to decide how the contract works, the state does.

And this is precisely the problem, and why government should get out of the business. Imagine that - people deciding for THEMSELVES how their marriages should work, rather than the government deciding for them. What a radical concept.

I think the point is that you shouldn't decide this stuff for yourself - marriage rights are enshrined in law to prevent the possibility of abuses (or rather to grant each partner a level playing field - as far as is possible). I could be wrong but if everything was decided by contract or prenuptual agreement, there would be nothing to stop people from determining (at the outset of the marriage) who gets custody of any kids that the couple may have, or that in the event of divorce - the parent without custody shouldn't have to pay any child support.

It would seem to be fraught with problems.

Well, again, it's down to the idea that society is organized as family units - I don't think there is a society anywhere where the notion of family has broken down to be utterly meaningless.

So - if you have no family, life and your place in society is meaningless....got it.

Well I would be interested to hear what example you had in mind when you brought that up. What countries / cultures practices plural marriage in the manner you describe?

I'm not disputing the assertion - but I rather doubt you will find one that isn't based on some sort of hierarchical structure.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[akdiver 3]

If you insist on taking my statements completely literally with no latitute for interpretation - I'm not really surprised you'd trot that out.

Hey, I just work with what you ACTUALLY say. Not what I may THINK you say. Not what I ASSUME you MEAN to say via some internal interpretation based on my own ideas. I just try to work with what you ACTUALLY say.

If you expand marriage to allow everyone to marry as many people as they want, there's essentially no benefit to marriage at all - because it completely annihilates the established legal structures that define what marriage is, and what benefits are accorded to a "married" couple under law.

This is exactly what I am gunning for. Why should any receive government benefits from marriage? Why should tax rates be based on marital status? Makes no sense to me. Talk about discrimination. Now, if you want to create a contract, between two or more parties, and use government to hold everyone involved to what was agreed to - now that makes sense to me.

Plural marriage requires them to be thrown out in their entirety and rewritten.

Wouldn't be the first time in history something was created from scratch (:

It would be if I were actually talking about those other cultures (examples?); but as I said earlier - I was talking specifically about this country and its culture.

Even in this culture, allowing plural marriage does not make marriage pointless.

[akdiver 3]

I think the point is that you shouldn't decide this stuff for yourself - marriage rights are enshrined in law to prevent the possibility of abuses (or rather to grant each partner a level playing field - as far as is possible).

And this is exactly the point. Government takes away your rights, in this case, the right to marry who you want, in order to protect your rights - in its view.

I could be wrong but if everything was decided by contract or prenuptual agreement, there would be nothing to stop people from determining (at the outset of the marriage) who gets custody of any kids that the couple may have, or that in the event of divorce - the parent without custody shouldn't have to pay any child support.

This is exactly right. And I think it is the way it should be. Allow the people involved to decide how to run their lives, rather than having the state run their lives for them. However, under current law, a PA cannot dictate child support issues. It's a court decision.

Well I would be interested to hear what example you had in mind when you brought that up. What countries / cultures practices plural marriage in the manner you describe?

You lost me there.

[Danno 1,228]

It is sad

I am surprised so many people voted against it.

I am waiting for San Fran to declare they are breaking off.

Why?

Why is banning gay marriage in anyone's self-interest?

Its blatant bigotry.

You ask a good question, here is part of your answer.

http://massresistance.com/media/video/brainwashing.html

[mawilson 2,133]

Why should any receive government benefits from marriage? Why should tax rates be based on marital status? Makes no sense to me. Talk about discrimination. Now, if you want to create a contract, between two or more parties, and use government to hold everyone involved to what was agreed to - now that makes sense to me.

I could be wrong but if everything was decided by contract or prenuptual agreement, there would be nothing to stop people from determining (at the outset of the marriage) who gets custody of any kids that the couple may have, or that in the event of divorce - the parent without custody shouldn't have to pay any child support.

This is exactly right. And I think it is the way it should be. Allow the people involved to decide how to run their lives, rather than having the state run their lives for them. However, under current law, a PA cannot dictate child support issues. It's a court decision.

[IAMX 3,055]

It is sad

I am surprised so many people voted against it.

I am waiting for San Fran to declare they are breaking off.

Why?

Why is banning gay marriage in anyone's self-interest?

Its blatant bigotry.

You ask a good question, here is part of your answer.

http://massresistance.com/media/video/brainwashing.html

I'd stick to drinking the kool-aid if I were you. Snorting it does a lot more damage, it seems.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the point is that you shouldn't decide this stuff for yourself - marriage rights are enshrined in law to prevent the possibility of abuses (or rather to grant each partner a level playing field - as far as is possible).

And this is exactly the point. Government takes away your rights, in this case, the right to marry who you want, in order to protect your rights - in its view.

But that's just the thing - I don't see how it would level the level playing field. For one you kind of have to assume that everyone who would sign up to this kind of arbitrary marriage contract is in their own right mind at the time and their inalienable rights (such as human rights are defined by the constitution and bill of rights) wouldn't be infringed by an unscrupulous partner or an incompetent lawyer.

If you were able to sign your rights away at the outset of marriage - there would be no subsequent discussion as to who would actually provide the best home for the children. That's a conversation that can only be decided in a court, if the parents are going through a tough divorce and are unable to agree the decision must be made by independent parties, not by people who are wrangling over the interpretation of arbitrary legal contracts.

What you're suggesting is no less outlandish than the kind of society depicted in movies like Logan's Run or Soylent Green. As I say - far far far more radical (and far less practical) than permitting gay marriage. You don't need to throw the rule book out of the window simply because one group of minorities is seeking a slight rule change to protect their interests. What Prop 8 actually does is seek a constitutional amendment for something that is, at this point, blatantly unconstitutional and which is based solely on articles of religious faith.

I could be wrong but if everything was decided by contract or prenuptual agreement, there would be nothing to stop people from determining (at the outset of the marriage) who gets custody of any kids that the couple may have, or that in the event of divorce - the parent without custody shouldn't have to pay any child support.

This is exactly right. And I think it is the way it should be. Allow the people involved to decide how to run their lives, rather than having the state run their lives for them. However, under current law, a PA cannot dictate child support issues. It's a court decision.

The problem is that it would balloon the culture of litigation (which this country is infamous for) to ridiculous levels.

It's also prudent to wonder exactly how this would affect the performance of the court system - I can only imagine the nightmare of having to sift through pages of contract law to decide who gets what in the event of divorce - and to have no legal standards to refer to when adjudicating a case. The Courts have enough of a time addressing issues arising from the US Constitution (as you said). You'd have epic court cases that would make the most bitter divorce cases of today look like a picnic...

Would you want to pay for all that red tape?

Well I would be interested to hear what example you had in mind when you brought that up. What countries / cultures practices plural marriage in the manner you describe?

You lost me there.

OK - you were talking about cultures (other than our western one) that have an alternative viewpoint on the concept of marriage (I took that to refer to non-traditional marriage as that is broadly what we are talking about). I have had this discussion for, with others, as I've said - and the only examples that have been provided that specifically illustrate polygamy, for example (outside of the mormon model that we are most familiar with) are relatively obscure tribes of native people.

[Danno 1,228]

Paul Daniels... you asked "why" people would vote to stop gay marriage.

I provided not my opinion but actual vids of the youngest of school children being indoctrinated by the state.

No comment?

http://massresistance.com/media/video/brainwashing.html

[IAMX 3,055]

I kinda think, Danno, that being taught the truth that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality is far better than indoctrinating public schools with religious ideologies about how wrong it is to be normal, just because you don't agree with their sexuality. If this sort of intolerance is what you want for your children, may I suggest private school or homeschool. Feel free to brainwash them there. In public school, religion stays out of curriculum, and so does bigotry.

It's gonna be pretty funny as more gays end up getting married how fearful and desperate these religious nuts get. Maybe they'll turn into Al-Quieda.

Edited November 6, 2008 by SRVT

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Paul Daniels... you asked "why" people would vote to stop gay marriage.

I provided not my opinion but actual vids of the youngest of school children being indoctrinated by the state.

No comment?

http://massresistance.com/media/video/brainwashing.html

Didn't watch the videos (at work) - so no comment, no.

Lets not start the spurious assumption game. Thanks much.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[IAMX 3,055]

Paul Daniels... you asked "why" people would vote to stop gay marriage.

I provided not my opinion but actual vids of the youngest of school children being indoctrinated by the state.

No comment?

http://massresistance.com/media/video/brainwashing.html

Didn't watch the videos (at work) - so no comment, no.

Is there a need to? You know what it's all about.

Guaranteed there's not an argument in there we haven't heard before, or haven't heard recently, at that.

Edited November 6, 2008 by SRVT

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Paul Daniels... you asked "why" people would vote to stop gay marriage.

I provided not my opinion but actual vids of the youngest of school children being indoctrinated by the state.

No comment?

http://massresistance.com/media/video/brainwashing.html

Didn't watch the videos (at work) - so no comment, no.

Is there a need to? You know what it's all about.

Guaranteed there's not an argument in there we haven't heard before, or haven't heard recently, at that.

Well I won't comment specifically on something I haven't seen - but I do think its rather dubious to point to something thats happening in schools and use that as a justification to squash the rights of others.

[IAMX 3,055]

Paul Daniels... you asked "why" people would vote to stop gay marriage.

I provided not my opinion but actual vids of the youngest of school children being indoctrinated by the state.

No comment?

http://massresistance.com/media/video/brainwashing.html

Didn't watch the videos (at work) - so no comment, no.

Is there a need to? You know what it's all about.

Guaranteed there's not an argument in there we haven't heard before, or haven't heard recently, at that.

Well I won't comment specifically on something I haven't seen - but I do think its rather dubious to point to something thats happening in schools and use that as a justification to squash the rights of others.

I don't bother being politically correct. I simply don't waste time messing with religious people on these issues. I will gladly eat crow if it's an argument I've never heard before. The religious premise behind the gay marriage issue doesn't change.

If they want to hang onto their philosophy, that's fine, but they're not going to hold society back with them, and these votes are proof of that, as we climb closer and closer to allowing gays their rights. The 2000 vote was something like 61-63%. This was 52%. Seeing the trend?

Rather than waste time messing with these fundamentalist religious people, we need to simply move on without them. Let them be stuck behind on their little moral crusade against social progress.

[Danno 1,228]

I kinda think, Danno, that being taught the truth that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality is far better than indoctrinating public schools with religious ideologies about how wrong it is to be normal, just because you don't agree with their sexuality. If this sort of intolerance is what you want for your children, may I suggest private school or homeschool. Feel free to brainwash them there. In public school, religion stays out of curriculum, and so does bigotry.

It's gonna be pretty funny as more gays end up getting married how fearful and desperate these religious nuts get. Maybe they'll turn into Al-Quieda.

Your Obsession about religion dominates so many of your posts ... when it's not been part of the conversation.

Seek help, it's clearly eating you up.