Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gimpson]

We couldn't care less about some silly ceremony/cake/dress/invisible man so we'll avoid those if at all possible.

There is nothing silly about cake.  Some of the best cake I've had has been at weddings.  

I'm on my way to Houston this weekend to attend a wedding, as a matter of fact.  Neither my girlfriend nor I are religious, but we plan on having a fairly nice wedding.  In our cases, it'll be a nice excuse to get all of our friends together, possibly for one last time since all our friends are scatterred about the country.

[CortJstr]

A coworker just got married and her cake was designed like a spiral pathway up a mountain with a little hoss-drawn carriage at the bottom. It said "fairy tales do come true" or something similar. It made me want to hurt people.

[V-Adore]

My parents got married in a friend's backyard and had a barbecue/alcohol reception. This is a practice I can get behind, personally. However, the few brief conversations I've had with the SO on the subject seem to indicate that the SO wants something a bit more... elaborate, perhaps regrettably.

[miles]

So, if 51% of the people voted to make Christianity illegal, you'd be OK with that?  The whole point of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is protection of individual rights.  We try to limit the "tyranny of the majority" so that certain defined rights of minorities are not usurped.

This could happen, incidentally, but would require more than a simple 51% nationwide vote.  The Constitution could be amended to allow the government to prohibit the practice of religion.

One of the negative fallouts of the liberal judicial activism of the mid 20th century is the loss of respect on both sides of the aisle for the Constitution.  At least that's what I sometimes fear.  To me, the medicinal marijuana case before the Supreme Court is a no brainer--restrictions on locally grown marijuana in any given state cannot be regulated by the federal government (as far as its use in state goes) because of the commerce clause.  Though there is a lot of jurisprudence suggesting that it can be.  Today, conservatives feel a lot less restrained by a strict reading of the Constitution--and that frightens the shit out of me.

Being a "free" nation means that people must be free to do some things that the majority doesn't like.  Otherwise, what is the meaning of freedom?

Mill discusses this quite a bit.  Being a Utilitarian, he of course had to discuss why such a thing is actually good, and not just something to be put up with.

The will of the people used to approve of slavery, racial and sexual discrimination and the extermination of Native Americans.  What about the will of the German people in the '30s and '40s?  (GODWIN'D!)

This is, of course, why the Bill of Rights is so important, and why it may be dangerous to make loose readings of it.

You suggest that there could be Constitutionally allowable laws that would prevent same-sex marriage.  Without reference to religion or morality, please articulate what the state's interest is in preventing two people of the same sex from visiting each other in the hospital, hold property as tenants in the entirety or holding dower/curtesy rights?

I know this is for AD, but arguments are out there.  Basically, marriage's historical purpose has always been to produce children.  This is impossible in a same-sex marriage.  The state has an interest in seeing that children are being born.  But same-sex marriage is hardly a threat to this.  Birth control, no-fault divorces, and the social acceptance of heterosexual couples who can't or refuse to have children are bigger threats.  Marriage as a coming together by choice of two people who love each other but can leave at any time is a new thing, relatively anyway.  This fuck*ng stupid same-sex marriage debate sidesteps that entire issue.  Fact is the concept of marriage and family has changed radically, and the fact that same-sex couples want to get married only reflects this change, but is not a cause of it.

[miles]

I don't like the whole common-law thing; it just seems like another way of eroding institutions that began as important parts of life lived within a faith.

A genealogy of the institution of marriage needs to be done.  I'm sure there is one out there.  Something like it exists in The Way We Never Were by Stephanie Coontz I understand, though I've yet to read it.  I heard her interviewed though.  Marriage has meant many things at many times, but I don't know that it necessarily began as an institution of faith.  I mean, today it obviously has that function.  But common-law marriages aren't new, are they?  Maybe AugustWest will know.  In the past (up until the 17th century?) marriages didn't even require licenses in the colonies, I've heard, and I imagine that some kind of common-law institution existed.

[AugustWest]

I know this is for AD, but arguments are out there.  Basically, marriage's historical purpose has always been to produce children.  This is impossible in a same-sex marriage.  The state has an interest in seeing that children are being born.  But same-sex marriage is hardly a threat to this.  

Exactly.  First off, the birth-rate doesn't seem to be suffering much.  Secondly, homosexuals weren't going to be producing children anyway.

And I don't know anything about the history of common-law marriage.  Sorry.

[CortJstr]

I know this is for AD, but arguments are out there.  Basically, marriage's historical purpose has always been to produce children.  This is impossible in a same-sex marriage.  The state has an interest in seeing that children are being born.  But same-sex marriage is hardly a threat to this.  

Exactly.  First off, the birth-rate doesn't seem to be suffering much.  Secondly, homosexuals weren't going to be producing children anyway.

And I don't know anything about the history of common-law marriage.  Sorry.

I would say that the birthrate isn't suffering enough. We no longer live in a world where it's necessary to have 5 kids per couple. In fact we live in a world where that's a pretty bad idea. If some couples are still going to have 3 or more children then we need others to not breed in order to balance things out.

[miles]

I would say that the birthrate isn't suffering enough. We no longer live in a world where it's necessary to have 5 kids per couple. In fact we live in a world where that's a pretty bad idea. If some couples are still going to have 3 or more children then we need others to not breed in order to balance things out.

Low birthrate is definitely an issue.  Not so much here right now, but it is in certain European countries.  High birthrate is also an issue in parts of the world, don't get me wrong, but very low birthrates would obviously be a concern.  It's just that homosexual marriage would have little to do with it, unless it could be shown that somehow children of homosexual couples turn out to be homosexual at higher rates than children of heterosexual couples.  Then it could possibly be argued that years down the line...blah blah blah you get the picture.

[Va]

Birthrates have been dropping almost everywhere, some places faster than others.  Last I checked, world population was expected to level off and start declining in 2060, at 9 or 10 billion.

Malthus was a boob.

[AlohaDawg]

I don't see any need to create a quote pyramid, but this is in response to AD's last post.

So, if 51% of the people voted to make Christianity illegal, you'd be OK with that?  The whole point of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is protection of individual rights.  We try to limit the "tyranny of the majority" so that certain defined rights of minorities are not usurped.

Being a "free" nation means that people must be free to do some things that the majority doesn't like.  Otherwise, what is the meaning of freedom?

The will of the people used to approve of slavery, racial and sexual discrimination and the extermination of Native Americans.  What about the will of the German people in the '30s and '40s?  (GODWIN'D!)

You suggest that there could be Constitutionally allowable laws that would prevent same-sex marriage.  Without reference to religion or morality, please articulate what the state's interest is in preventing two people of the same sex from visiting each other in the hospital, hold property as tenants in the entirety or holding dower/curtesy rights?

Since I got back to this late, I'll place the dreaded quote pyramid  here.

I have nothing to add to this discussion that wasn't said in the other one, so I'm just leaving this one be. I still disagree with the basic notion that married people have magical rights unavailable to others and this is articulated as well as I can articulate it (obviously not as well as Aug, what with his dower/curtesy and his 'tenants in the entirety') in the other thread.

[CortJstr]

I still disagree with the basic notion that married people have magical rights unavailable to others

Flex Spending. I specifically asked and the IRS will only allow use of flex spending accounts for children or spouses. Partners are not allowed.

[Va]

I still disagree with the basic notion that married people have magical rights unavailable to others

Hell of seconded.

I say the government needs to get the fuck out of the marriage business.  On the civil side, marriage is just a living arrangement and people are more than capeable of designing contracts that meet their needs for the disposal of communal property, power of attorney, custody of children, etc.  The idea that everyone should have the exact same contract is totally unjustified.  Not only is a one-size-fits-none government solution to this "problem" not needed, it's actively harmful in that it stifles choice and infantilizes adults, just like almost everything else the government does.  Plus it's just one more thing to make fuck*ng taxes even more fuck*ng complicated.  FUCK!

As for the religious side of the question (which is not relevant to many people, myself included) the government should stay even further away from that.

Hubby and I got married down at the courthouse by a probate judge, and we could not make him understand that we did not want him to say anything about Jesus or any gods when he married us.  It should have been very simple--he showed us what he usually said when he conducted a marriage (it was very short) and we were like "Yeah, that's fine just leave out this Jesus part here," and he's like "What, I don't understand," and we're like "Just don't say the Jesus part, that's all, otherwise it's fine." He still said the Jesus part.  Hubby's mom looked smug.  I swear she slipped him a $20 to "misunderstand" us.

[CortJstr]

If it were me, I would've said "who?" right in the middle of the ceremony.

[Nabubrush]

"Sorry, Jesus couldn't make it."

[side_show]

Donut Shop!!! We didn't even invite anyone, other than our witnesses. Giant, multi-thousand dollar wedding? No thanks, just want the paper.

Wait, did you seriously get married in donut shop?  That sounds so ...Canadian!  The idea of getting married at a Tim Horton's amuses me to no end!