This had better not pass

Question, Where does the line of civilization and cultural norms and personal civil liberties cross. What do we as a civilization determine is the social norm, and how long do we consider that norm.

What is the civilization and cultural norm for the priviledge of marriage, and what is the moral justifacation for the change of the 4000 year plus norm?
Just for financial gain, political need, what does this wanted new norm do to benifit the society as a whole, instead of the few. The pure human act of reproduction is the base need for an established pairing system. To prevent what was seen in ages past as physical abnormalties when siblings, cousins, etc joined led to the establishemtn of some sort of pairing "law", which several cultures turned into a religious act of marriage. Only in America could the financial need overwhelm the base need and norm of marriage, other cultures too have seen the fault outweigh the benifit, we will also eventually.

So when do we start on the incest "right", the pedophile "right" the beastality "right", once we cross the edge of this slope how do we stop the fall.

Edited by oldsoldier - 07 June 2006 at 1:36pm

(*to OS, obviously) You're right dude; we should remain as stagnant as possible as a culture. Hell, next time I see a woman at the beach who doesn't exemplify this look

I'll be sure to tell her what a huge slut she is.


Edited by newport - 07 June 2006 at 1:40pm

Dazed, understand your own concept, 25 years ago a person such as yourself would say, what federal or state judge in thier right mind would give two men, or two women the "right" to marry.

That itself is the point here, what is todays norm, can in the space of a generation become the abnorm and vice versa depending on the view of the courts and elected officials.

Social change is fast and sometimes destructive, example, ads for bikinis and "provocative" dress for example has outpaced the basic human instincts, so for example if a woman dresses in a bikini, and acts in a provocative manner, instigates an encounter, ramps up the encounter, and then decideds to say "no", hormones have not read the law, and the little head takes over the basic thinking process and it is solely now the "fault" of the man? Simplistic but reality.
Dress and stlyes can and will change, but so does the responsibility of those who follow that path.

We went thru the "free love" era when I was growing up, and believe it or not now that we are older and understand the process, we can look back and say to ourselves, "maybe it was not that good of an idea", as we pay child support, see families broken, morally and financially, and children paying the price of our "rights" and "freedoms" as seen in the 60's, but it was "fun" at the time.

Believe it or not there are varients of anti-homosexual laws on the books in many states. Some states, sexual encounters other than man/woman, man on top get it over with quick is still illegal, just not inforced.

25 years from now, you will be where I am, as will many of the youth here, and maybe will look back as we do, we survived Vietnam, Civil Rights, Sexual Revolution, etc, and many of the most vocal advocates of the above now look back and question thier views on the issues, pro and con, and wished they knew better then.

Have fun, I got about 15-20 years left on this rock, to me "it don't mean nothin", you are the ones who must justify your actions to your children tommorow.

Edited by oldsoldier - 07 June 2006 at 2:46pm

Here is a tangent for ya that you did not expect, my "culture" being a Catholic, in my youth did not allow me to marry my original choice in my church, a Jewish girl, miss her to this day, and in respect for my parents and faith I did make the required sacrifice for the greater good of family, mine and hers, and guess what her parents demanded that she not marry outside of her culture either, and it still exsists in many "cultures". So BTDT. And I survived..........

You've yet to answer the question. What harm does **edited** marriage do to you?

Just answer the question. It's very simple.

Bango wrote: You've yet to answer the question. What harm does **edited** marriage do to you?Just answer the question. It's very simple.

Me, none.


And what harm does it do to you for them NOT to get married?


See how pointless your arguement was?

He asked me for one, and since he's being pretty civil, I obliged and gave him one.

You on the other hand...

Wait, wait, wait, wait.

You say this:

Linus wrote: Not allowing **edited** marriage, what does it do? Nothing. No one gets physical pain. No one loses money. No one is kept down (though your definition will vary from mine on that). Only "bad" thing is you cant wear a ring and say your married.   Oh noez! Live together! Many hetereo couples decide never to get married, yet they love eachother and stay with eachother for life and have children. Why can't **edited**s do that?

I respond with this:

dazed wrote: By this same token, Linus, what harm does allowing homosexual marriage do? No ones rights are breached by allowing churches that are willing to marry two men together to do so. No one gets physical pain, no one loses money. Given the two sides of the coin, wouldn't you, as a patriotic american, rather our governement defended civil liberties rather than deny them?

And you reply to that with this:

linus wrote: Flip of the coin for you, buddy. What harm is there NOT letting them get married? What rights are being breached? None. No right, no harm, no marriage.

Do you honestly think that making a point and asking a question, and then repeating it nearly word for word is a competant arguement?

You missed it, completely, so allow me to reitterate:

Given that it does no bodily harm or other major damage to either side if they lose, wouldn't you rather a civil liberty be defended? Isn't that the true measure of America "FREEDOM AND JUSTICE FOR ALL."

OS:

I'm sorry for your loss, and you did a good thing by respecting your parents wishes, but I ask, was it just for you to be in that situation in the first place.

The Constitution of the United States Of America wrote: Bill of Rights Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

OS: There's your legal grounds for separation of church and state. No law may either promoted or denigrate a religion in and of itself. It is directly unconstitutional for laws to specifically advocate adherence to religious norms or values. The fact that some religious and some secular values coincide is merely coincidence.

Linus: How dare you, of all people on this forum, call me a 'bigoted asshole'? I have never once argued for anything but utter equality of rights and freedoms here, while you are the one attempting to deny a fundamental human right to an entire significant portion of the population for no rational reason you've yet articulated. You have attempted and thoroughly failed to shoot down our arguments as to why it should be allowed, yet you have no better reason than you think itshould be so.

To attempt to cry bigotry becasue I have the gall to shoot down such an arrogant and ignorant opinion as the one you hold is pathetic.

"Social norms" is merely a catchall phrase used to describe thigns the way theya re, without making any effort to quantify the benefit of those norms. You keep trying to dismiss the relevance of it, but the inferiority of women, blacks, natives, and other groups were once 'social norms' as well. This is EXACTLY analogous.

You claim that because homosexuality has biological causes, that it must be a mental deficiency- again you're showing your startling ignorance, this time of the field of biology. By your logic people with red hair or hemophilia should not be allowed to marry either.

No government has any place denying any right or freedom to its citizens whatsoever unless it can eb demonstrably necessary to restrict those rights for the protection of the rights of others. Withholding rights of marriage to homosexuals simply becuase of who they are is twisted and backwards, and even tyrranical. You have not and CANNOT gien any reason whatsoever - never mind one that can hold up to moral scrutiny - about why homosexuals should be denied any right any other person has. If two men wish to marry each other, noone has the moral authority to deny them that freedom, least of all the government or any peddler of theology.

You may choose to argue with me, but I will NOT tolerate attacks on my character- for isntance, the labelling of 'bigot'. I, at leas,t am able to be morally and ethically consistent, and am willing to admit when I'm simply wrong. You have repeatedly advocated oppression, unjustified suspension of civil adn human rights, and outright abuse across this and a variety of other debated topics. I think the majority of the forum will agree on this.

You may be within a year or so of my age, but sadly you're still mired emotionally as a kid- utterly unable to think for yourself, and accepting spoon fed ideology without analyzing the moral consequences thereof. Get over your twisted notions of right and wrong, and apply some consequentialist analysis to the idiotic convictions yous eem to hold in such high regard.

Dazed wrote: Enos Shenk wrote: phillll227 wrote: Mairrage was originally a function of the church. Why not return it to the church? Let the church decide who marries and who Oh yeah, great idea. Lets just let the religious psychos decide everything else too while were at it.Open your eyes. Churches are just as corrupt as any other public institution. They just have more room to maneuver since they deal with flawed people to begin with. Actually enos, its a valid thought, so long as the government clearly states that it doesn't consider marriages to be lawful. If they just used the term "civil union" and catagorized every licenced pairing as such, they could return the term "Marriage" to the churches to defend as their individual convictions dictate. Works for me.

I actually think thats a good idea.