Prop. 8 passed.

[*Kenji Murakami]

I am so ashamed to live in California right now. And this after Obama's election, too. I hate people; it's like every time I figure I can trust them, they go out of their way to prove that they're scum.

[Toku Warrior]

What was number 8 in Cali again?

[*Kenji Murakami]

The ban on gay marrage.

[*V Guyver]

Hmm, I don't mind the whole gay marriage thing, a bit of a shame that gay's can't be joined in a ritualistic union like normal couples. The problem is not so much giving them the right, but the name of the union. Marriage, which most people feel should only be between a man and a woman. Maybe they can pass another bill for something that gives them marriage-like rights, but under a different title ...maybe a Sanctity union.

[Toku Warrior]

I for one don't mind gay marriages. I have a few friends that are either gay or bi. I'd go with the sanctity thing you suggested V. It may not be marriage but it's better than nothing. There are a lot of people out there that think gay's shouldn't have any rights what so ever. I say let them have the right to choose the way they want to live and not to try to shove your own way of thinking of a perfect life down their throats.

[*zeo]

Maybe they can pass another bill for something that gives them marriage-like rights, but under a different title ...maybe a Sanctity union.

It amazes me everyone forgets or never gets told about Civil Unions. . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

It is almost like a concerted effort to make marriage the only option. . .

The problem with gay marriage is it can never fulfill the full purpose of marriage. They can never procreate naturally and though they can certainly adopt and raise kids they don't provide the kid with the balance that a father and mother can naturally give their kid. As same sex couples they are either maternal or praternal but never both and thus suffer from the same problems that plague single parents. Ultimately the purpose of marriage is to stabilize society through the family structure and to keep the species going.

So calling it marriage would only make it equal in name only and is more to make them feel like they are equal than anything else. But even if the law concedes that much claiming the right to call it marriage under equal rights opens up the possibility that other forms of unions would also get officially accepted, like polygomy, etc.

This is all besides the point that many religions would never accept this altering of the definition of marriage and not all same sex couples want to redefine marriage in any event.

Civil Unions on the other hand can be crafted to give same sex unions all the same rights as marriage, without having to redefine marriage. Though some would complain about even this the vast majority of people will readily pass such a measure over allowing a redefining of marriage.

[durendal]

Well, for one thing, like zeo said, what purpose does a marriage serve for gay couples? I guess this would depend on how your society see gay couples. And for one thing, is marriage that big a deal when there are divorces left and right? Usually couples arrive at marriage to start a family. But if the gay couple opt to adopt a child, how would that impact the psychological state of the child with his peers. When all his friends have a mommy and a daddy, what does the child have? Unless of course, the society supports this kind of environment that it will have minimal effects to the psychology of the child.

Should we move this to the theories sub-forum? I'm sure there are bound to have heated debates regarding this.

[*V Guyver]

The thing with marriage is that gay couples want it. They would prefer being called "married" not a civil union because it doesn't have meaning. To them the word marriage makes a big difference, and the same may hold true in a court system. So I suggest "Sanctity Union" which would have a stronger meaning.

Now there are some issues and questions in what Durendal just pointed out about starting a family and adopting a kid, and the consequences of doing so. But you know what, that doesn't matter if that becomes the norm. I'll make a point about it... decades ago, people use to say that there would be psychological ramifications and damage done to a white child being raised by adoptive black parents... My point being that the social look many hold against gays is not all that different from the look we used to have against Negro's. They are human beings who want to care for another human being and want to get married. If you take off a harmless label like gay. then suddenly you'd approve. The idea of a gay person(s) raising an adopted child is at times treated like they are a pedophile or some former criminal with a shady past.

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh about the subject but it certainly feels odd that we are more then willing to accept their money, taxes, work, and organs for a things like a liver transplant. But we can't accept giving them the same rights other couples have and put them over more scrutiny then normal when they want to fulfill a normal human desire to raise children.

[durendal]

True about the difference in soceity then and now. The question is: is society ready for that yet. Even now, we still have not yet eliminated the discrimination among races. Wether a law is passed or not, there will still be people who are purist and shun the mere idea of this. Sure, there are states that allow same sex marriage, but you have to consider the society that they are in at the moment. Their soceity already accepts "gay" as a norm. It's not a perfect world since everyone has different opinions. Unless everyone learns to accept one situation, matters like this will go on in endless debates.

Then again, before such concept would be accepted by everyone, there have to be a catalyst to trigger the acceptance, like an event, which based on history are pretty violent in times. This is something similar to Martin Luther King and his revolution for equality towards civil rights.

[*zeo]

Except marriage is not a civil rights issue. We can't compare interracial marriage to gay marriage, interracial marriage still fulfills the definition of marriage, they can still procreate, etc. and gay marriage does not.

Basically we all can agree that, under the law, everyone is equal, regardless of what institutions they belong to. So what do we do about those who want to enter the institution of marriage, even though they don't fit its definition? Are we denying them their civil rights, thus making them second-class citizens?

For example, The General Court of most states, also known as our state legislature, is an institution, and membership in it is not a civil right. Membership in the legislature is only available to those who satisfy particular criteria, not to all those who have opinions on legislative matters and would love a chance to vote on pending bills. By definition, the legislature is a closed, exclusionary institution. It's fair to ask: Is barring those who would love to be senators or representatives from membership in their state house a violation of their civil rights?

If the answer is yes, then all barriers to exclusion, including elections, should be dropped, and anyone who wants to be a member of the legislature should be allowed to join. But, if the answer is no, then our definition of “civil rights” must be independent of our right to membership in institutions, and as such, our duly elected senators and representatives should take a new look at the issue of same-sex marriage.

Though this differs to varying degrees in other nations, the American founding was characterized by clear thinking about ordered liberty. Today in America, chaos essentially reigns. Judges and mayors often ignore the law, and the will of the people, while imagining that they themselves, along with supporters of same-sex marriage, are compatriots of those who stood against slavery and communism.

I put to you that the comparison is not accurate. Their struggle is not the same. Slaves were denied their civil rights. So were those who lived under communism. Civil rights are, as correctly recognized in America's founding, inalienable. They can neither be given by government, nor rightfully taken away. These rights are those which slaves, and all subjects of tyranny, were denied: free speech, the free exercise of religion, a free press, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to vote, to be free from unlawful intrusions of government on their persons or property, and the right to fair and equal treatment under the law in all other matters mentioned in the Constitution and its amendments.

The same-sex marriage advocates who today compare themselves to freedom fighters in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Pope John Paul, Gandhi, etc. are misconstruing the significance of what these leaders accomplished in the face of actual tyranny. Whether they mean to or not, the gay marriage movement is confusing the civil rights struggles against slavery, racism, and totalitarianism with something very different — their desire to redesign history's most important cultural institution in a manner that will eventually render it for all effect meaningless.

Those who contend that marriage is a civil right must contend with additional questions. Is graduation from school a civil right? Is a government job? How about being a family member like a son, or a daughter, an uncle, or an aunt? What about a graduate degree? Employment? Housing? Health? Business ownership? A driver's license? Membership in the National Organization of Women, the NBA, the PTA, the AARP, the Priesthood?

Just as it is with these institutions and definitions, so it is with marriage—each one is defined with exclusions in place, and once it becomes anything we want it to be, then it is nothing at all. Marriage is an institution, not a civil right. It has nothing to do with first- or second-class citizenship. Marriage either has an enduring, unchanging definition, or it will have no definition and will become simply a term of convenience.

These are the concepts and ramifications that we have to deal with and why it is simply not a black and white issue of social acceptance, as is most issues that are driven more by emotion rather than logic. For example, contrary to many assumptions not all gays want to redefine marriage. So even among gay people this issue is not clear cut.

Gay Talk Show Host Opposes Gay Marriage

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Gays Against Gay Marriage.

[*YoungGuyver]

So by your definition Zeo, marriage is only marriage if you can make babies together? Not all couples in the bible could make babies together, yet they were married. (They had to ask god to bless them/cure them to change this-but they were still counted as married whether they had children or not)

To me, marriage come from the word merger. To join together, to merge together. Those that are married usually take the role as the head of their branch of the family; that is, assuming they have children in some way shape or form.

Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with gay marriage. But to me, living common law is the same as marriage, just so long as the two people together are seriously together, and not just doing it for convenience (mental state). I don't think you really need a sanction from an outside authority to dictate what you really are. But hey, some people are kinda pathetic that way, so I guess it takes all kinds of people

[*zeo]

So by your definition Zeo, marriage is only marriage if you can make babies together?

No, as I clearly stated marriage has certain criteria that needs to be filled to call it marriage just like any other institution. Trying to construe it as just procreation alone is a misrepresentation that ignores the other criterias, marriage is the basis of our family and social structure. Procreation is a part of it but it is not the only criteria. Again Marriage is an institution, not a civil right. Simply having sex and loving someone is not enough to fulfill the requirements of a marriage.

Looking it from another point of view, you don't need to be married to have sex and you don't need to be married to love someone. So these things can never be denied but like any other institution not everyone will fulfill the requirements to be in that institution. Even among heterosexuals there are limits to who can get married.

By the way, your argument of meaning falls under etymological fallacy, since the actual origin of the word marriage doesn't support either view, and ignores the fact that marriage is an established institution. Just like my other examples, you change the definition and then the status becomes meaningless as its meaning essentually becomes undefined and no longer an institution.

Marriage was originally an economic contract, concepts like love weren't a part of it. Later love was added to it as the modern concept of choosing our own mates started to take over but its form and purpose has remained the same throughout history.

Most reasonable people will agree there is nothing inherantly wrong with gay unions, anymore than you need to be a blood relative to consider someone you care about family. The choice and associate emotions are yours to give or take.

But there is a difference, Just like marriage there are requirements to calling yourself a son, a daughter, a uncle, a aunt, a cousin, etc. that can't be filled by just anyone.

Really, consider the logical conclusion of redefining marriage as simply people who love each other. Then anyone who love each other can get married, polygamists, mother and sons, fathers and daughters, cousins, etc. Since they would all fall under the new definition. There can be no limitations under that definition! You can't claim any moral problem without causing problems with justifying gay marriage as well and if you think it's an equal rights issue (let's just ignore the institution part for the sake of argument) than who do you prevent from having this right without having the equal part violated?

What then becomes of the meaning of marriage?

[durendal]

There is one thing that is a necessity for marriage. And that is Responsibility. A couple can live under the same roof, have a child together, but they do not take responsibility for one another, thus you can't really call that a marriage, much less a family. Making a family is a result of taking the responsibility to take care of one another. Why do you think a guy would usually marry a girl which he fathered a child? Responsibility.

[*Jess♥]

marriage is a union. marriage is a lasting commitment.

Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state or by religious authority.

Pronunciation:

\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry

Date:

14th century

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

marriage

• noun 1 the formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife. 2 a combination of two or more elements.

there are a lot of different definitions here.

zeo, I think you chould stop sticking to one definition and be a bit more flexible.

I thik the most important thing here in my view is teh acknowledgement of the union by the state.

considering that america is the land of the free, the refusal of the state of california to acknowledge teh union of two men or two women, seems very ignorant... no, it seems bigoted.

[*zeo]

there are a lot of different definitions here.

zeo, I think you chould stop sticking to one definition and be a bit more flexible.

You're confusing the issue Ryuki, the problem is not the definition it's how people want to interpret the definition.

What you listed was not multiple definitions but the simple fact that because some places have already made it legal. So it gets listed but as your own quote shows, it adds "same-sex" in front of Marriage. This is a redefiner that is simply listed because some governments have made it legal. A totally separate issue from whether it was right to do so in the first place.

Really, governments can make anything legal. It doesn't mean it's right for them to do so in all matters.

The important issue is the status of marriage as an institution...

Institution:

in·sti·tu·tion Listen to the pronunciation of institution

Pronunciation:

\ˌin(t)-stə-ˈtü-shən, -ˈtyü-\

Function:

noun

Date:

14th century

1: an act of instituting : establishment2 a: a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture <the institution of marriage> ; also : something or someone firmly associated with a place or thing <she has become an institution in the theater> b: an established organization or corporation (as a bank or university) especially of a public character ; also : asylum 4

Simply put Marriage is more than just a title to someone's relationship. The question is does anyone care about the actual meaning of marriage or is it just a title to be given to anyone who wants it?

Remember this isn't so much a legal issue as a societal one. Civil Unions can give gay couples all the rights they want, but it's not the rights the advocates want its the title. It's just most people confuse the issue based on emotional reasons and for some emotions is all the reason they need.

[*Jess♥]

zeo, your post is rather confusing.

I would like to understand how you are labelling marriage as an institution and as such limiting it to not include the definitions i provided.

marriage as far as i am aware didn't come from on single place. it wasn't invented on the spot by one person or organisation and therefore given a set of rules that can never be violated.

marriage exhists in almost all cultures and almost all religions.

there are many different forms and many different rules and observances.

I would like you to state on what authority you are sayin that this "istitution" you are referring to as the one and only "marriage" prohibits same sex union.

for example, if it's in the US constitution then say so.

and also, when stating what you are basing this on, please describe exactly why it nullifies all other examples of marriage including said examples rules and observances.

EDIT:

I should note that after a little bit of research, I discovered that same sex marriages actually occured during the roman empire.

(second hand reference from wikipedia - Suetonius Life of Nero 28-29; Martial Epigrams 1.24, 12.42; etc.)

so I am really curious as to where exactly you are coming from dude.

[*YoungGuyver]

Furthermore Zeo, you have claimed that polygamy doesn't count as true marriage. Um, it has been well counted as a form of marriage for thousands of years. Isreal (sp) had two wives, twelve sons, who went on to found Jewdasim and Christianity (Sorry, bible reference to show that marriage has already been that open, and not just the modern American view). So cultural definitions have already changed. And that's not counting the polygamist relationships across the world in modern times.

But the thing that really gets me, is that Zeo is claiming that there is no way that same sex couples can relate to each other as a true family does. He is denying the possibility that same sex couples can depend on each other, support each other, or do anything with each other that married unions do. Do you think the human brain is that limited that it can not adapt to the differences/similarities of a partner?

Perhaps YOU might not be capable of a same sex union, but don't place your mental constraints on others. Some of my friends are gay, and I have no problem with them getting serious in a relationship and making it permanent. If they can pull it off, they will have done far better than me or my own parents.

[*zeo]

zeo, your post is rather confusing.

I would like to understand how you are labelling marriage as an institution and as such limiting it to not include the definitions i provided.

For one you really only provided one definite definition, wiki was more vague but clearly stated marriage as an institution while both Merriam-Webster and Oxford both gave the primary definition as a union between a man and woman. Merriam-Webster just added as a secondary meaning of gay marriage but specifically noted it with the redefiner of same-sex in front of marriage, which as I pointed out was just an acknowledgement that some places have made it legal (since they added that when legalizing same-sex marriage became legal in some states). Again a separate issue as to whether that should have happened or not. Because Marriage has always been an institution. It wasn't just invented by one person, it was developed to define a stable family unit and anything that is regulated by rules and regulation over time is an institution. It even says so in my quote for the definition of Institution, which included a mention of marriage as being an institution.

Btw, yes the Romans had same sex marriage but through most of their history they were pagan and definitely had a very different moral structure from anything we have now. You can hardly say they represent the vast majority of historical institutions or directly compare to modern societies. Roman armies for example actually encouraged gay love among their troops under the thinking that you were more likely to protect your lover than your buddy, they also liked to have orgies. So do you really want to use them as an example to justify an alternate point of view? Remember the Roman Empire eventually collapsed. Ultimately this is an issue of what kind of society we want to live in and whether our society can survive such restructuring of its basic value system.

The reason we valued the institution of marriage so much throughout the centuries is because it benefits society, it provides the foundation upon which we are all raised. Originally established by religion marriage was accepted by government because of its clear benefits to stablizing a society and paving the way to growth. This is something that seems to have been forgetten as few now ever think of what the eventual ramifications may be of altering this institution to the stability and growth of our societies.

As previously stated Marriage was originally an economic based contract designed for the benefit of society. In Judaic societies for example if a child did not result in a specific time period then the marriage became null and void automatically. And you should be familiar with the almost universal concept of dowery in which the parents were compensated to allow the marriage. Something that was stopped relatively recently in our history as things like pre-arranged marriages happened less and less. All the way to modern times in which we still have rules and regulations over marriage. For example many do permit children to marry, with few exceptions, and most won't allow marriage between blood relatives. Some even prohibit marriage if either has a particular disease. All of which illustrates why marriage is an institution, it has rules and regulations and has been around for a very long time.

For some US Constitutional insite here's a informative link, Constitutional Topic: Marriage and A Defining Moment: Marriage, the Courts, and the Constitution

The problem is each individual state doesn't use the exact same language in the definition and many have successfully argued that it should be a civil rights issue, totally ignoring the fact marriage is an institution. In some cases this was done because there aren't any comprehensive Civil Union laws to give anything as an alternative to marriage in many states. Thus the problem we now face is instead of trying to fix the laws and establish proper civil union laws they instead want to redefine the institution of marriage and put it all under one roof so to speak.

This is why many now want to amend the constitution and give the country an all encompassing definition to finally settle the issue once and for all but since this would bypass the decisions of the individual states and not all are comfortable with that. Further complicating the issue is the will of the people, as voted the majority don't want marriage redefined but instead of following the will of the people many of these advocates force these redefinition through anyway, which is counter to the system of representational government that the US is suppose to operate under.

Present Map, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Samesex...iage_in_USA.svg

While other progressive seculist governments and reform religious organizations have taken the stance that marriage is no longer an important institution to the foundations of our societies and thus it's okay to redefine it for social sense of equality. After all marriage in many countries has suffered in the last half century as divorces become ever more prominant and single parenting have become accepted as almost normal by many. The traditional purpose of marriage has thus degraded and the reasons for its establishment have almost become mute in many cultures.

So this issue is not so much a matter of logic or reasoning of law but rather one of convienance and whether marriage still has any meaning that should be defended or not, because really that is where most people fall into when they debate this issue.

Like durendal pointed out this has a lot to do with responsibility and what responsibilities you tie with marriage. The more vague the definition you asign to marriage the less responsibility to tie to it.

Ultimately same-sex marriage will only serve to lessen the meaning of marriage, cause really secularly there isn't a reason to even get married anymore. Many governments already put more penalties for getting married than remaining single, such as with the tax code, etc. So unless you are religious then there is no reason to not let marriage just degrade into a simple title that would ultimately be no more important that calling oneself Mr or Mrs. Many have already forgetten the difference between Mrs and Ms for example.

If you are okay with that then there is no reason to deny same sex marriages, it all depends on what you care about and what you are ultimately willing to let happen.

[*zeo]

Furthermore Zeo, you have claimed that polygamy doesn't count as true marriage. Um, it has been well counted as a form of marriage for thousands of years. Isreal (sp) had two wives, twelve sons, who went on to found Jewdasim and Christianity (Sorry, bible reference to show that marriage has already been that open, and not just the modern American view). So cultural definitions have already changed.

Slavery was also culturally accepted at one time, didn't make it right and I think that just shows what you consider okay. Who cares if such a system inherantly is bent to abuse women whether they agree to it or not. One such group just got busted because they were marrying off young teen girls to much older men in arranged marriages in which the girls had no choice.

Lost boys for example are boys and men expelled from polygomist communities because they posed competition for potential brides.

Yeah, let's just be open minded and turn a blind eye to all the problems posed by polygomy, which is what many governments have decided to do, under separation of church and state, and only intercede when a clear case of child or woman abuse is noted but such cases are almost impossible to bring to light as many polygmist communities are closed to the outside world and the women are taught from a young age what their expected role is, so they think it's normal and have no way to complain outside of escaping the community, which is often the only world they have ever known.

Never mind the social problems that such communities face as eventually everyone becomes related and it becomes increasingly impossible to prevent blood relation marriages. A single husband could easily have to time share with multiple wives and their kids. Or the legal ramifications as rights of inheratance get insanely complicated. Or depending on the rules of the community a husband would have to time share with his wives other husbands, then they would have to keep track of whose kid is whose, etc.

Yeah, lets just add that to the general public version of marriage and drive our legal system totally insane. It is the open minded thing to do. Never mind not everyone could even afford a polygmist lifestyle as you would have support very large families, which would definitely destablize our society even worse than dead beat dads, etc have.

Polygomy in ancient times was used to help populate the species, birth rates for polygomist families are very high and was fine in ancient times but is counter productive in our modern close to overpopulated world. Never mind in ancient times women were usually treated as property, not something I think we should go back to. If you really want to make comparisons then put them into perspective.

But the thing that really gets me, is that Zeo is claiming that there is no way that same sex couples can relate to each other as a true family does. He is denying the possibility that same sex couples can depend on each other, support each other, or do anything with each other that married unions do. Do you think the human brain is that limited that it can not adapt to the differences/similarities of a partner?

No you're just trying to make this personal and trying to misrepresent what I've said.

Most reasonable people will agree there is nothing inherantly wrong with gay unions, anymore than you need to be a blood relative to consider someone you care about family. The choice and associate emotions are yours to give or take.

Clearly I do believe anyone can feel love and think of someone like family.

I'm just pointing out the difference between what people feel and what actually exists. You can love anyone enough to consider them family but you can never make someone a blood relative, they have to be born that. An institution has requirements that has to be fulfilled in order for you to join that institution. Like you have to adopt someone to make them officially a part of your family, but adoption has regulation and rules. Not everyone can adopt and not every can be adopted.

A gentlemans club for example wouldn't be a gentlemans club if women were allowed in, then it's just a club. Ditto with the reverse for a woman's club.

You can't be president or any other elected representative unless you are voted in and fulfill the requirements for taking that title and position.

So this isn't about being open minded, this is about what is and whether you consider all the factors important or irrevelant.

Everyone can make up their own minds and have their own opinions, just don't try to misinterpret the reasons why you make those decisions. We all have different value systems and beliefs, there is nothing wrong with that but we each have to accept the consequences of those beliefs and values. Otherwise we are just disillusioning ourselves and not being true to our beliefs and values.

And for those who disagree with me, just remember being open minded goes both ways. Just because I have a different opinion doesn't mean my point of view isn't just as valid as yours. You have your opinion and I have mine, we just care about different things.

For me this article gives a good perspective, City Journal-Gay Marriage (But you'll have to read it all the way through to truly understand)

[*Jess♥]

zeo can you please answer my questions in a clear concise manner. that is called communicating.

zeo, your post is rather confusing.

I would like to understand how you are labelling marriage as an institution and as such limiting it to not include the definitions i provided.

marriage as far as i am aware didn't come from on single place. it wasn't invented on the spot by one person or organisation and therefore given a set of rules that can never be violated.

marriage exhists in almost all cultures and almost all religions.

there are many different forms and many different rules and observances.

I would like you to state on what authority you are sayin that this "istitution" you are referring to as the one and only "marriage" prohibits same sex union.

for example, if it's in the US constitution then say so.

and also, when stating what you are basing this on, please describe exactly why it nullifies all other examples of marriage including said examples rules and observances.

EDIT:

I should note that after a little bit of research, I discovered that same sex marriages actually occured during the roman empire.

(second hand reference from wikipedia - Suetonius Life of Nero 28-29; Martial Epigrams 1.24, 12.42; etc.)

so I am really curious as to where exactly you are coming from dude.

you are currently stating a lot of things as facts when they are quote subjective to different groups of people. saying that marriage is culturally accepted as between man and woman, for example.. is not really something you can state as a fact. you don't have a immediate window into everybodies mind in order to state that so clearly.

I should point out that the wiki definition IS a definition and actually a far more viable source than the two dictionaries since it has been put under far more peer review and is most certainly more accepted by society.

As previously stated Marriage was originally an economic based contract designed for the benefit of society.

since we do not have records of the origin of marriage, this statement is a fallacy.

institution as "a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture" does not exaplin anything, we are all aware that marriage is a significant relationship in society and/or culture. stating the definition of an institution does not support anything.

right now, you are totally derailing this thread by stating things that bear no relevance or are not clearly making any points.

you are just citing many different things.

get to the point man.

I asked you some questions, you didn't answer. not as far as i could understand.

under what authority do you state that the institution of marriage does not include 2 men and 2 women relationships.

you own definition describes an institution as being within culture/society. people define society. people define culture.

to be able to define what is and is not acceptible within that insitution you would have to survey all of society.

here is a site with some opinion polls.

if you want to start making sweeping statements then you need to research this. back your claims up dude.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm

[*zeo]

I should point out that the wiki definition IS a definition and actually a far more viable source than the two dictionaries since it has been put under far more peer review and is most certainly more accepted by society.

Etymological Fallacy, the definition is not the whole picture and like stated it often is simply a statement of the realities of today. It doesn't judge or justify, it simply states what is. You should read the links I provided, they do illuminate much of what I have stated.

re

since we do not have records of the origin of marriage, this statement is a fallacy.

institution as "a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture" does not exaplin anything, we are all aware that marriage is a significant relationship in society and/or culture. stating the definition of an institution does not support anything.

This coming after you already tried to use a definition to dispute my arguments. No, it just describes what it is from what it is not and nothing more. I only point to it to show it is included in the definition when you seem to be trying to say it isn't but I also put it into perspective by showing some of the history (if you had bothered to read the links I provided). You asked why I would say Marriage is an Institution and I explained why. Like any institution it has a base upon which the society it serves a function for has a designed purpose and intent. Stating that marriage is an instution points this out.

We have government because it serves a purpose for example and like marriage it is an institution, with rules and regulations that define it and guide how it functions.

Marriage in the united states was designed specifically to promote balance and freedom. It is exactly because of these and other benefits that others want to be part of it. Now contrary to your assertion we do have historical records going back centuries, and archeological findings from before then, and they do show the core of what marriage has always been throughout history.

Yes, there have been as many versions of marriage as there are languages throughout history but the core has always remained the same. Marriage started with religion and became part of government later as its benefits and effects had to be recognized and incorporated into the mechanisms of society. Ultimately we must remember that each system has its own pluses and minuses and based on the history of the other systems we should compare which system works best for a given society, thus my points on polygamy and the Roman Empire since these examples were brought up. There are consequences to a society by what it allows and what it doesn't allow. It is very much a revelant point to make that a clear part of what we have to consider.

During the founding of the United States, this was one of the things the founding fathers of this nation considered when they set the foundation of this society. They wanted a system that would benefit the new growing soceity and crafted the marriage system this country has used ever since. Designed to promote free thinking and responsibility, it was a system of creating new citizens. Invariably this is what allowed it to adapt as the country progressed and overcome inhibiting social issues. But the last half century has seen a decline of the marriage system in the US as divorce and unmarried parents have increasing become more and more common.

This ultimately had eroded the US marriage system, I simply put to you that further redefining the meaning of marriage in the US will only serve to further degrade it from its intended purpose. There can be little doubt to any honest consideration that this has only served to erode the country as a whole. Many of the people who advocate marriage are the very same people who didn't grow up under a traditional home and desire what they had missed out on.

My points have been rather clear, perhaps the ideas they represent are not things you are use to considering, I have pointed to the negative aspects that changing the system will pose as our system of marriage increasingly becomes irrevelant and I have pointed that marriage serves a purpose as was designed by the founders of each of our societies. Your society may be based on different principles that may be the cause of the confusion but the US was founded on specific principles that have shaped it and made it what it is today. We are a land of freedom not just because of our bill or rights but because of our way of thinking and how we have been raised to think. The problem is many now have forgotten our base and because of the desire to be part of a system that has produced so much good they may ultimately destroy what they seek.

This should all have been clear with the many examples I have provided, you take any institution and make it into something it wasn't originally then it is no longer an institution and no longer serves the purpose it was designed for. Since it was designed to help shape our society then the ramification of altering it are indeed very important to consider.

Whether you care about those reasons is entirely dependant on whether you value the results of the said system or if you think it should be replaced with something else with different goals and intents. Ultimately this is not just a decision for individuals but for everyone involved in the society it effects.

So let me make myself abundantly clear, all I'm doing is pointing out there is a big picture to consider and we should consider all the ramification.

[*V Guyver]

It seems that the concept of marriage really has changed over the last few thousands years and from my research within Socio-cultural anthropology. They've had at least one African culture which had a form polygamy where multiple men would marry one woman. Perhaps we can't call it marriage in our culture, but over there it's normal. Same goes for Roman and Greek culture in which gay relationships were promoted and cherished by many.

In our case right now with gay marriage is that our culture has traditionally been against it, also the current view in it is that marriage is sacred, and that Gay's marrying is unnatural in both biological aspects and religious. But that is where things get biased...

All I'm saying is that marriage isn't a clearly defined concept, and that it comes in many different forms. The fact society is divided over the concept means that times are changing, thus our culture and religions have become more open/tolerant of the concept. 50 years ago you could easily of seen a mob go lynch a gay man in public in the middle of the night while singing show tunes. Rather people like it or not, gay marriage is going to happen down the road in one form or another down the road. The question I'm really being asked by my view in society is "Are we ready for this?" Sort of how like 20-30 years ago people were asking the same thing about gays coming out of the closet.

So if we were to allow gay marriage to happen, we'd have to have have it recognised in courts. Much like how desegregation was only finally implemented through the courts. Otherwise a new term should be created.

[*zeo]

Except American society isn't really dividied over it, the majority don't want it changed. It's the advocates through the legal system that are pushing to change it. Imposing the will of the minority on the majority. Even California, arguably one of the most liberal states in the US voted against it and they got cities like Chicago that lets sex change come under tax funded health care.

And we should consider what marriage was defined for OUR CULTURE!!! Ancient civilizations are nice for perspective but we're talking about the present and our society was based on base principles that are now coming into question.

City Journal-Gay Marriage vs. American Marriage (Everyone should read the whole article by Kay S. Hymowitz )

But beneath all the diversity, marriage has always had a fundamental, universal core that makes gay marriage a non sequitur: it has always governed property and inheritance rights; it has always been the means of establishing paternity, legitimacy, and the rights and responsibilities of parenthood; and because these goals involve bearing and raising children, it has always involved (at least one) man and woman. What's more, among the "startling diversity" of variations that different cultures have elaborated on this fundamental core, our own culture has produced a specifically American ideal of marriage that is inseparable from our vision of free citizenship and is deeply embedded in our history, politics, economics, and culture. Advocates for gay marriage cite the historical evolution of that ideal—which we might call republican marriage—to bolster their case, arguing that gay unions are a natural extension of America's dedication to civil rights and to individual freedom. But a look at that history is enough to cast serious doubt on the advocates' case.

Even in ancient secular systems, legal marriage was seen as a way to help society regulate and achieve a complex set of desires and goals: sexual activity, procreation, mutual help and affection, and parental care and accountability.

As can be imagined, integrating these classic goods into the institution of marriage was a task for law, religion and other socializing elements of society. Legalizing same-sex marriage does not simply extend an old institution to a new group of people. It changes the definition of marriage, reducing it primarily to an affectionate sexual relationship accompanied by a declaration of commitment. It then gives this more narrow view of marriage all of the cultural, legal and public support that marriage gained when its purpose was to encourage and temper a more complex set of goals and motivations. The very shaping of our society as a whole.

What you are missing on the historical context is how those systems effected those cultures and the purpose of those practices. Like polygomy was a good system to deal with low population but in a large population it becomes detrimental. The point is what benefits our society and what doesn't.

[*Jess♥]

zeo, what the hell?

will you please answer my questions.

do you want me to give guidelines ?

I'll lay it out like an exam paper shall I?

under what authority do you state that the institution of marriage may not include 2 men and 2 women relationships. ( please limit your answer to maximum 2 sentences.)

I'm not trying to be rude, but your posts are becoming a mess of random information as far as I can see. this is how it seems to me, I'm not attacking you, I'm explaining how this is effecting me. it's quite dsitressing because i feel like you're not listening to anyone, you are just attacking every single sentence they put down.

every time i ask you to answer my questions you post another slurry of information.

do you remember the thread with wyrm, and you were explaining how people can't process teh information he was throwing about?

take a look at your own posts man.

you really need to cut the crap and get to the point.

and answer my goddam question please.

[*Jess♥]

It seems that the concept of marriage really has changed over the last few thousands years and from my research within Socio-cultural anthropology. They've had at least one African culture which had a form polygamy where multiple men would marry one woman. Perhaps we can't call it marriage in our culture, but over there it's normal. Same goes for Roman and Greek culture in which gay relationships were promoted and cherished by many.

In our case right now with gay marriage is that our culture has traditionally been against it, also the current view in it is that marriage is sacred, and that Gay's marrying is unnatural in both biological aspects and religious. But that is where things get biased...

All I'm saying is that marriage isn't a clearly defined concept, and that it comes in many different forms. The fact society is divided over the concept means that times are changing, thus our culture and religions have become more open/tolerant of the concept. 50 years ago you could easily of seen a mob go lynch a gay man in public in the middle of the night while singing show tunes. Rather people like it or not, gay marriage is going to happen down the road in one form or another down the road. The question I'm really being asked by my view in society is "Are we ready for this?" Sort of how like 20-30 years ago people were asking the same thing about gays coming out of the closet.

So if we were to allow gay marriage to happen, we'd have to have have it recognised in courts. Much like how desegregation was only finally implemented through the courts. Otherwise a new term should be created.

yeah you're making a lot of sense there dude.

things like this are defined by society. definitions are changing all the time and what is acceptible is defined all the time.

like for example the institution of government. in hte usa, 100 years or so ago, to be a president you had to be white. teh idea of a black person beiong president was totally outlandish. it simply wasn't included in hte definition of that institution. it would be like saying a horse could be president. but obviously that changed.

it changed because of society and culture. people changed and so definitions of what is considered correct are changed.

maybe in 100 years, somebody will be able to lawfully marry their dog?

or even their playstation. actually i think somebody called their child playstation...

The issue of this thread.. authority refusing to acknowledge same sex individuals joining in marriage... the way i see it, these kinds of things are put up to vote.. I think... so if they had put it up for vote it simply means the politicians who voted had not considered public opioniojn, or they had polled the public and the majority vote suggested people wanted it to be blocked.. OR the politician were prejudiced and onlyt asked a part of the public that they knew were dead set against it.

I don't know how it works in california... I know if it was this country, the politicians wouldn't bother asking the public, they would just think about how it best benefits their own pocket.

alternatively.. I watched the film called "i now pronounce you chuck and larry" and it seems that there can be a lot of beurocracy involved... that they were sending government agents to check if teh people really were in a gay relationship!! which imo is ridiculous.. but if they do that, maybe they have decided it's too much bother and they are sick of doing it?