[J m HofMarN]

Because humans are basically a monogamous species. Our offspring take a very long time to mature and therefore need more care. Through a monogamous life long mating it is possible to increase the chances of the offspring surviving and thus propagating the species. It also offers the benefit of having someone guaranteed to help you financially and emotionally even if kids arent involved. A government wants to have a population, and to have young people who are educated and law abiding. The children of a happy married couple have a leg up in this category, so it pays to encourage marriage even in a small way.

[Gobbler]

Seconded. I'd like to say that "modern" forms of relationships are just as good, but that's not taking into account that humans are inherently cowardly morons.

Standing up in front of a crowd of people who'll always be very close to them and then saying "Yes I do." sets the right kind of motivators for them to muster up the courage that it takes to really commit yourself to someone else. Would be nice if we didn't need these "traditional" moral set of motivators and instead could just subsidize any kind of relationship that harbors the spirit of steadiness, but reality kind of doesn't seem to play along there.

[Deucaon]

Deuc, the US Civil War was fought between two Democracies over which rights ought to be determined by individual States and which rights ought to be universally determined at a Federal level. Many States seceded over this argumnent; while folks are right to say that the war was not just about the right to own slaves, in fact every slave state seceded. Folks then volunteered to fight and die for their right to own slaves, among other things.

Folks fought and occasionally killed over the subject of civil rights, about 100 years after the civil war. Democracies in the couth had enacted laws segregating people by colour, and some folks were unhappy to see that go.

Looking back, it's hard for even the most racist among us to imagine the sort of people who could think and behave like that. Our attitudes have evolved after our legal environment was forced upon us by a governing body, a body which was made to enforce its orders at the point of guns. So, yes, people are just as capable of racism as I imagne them to be, and yes, elitist bodies ought to be able to make decisions for me. We do have a say in this process, even if we don't make ourslevs heard on every decision. We have a say every time the government is up for renewal. Also there are numerous levels of public involvement in the legal and political process that don't have to include holding a referendum every time the White House Christmas tree needs new bulbs.

You just wrote it yourself: American society has "evolved" since then. America isn't going back to slavery or segregation. And yes, now the majority of voters in California think that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry but in a few years American society will "evolve" once again. We (minorities and all) need patience if any sort of Democratic process is to survive. Lest we forget, the colonies took a decade after their war with Britain before they made a constitution they could all agree to. Also, its wrong to force change onto a society because that change is usually temporary and always leads to resentment (i.e. friction and fighting among groups).

[TheOrator]

Civ, people continue to enjoy getting married and spending lots of money on it for two reasons:

1) It's fun to get lost in the tradition.

2) They are tools.

This is interestingly the same reason Halloween is still popular.

Now I'm sure there are some people who are truly passionate believers in the marriage deal, much like I am for Halloween, and I won't go as far as saying that the people whose wedding you went to were tools because I cannot guarantee that, but I can almost guarantee that's why it's still popular.

Gene Simmons and his once-hot girlfriend are the perfect example of why marriage is unnecessary and rewarding it is stupid. But if you are going to reward it, restricting it to even fewer people is just mean-spirited. I'd have no problem with it if it were a private thing, but since it is a public matter it should be available to all citizens (except maybe to felons, because it's fun to strip them of their rights).

[civilian_number_two]

Deuc, I wrote it myself that society has "evolved" because it was forced to. The legal changes that came about as a result of the civil right movement were vehemently argued against by some very loud and angry people. Society is not one thing; it's a load of people during a period of history. It is sometimes necessary for a government to take the reigns and tell people what it is ok to do and what it is not ok to do. This is what we elect them for, not just to give speeches while passing decisions made entirely on popular votes.

Orator, I don't agree with some of the things you said. Since you said a load of things all over the map, I leave it to you to determine which things I agree with and which I don't.

[TheOrator]

Orator, I don't agree with some of the things you said. Since you said a load of things all over the map, I leave it to you to determine which things I agree with and which I don't.

That's a bit of a non sequitur. Doesn't the seem like the opposite of what you should do? If I had said, for instance, only two things, one of which was something pretty standard (murder is bad), and the other something controversial and generally disagreed with (rape is a moral and effective way to settle an argument), and all you'd said was "I disagree" I could pretty much infer you meant with the latter.

But since I said various different things of different levels of acceptability, it's entirely backwards and unhelpful of you not to specify what you meant. To leave it to me to decide which things you disagreed with would be to invite me to make potentially insulting assumptions about your values, assumptions I would likely get wrong and that you could call me on later. Since a lot of the conflicts on these forums have been due to assumptions made by people (including myself) that proved incorrect or even unfounded, I won't make any.


Interestingly, in my last post, I forgot the major point that marriage is mandated by the religions of the Book and some of the other major philosophies, but I suppose practitioners of those can fall either into the "tool" or "truly passionate" category.

EDIT: "that"

EDIT2: Added "EDIT: 'that'"

EDIT3: "could"

EDIT4: Added some more stuff. I really need to get my act together, here.

This post has been edited by TheOrator: 09 November 2008 - 07:26 PM

[civilian_number_two]

Oh all right Orator, I suppose the days of me giving you the benefit of the doubt are over =)

I disagree that spending about $35000 on a wedding means one is a tool. That's what they cost. There is the venue and catering, which is the lion's share; there is the photographer, which can run about 3 grand, there are invitations and gifts; there are tuxedo rentals and bridesmaid's gowns; there is the wedding dress and the rings; there are vehicle rentals and music; there are a number of incidental expenses that come up on the day, and yes, there is wedding-night accommodation, assuming you're not just going home (which is not such a romantic option). Now you can say "well if that';s what they cost, then anyone who wants one is a tool," but hell, I could say the same about your choice of that Lexus over a more economical Mazda 3. You want to spend the money because you think the Lexus is worth it; etc etc etc.

I disagree that halloween is popular among only tradition-lovers and tools. You might as well say the same of valentine's day, or of president's day, arbour day, yom kippur or easter. I like Hallowe'en. I am not a blind lover of tradition and I am not a tool. You even mention that you like Hallowe'en, so I am really not sure I even care enough to be curious what you meant by all that.

I think anecdotes used in efforts to defeat a larger notion are generally poor arguments; simultaneously, I know nothing of the post-makeup Gene Simmons, so your Gene Simmons counterpoint is a bit light. I think one could create a larger thesis suggesting that marriage for the ridiculously wealthy is a different being than it is for the common folk. One could use your Gene Simmons example in that argument, perhaps. In any case I won't allow your opinion of pop culture any bearing on my opinion of the importance of marriage to society as a whole, and certainly not to my friends in particular.

I don't agree that it is necessary to allow something to all people unless an argument can really be made for the inclusion of the people previously excluded. Spoon mentioned polyamoric triads, and that is interesting. However the idea that any set of roommates can just declare marriage borders on silly, and yes, I will tell you why. That argument is made not by people who sincerely believe that marriage is so important an instititution that it should be made available to everyone; that argument is made by people who believe (or at least like to argue) that religious is a medieval throwback. They hope that in making the argument they will show how ridiculous and unnecessary marriage is. So the argument, see, is not used to open marriage to more people, but in an effort to close it off from everyone. That argument, although it is common to the gay marriage discussion, really has no place in the gay marriage discussion. It's the same argument that some guys at college occasionally make when they notice that there is a women's centre and not a men's centre. I agree that women are no longer an underrepresented minority, so the argument against the women's centre should target it directly. Going at it this way ... I mean, do you think anyone would even use the men's centre? Oh, never mind. Yawn.

As for whether there should be any social benefits to marriage, we are running a society. It is argued that the society benefits from people being married. It can then be argued that society should encourage those things that benefit it. yoiu want to prove that society is wrong about benefits, and that it should offer nothign in return, then go ahead. So far noone has done that. Most of the argument has been that marriage ought to be made available to more types of unions than just straight man-woman couples. So far I agree with one such additional category, and Spoon has raised at least one more that is interesting to me. The rest of the argument is sophomoric tomfoolery.

See? While I though it was obvious, apparently I had to explain that in fact, Orator, I disagreed with everything you said. Happy? =)

[TheOrator]

I see.

I see.

Because I don't know enough about you to know what you disagree with when I say something, this brings my very intelligence into question.

And also, did you intentionally gloss over the fact that I said there were people who truly passionate about both weddings and Halloween? I didn't say it was only popular among tradition-lovers and tools, I said it is popular because of them. I'm sure if there were no tools in the world, people would still be getting married and some people would dress up for Halloween. Just not nearly as many. I was very clear about that, and the fact that you either misunderstood or ignored it in your rebuttal makes it worthless to argue back those points.

I very sincerely doubt the fact that Gene Simmons's money is what is keeping his girlfriend of 36 years with him, considering that as an ex-Playboy Playmate and celebrity she has money of her own. I'm pretty sure it's love, and I'm pretty sure the personal commitment is more important than the religious or legal one. Even a couple staying together only for the kids is doing so for the kids, not (at least, I hope not) because divorce with kids is less fun. Also, did you seriously argue that since you did not know about the argument it was inherently a weak one? It sounds like you did. At least, half.

Although I personally feel marriage is irrelevant compared to the actual love involved, I never once said I want to close it off.

Let me also clarify that since I assume the rewards for marriage are to aid in raising a child, and since gay couples and polyatomic ions can both raise children, they should be open to these rewards as well.

However, I personally know a Lesbian couple that has had no problem at all in raising a friend of mine, and I wonder if the incentives are necessary.

And seeing as how half of all marriages end in divorce these days anyway, I'd say the "sanctity of the institution" is a bit in question.

And what's this you say about no one yet having argued that marriage shouldn't be rewarded?
Wasn't Spoon arguing that why I got involved?

Finally, why did you put such a bad spin on the tradition-loving standpoint? I said "It's fun to get lost in tradition," and I meant it. For this reason, I will probably have a wedding when I find the right person. This doesn't mean I'm passionate about it, nor does it mean I'm a tool, it means I enjoy the excuse to have a socially acceptable day of craziness.

[civilian_number_two]

Orator, when you say there are exactly two and only two reasons why people get married, one being that it is fun to get lost in tradition and the other being that they are tools, the rhetorical weight is on the tool comment. I am not adding it; it's there, the rhetoric being that even those who enjoy getting lost in the tradition are only doing what they do out of some respect for social pressure. Not for the fun. So even those people are tools. If you didn't mean that, well I'm still right in informing you that that is exactly the way it comes across. I could come up with an analogy but you get the idea.

Yes, using a specific example to damn an institution, when the specific example is esoteric, is inherently a weak argument. I did the exact same thing when I said that weddings are nice because I just went ot one and it was nice. My argument was more manipulative than your Gene Simons one, however; while I can say Gene Simmons is a tool and odds are good you won't disagree, you're forced to back down so as to avoid offending me through my friends. So fault to me, but I win bonus points for doing exactly what you did and getting away with it. Anyway, again, yes, anecdotal celebrity evidence aside, marriage is good for couples and society and we should encourage it.

Anyway, getting back to my original statement which was that your argument is all over the map, I can't tell from any of that whether you want to open marriage to all because it is so worthless, or whether you want to evolve society past it because it is so worthless. I do get that you think marriage is worthless, amybe because of all the divorces, and I disagree. You cite these divorce statistics to show how useless marriage is; however noone ever uses those stats to say anything other than that marriage have failed. That doesn't make the marriages worse off, it says something about the failure. You might as well say that plane crashes mean that flight is no good.

Ok. Analogies and spurious arguments aside. In your argument that "marriage is stupid but if we have it then it should be open to all," you didn't actually define what any of that last bit meant. You hold that marriage is unnecessary and that rewarding it is stupid. Ok. Later you say that you didn't want to belittle nor to restrict access to marriage rights or privileges. Ok, maybe I don't follow you, but no matter. The more important thing is the omission of what these open marriage rights would be. I agree that we should open it up to all couples seeking approval. There is a definiton on couples, however; contrary to what the right will tell you, the gay marriage argument is not a libertarian one. We're not saying "everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want." We are saying "socially-recognized couples should have access to marriage." So shit or get off. If gay couples are socially-recognized, then they can get married. You want to deny marriage rights, then at least have the guts to deny them couple status. Make homosexuality illegal while you're at it. While denying gay marriage rights, go one step further and accuse all gays of being filthy and promiscuous, just to make the argument as confusing as possible. Accuse gays of wanting to make incest legal, and of wnting to open up marriage to man-boy couples, to men and their dead mothers, to women and their dogs, etc.

I don't think marriage should be open to all. I am not for everyone doing whatever they want. I support gay marriage.

[TheOrator]

Right, I'm heading off to bed. But first.

You still fail to acknowledge my argument about the third category of people who get married because they actually see the importance of it.

Also, I said that there are two reasons that it is still popular. I don't believe it came off at all that the two reasons had to be acting simultaneously in every case. If it did, I formally change it now to mean that either or both reasons could be at play in keeping the marriage popular, but still unrelated to the people who get married because they actually believe in it, as I don't believe these people are numerous enough to count as keeping it "popular," just keeping it extant.

Let me also say I am not against marriage. I think marriage is probably usually a waste of time but I am not about to tell people what they can and cannot do to each other with mutual consent.

My argument is that marriage is irrelevant because love is a strong enough force to keep couples together to raise their young.

Your argument is that marriage is important because...? I must have missed the reason.

I will reuse my divorce statistic so that maybe you can understand why I used it to begin with:
The high rate of divorce in this country shows that marriage is not a very strong force (only succeeding half of the time) in keeping couples together. And your plane analogy is absurd, and I would argue that air travel was a bad idea if every other plane that took off crashed. It took me a little while to figure out what you mean, but yes, the high rate of divorce does say more about people getting married than about marriage; but since we are dealing exclusively with people getting married it's an irrelevant distinction. If in all cases of Americans getting married, half of them get divorced, maybe that just means half of all people aren't good enough for marriage. It also means that half are, and that's why I'm not against it.

And for your "socially recognized" argument, one hundred years ago gay couples weren't socially recognized. The nature of homosexuality hasn't, however, changed, and neither has the nature of their relationships, yet now we recognize them. Society seems pretty arbitrary to me. We should not put such dire questions as the rights of others in its responsibility.

I'm going to assume that the latter half of your last paragraph was directed at some other person, but I can't tell who as I don't think anyone here was trying to deny gays the right to marry.

Another analogy:
I think Prom is dumb. I probably won't go to Prom. Prom benefits the school by charging way too much for admission and keeping up the morale of the students, but they shouldn't offer extra credit if you go to Prom, nor should they bar any paying student from going to Prom.

If they did offer extra credit to Prom goers, however, I would be even more displeased to hear that they were barring any paying student entrance.

Bed time.

Night.

[civilian_number_two]

Good analogy with Prom. I assume this Prom thing typically lasts more than 20 years, involves children, and has lasting economic consequences? Ok then.

The divorce rates are a statistical event of the last 30 years or so. Marriage has been with us for longer than that. And even those couples that do get divorced often do so after years of marriage. That's different from every other flight failing. It would be the same as if half of the planes in service failed at some point in their careers. Granted, that would be a terribly high stat still, but you can see the difference.

Society seems pretty arbitrary to me. We should not put such dire questions as the rights of others in its responsibility.

How do we then determine the rights of others? Society is in fact all we got. It was society that allowed slavery and society that later banned slavery. etc. Society is to people as water is to fish. We can't talk about people without talking about society. So love it or hate it, society is what you're stuck with when it comes to determining the rights of others as well as the laws that restrict and free them.

I appreciate your notion that love is enough to keep people together, that we don't need social institutions to enforce or recognize that, etc. That marriage and weddings are traditional and that maybe we are evolving past that. Perhaps in the future families will look entirely different from how they look now. Perhaps people will not remain with partners for nearly as long as they do, and society will evolve instututions that make these changing family makeups more affordable and less acrimonious. When that happened, of course, we would have some sort of social institution keeping these people together, along with contracts of some kind and legality to make sure that the kids got supported. But it's not exactly relevant here, because right now none of that exists. Folks are very much pro-marriage regardless of what the divorce rates might be. So far 100% of my divorced friends have remarried.

Are you asking me to form an argument as to why marriage is "important?" For real? You might as well ask me to explain why displaying brand names on cars and clothing is important. The argument on the table isn't why it is important; the fact of its common use is enough for that. The onus is on the detractor to show why we should try so hard to force a society that no longer uses it. Why is that necessary? Why are people fun-loving traditionalists or tools if they want big weddings (hence the prom analogy, I'm sure)? Is it not possible that people want weddings simply because the celebration of a marriage contract is enough? If we're against tradition (apart from allowing it within the context of recognizing that it is fun yet archaic), are we going to head back to your other analogy, and start phasing out hallowe'en, birthdays, etc?

I recognize that you're not suggesting that gays should be excluded from all this fun and useless toolery, but you should yourself recognize that you're using a pretty standard argument that typically comes from the side opposing gay marriage. First it's "no way; we need traditions," and then when that breaks down it's "heck, let's get rid of it altogether," and then later it's "we should let everyone do it," as though suddenly our society should have no standards for its contracts. Like heck, if we let gays do it, why not mom/son, bro/sis, necrophiliacs and dog-fuckers? Cause what the hell does it matter; it's uselss anyway? The first argument is at least something; there are standards visible. The second is the dog in the manger; the third sour grapes.

PS: as for failing to acknowledge the lip-service paid to those who really love marriage and believe in its importance and all that, you said you don't believe such people exist. You said there are two types of people, those who surrender to the fun of tradition and those who are tools. The third set you said may exists, but they are essentially deluded into believing in the importance of marriage only because there are so many fun-loving traditionalists and tools out there. Your third category IMO is even more insulted than the category of folks you called tools; or, at the very least, you have not convinced me you think they are any better off than the tools. Even if they have strong religious beliefs and consider this celebration of the signing of a piece of paper to be one of the happier days in their lives together, you figure they're only feeling that way because society told them so. And society is full of tools.

[Deucaon]

Deuc, I wrote it myself that society has "evolved" because it was forced to. The legal changes that came about as a result of the civil right movement were vehemently argued against by some very loud and angry people. Society is not one thing; it's a load of people during a period of history. It is sometimes necessary for a government to take the reigns and tell people what it is ok to do and what it is not ok to do. This is what we elect them for, not just to give speeches while passing decisions made entirely on popular votes.

Give me an example where unpopular change was forced onto a populace which didn't result in some kind of civil strife.

[Dr Lecter]

Because humans are basically a monogamous species.

What? Really? Why did no-one tell me!?

[Gobbler]

What? Really? Why did no-one tell me!?

I think I recall having that discussion with you before, young man.

[civilian_number_two]

Give me an example where unpopular change was forced onto a populace which didn't result in some kind of civil strife.

I don't have to. Strife is not anathema. We elect representatives so that they may act in our best interests. If they could make only popular decisions based on referenda, then why would we bother electing them?