[Gobbler]

I can tell you, if there were as many people armed in the Weimar Republic as they are people currently armed in the USA, Hitler wouldn't have stood a chance of gaining absolute power.

Wrong. The Weimar Republic was built on very unstable ground, amidst a time of confusion and a population with a mindset that was highly susceptible to demagogues like Hitler, who promised to finally straighten things out again. Germans are a lazy people, they prefer order and would only head to the hills to have a little barbeque there. Forming militias and fighting guerilla wars ain't their thing.

Thought I might point that out here.

[Deucaon]

Wrong. The Weimar Republic was built on very unstable ground, amidst a time of confusion and a population with a mindset that was highly susceptible to demagogues like Hitler, who promised to finally straighten things out again. Germans are a lazy people, they prefer order and would only head to the hills to have a little barbeque there. Forming militias and fighting guerilla wars ain't their thing.

Thought I might point that out here.

Thanks for strengthening my argument.

[Gobbler]

Thanks for turning your own into ridicule.

[Spoon Poetic]

Psh, I never said I wanted to go campaigning against marriage rights... I just like to debate and finally found something someone would debate me about :-P

Also I think people are still gonna get married to raise their kids for the most part (except for the people that already aren't, such as Brad and Angelina) even if there aren't benefits, so I don't think the argument that we should reward marriage so that kids have a good place to grow up in works all that well... Other than that I don't think I have any more to say, we've argued this thing to death. 'Twas fun.

[TheOrator]

Why do I say this Orator? Because marriage is not going to go away, and the benefits of marriage will remain in place. Suggesting that marriage is outdated now that gay people who have only been legally able to be open in North America for roughly the span of my lifetime, is putting a lot of emphasis on the last few decades of divorce stats. You convince folks that in the wake of the gay marriage debate the natural move is to do away with marriage altogether, and they'll disagree with you by simply banning gay marriage.

Thank you, Civ, for this time only presenting one point. Now I've only one thing to say:

I do not believe marriage is irrelevant only in the face of homosexuality. I believe marriage is irrelevant in the face of the fact the natural state of human sexual relationships is monogamy. Penguins and humans mate for life, and no fire, wheel, holocaust denial, electoral college, computers, NRA, or anything else is society is going to change that.

Let me qualify: Divorce rates have gone up recently because until recently there needed to be legal grounds for divorce. I still however believe that monogamy is the natural state of man. People also make mistakes, and it's unsurprising to me that they do fifty percent of the time. One hundred years ago, divorce was almost unheard of. It is easy to repress human nature in a restrictive setting. When faced between leaving an unsatisfying relationship and, say, eternal damnation, it's easy to put up with the relationship. In today's relatively free society, however, I don't believe that, were less importance to be placed by society on the act of marriage, that monogamy would become just as scarce.


JM, I appreciate and agree that marriage helps in raising children, but I do not believe that marriage helps any more than a non-married monogamous relationship. I have so far been arguing that marriage is irrelevant, but perhaps this has been misleading. I will rephrase my argument:

Marriage is redundant.

[civilian_number_two]

Mm Hmm. So marriage is redundant because people will stay together for life to raise their kids anyway, except for the fact that they won't because Jesus is no longer threatening them with hell if they don't. Basically people are monogamous and marriage doesn't help with that, even though there are advantages to being married that these married folks might want, advantages that offset the costs of raising children. But even without marriage, people would stay together, except for when they wouldn't.

Ok then.

I support gay marriage.

[TheOrator]

I question the effectiveness of arguing with me a point I've already explained.

To be more specific: The things you presented as evidence supporting your argument are things that I've already addressed. If you wish to convince me that I am wrong (as I'm sure you do, as that is in fact why we are here, is it not?) it would be best to either explain why the things I have deemed inconsequential are not so, or to raise new points I may not have considered.

Modern marriage (indeed, the only marriage that matters, since it is the only marriage we can change) does not differ, in practice, from unenforced monogamy because there are very few obstacles now in divorcing someone. Even enforced monogamy, I would say, is becoming unenforced.

So why reward one over the other?

[J m HofMarN]

JM, I appreciate and agree that marriage helps in raising children, but I do not believe that marriage helps any more than a non-married monogamous relationship. I have so far been arguing that marriage is irrelevant, but perhaps this has been misleading. I will rephrase my argument:

How many times have you heard the phrase "If I/if you weren't married I'd......"

Also, if someone did........... while they were married, that gives their spouse legal recourse against them if they are wronged and the marriage breaks up. This both prevents the break up of the couple and ensures that the wronged party will be given restitution that will go to making their transition to single life easier.

As for the divorce thing, go through a divorce, and then tell me that its easy to get a divorce. They may be prevalent and socially accepted (this is why divorces occur, not for ease of use) but they are not fun, and to be avoided. I would say breakups are vastly more frequent in unenforced monogamy than in marriage.

Also, the ceremony of the thing is an important societal ritual and remains one. Civ's friend spent 37000 dollars on her wedding. I probably saw some of that money as I am in the catering and dining industry and routinely cook for folks at weddings. Would it have a negative effect on my business if people stopped marrying? Yes.

[Spoon Poetic]

I honestly can't see spending that much money on one day no matter how important it is, honestly... I think using that money towards a first house together, or a child, would be much more satisfying. (Though I guess if you're filthy rich, it doesn't really matter as much.) In my opinion you can still have wonderful memories of the day you started your special union without spending fucktons of money. I've been to a few weddings where maybe about $1000 was spent max, and honestly I thought those were even more beautiful, as they got more creative, and it wasn't all about the show, it was more about the union of the couple.

I see a lot of women getting married, and it's not so much about the marriage - it's all about the wedding day. They have to have that perfect day where they feel like a pretty pretty princess or some crap. And the focus is on that, instead of the union itself.

So I'm not sure if I can see the amount of money someone spends on a wedding as a valid argument. I dunno. I kinda think the money one spends on a wedding doesn't necessarily mean what you guys want it to mean.

(And yes, if people stopped spending so much on catering it would affect Jm's business, and that's sad, but that's really pretty irrelevant to the argument, heh. "Get married so catering businesses have more business!" ...Not so much )

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 13 November 2008 - 12:02 PM

[civilian_number_two]

Orator, children, family, the creation of a family unit with the legal attendent rights of power of attorney, etc. Folks want that, they get married for it. Folks who don't want that, they don't get married, and live out their unenforced monogamy. They can still decalre commonlaw status and get tax benefits if they apply, and of course they can sue one another for child support. But they don't get the full benefit if marriage, as you say.

I don't care if there is no a priori depiction of marriage ights and of the place marriage has in society that willl satisfy you. The argument you raise, that marriage is redundant, is being used to deny gay couples access to marriage. I support gay marriage, so I say the burden of proof is on you. I am not going to entertain a drastic change to society just so gay couples can't get married. I am not going to try to argue that marriage is not redundant when you are so certain that it is. I am sure that when your parents got divorced it was just a handshake and a smile, because marriage is so redundant that folks are getting divorced all the time? I disagree, andl I am not going to entertain changing the contract just because your parents had no trouble divorcing. I don't take that as any evidence that marriage is redundant.

The flat answer to your question of course is obvious. Society can "reward" unenforced monogamy in exactly the same way that it awards marriage. In order to enjoy the benefits of marriage, the monogamous couple gets married. And while they're at it, they vote No next time someone tries ot say that gay couples don't constitute a traditional family or that they violate god's laws or that they are trying to force a sick agenda and etc etc etc. If they don't choose to get married, which is a simple contract and it can be done with a JoP and it costs as much as a night out to dinner, then of course they don't get any legal benefits. For one, they don't legally exist as a couple, so how could they even ask for them? And for two, if they choose to turn down the legal benefits just to avoid getting marrried, then it stands to reason that it's not entirely meaningless to them.

Spoon, yeah of course. I have been to those weddings as well, sans professional photogrtapher, taking place in someone's back yard, etc. I agree that being creative and spending very little money can be fun, but you shouldn't jump to the conclusion that expensive weddings aren't also creative. The venue was the bulk of the cost, and it was a great location and you couldn't get that for cheaper. The thing is if you can afford the thing and you want it, you pay for it. My friends had no trouble playing for something that costs less than one of their cars (well, the bride's car anyway, as she is the main earner in that house). They're not filthy rich, but in the long run it's not that much money. And they already have a house.

JM, you likely didn't benefit from this wedding. They didn't hire any riff raff.

[Spoon Poetic]

Yeesh, I'm sorry but I think the ability to shell out $37000 with no issues, on top of having a car that costs more than that, again sans issues, is the definition of rich...

And I also said that I was talking about the people that DON'T have that kind of money to throw at big fancy shenanigans. I specifically mentioned that I've seen a lot of people go into debt for this stuff. And that is ridiculous. At any rate, I think the fact that a lot of people spend a lot of money on weddings is not a good argument for (or against) marriage itself.

[TheOrator]

I don't care if there is no a priori depiction of marriage ights and of the place marriage has in society that willl satisfy you. The argument you raise, that marriage is redundant, is being used to deny gay couples access to marriage. I support gay marriage, so I say the burden of proof is on you. I am not going to entertain a drastic change to society just so gay couples can't get married.

So if my multiple accounts of personal experience and reference to one hundred thousand years of success aren't proof enough, what is?

I don't care that I'm using the same argument, I'm arguing the opposite point and you need to admit that to argue with me.

I never once said I intended to change society drastically. I never said I was in favor of outlawing marriage or discouraging it in any way, and least of all in order to restrict rights to gays.

Fuckin' hell.

The benefits of marriage are being given to the wrong people, especially if you consider that when my parents got divorced (when I was two), they still had a child to raise and lost those benefits. The benefits should be given to the two legal guardians of a child, not to two people in love.


EDIT: In hindsight, redistributing benefits is at least a *minimal* change to society. So I took out "at all".

This post has been edited by TheOrator: 13 November 2008 - 09:31 PM

[civilian_number_two]

Your multiple accounts of personal experience plus a hundred thousand years of human history did what now? They proved that marriage is redundant? I certainly missed that, because I think that in the roughly 6000 years of human history (we don't have any reliable history older than that) our societies have fostered marriage and encouraged its development. Hence the evolution fo the various rights and so forth. I didn't notice that you had provided numerous personal accounts proving that marriage was legally useless, needlessly exclusionary, and/or redundant. I think it has strong legal worth, I argue that it should not be denied to any couple who want it and are willing to sign over some of their individual rights to the couple-entity they will be creating, and I think it still has an important place in society.

Your personal example is perfect of the burden marriage places on a couple. Without it, your parents might have split up with no joint responsibility for their child. Forget what people might choose to do anyway; the marriage contract places a burden that goes beyond their personal interests. And the benefits go along with that. Your example, while you read it differently, shows the importance of the marriage contract, not its redundancy.

I don't see that you are arguing the opposite point from that of the folks who wicsh to eliminate marriage now that gays are wanting access to it. Their argument is that the instiutution is redundant and that we could easily establish social contracts to enforce the same principles and to grant the same priveleges. They want to do away with marriage so that we can replace it with soething similar but with a less religiously-charged name, so that gays won't have access to a religious ceremony that thier churches would feel uncomfortable performing. Your motives are different, but you're both saying that marriage is redundant and that there are other ways to grant the same priveleges and to enforce the same responsibilities.

I say why bother renaming the thing or changing society? Since the likely way that would happen would be that marriage would remain as it is and that we would create a separate contract (the civil union) for gay people, it's just another form of discrimination. If they want to discriminate, I say get off the whole "traditional family" high horse and just admit they don't like gays.

Granted, you are having a different discussion from the one I am having, and so was Spoon. This is somehting we should have acknowledged long before now. You are trying to describe an ideal that you have in your head, and are trying to form your argument from first princples. I am describing how these arguments are used to describe political realities. Laws are not created from first principles; they are defined case by case. You won't rewrite marriage of itself, but you may create a definition for gay people that is different from the definition already in place. This is how the gay marriage debate is playing out in the courts, in the referenda, in the various countries that haven't outlawed homosexuality altogether. I say it is all well and good to try to be intellectual about things, but in the end the making of laws is practical and pragmatic. I would resist any redefintion of marriage, entirely because I don't see any motivation for that redefiniton apart from trying to exclude gays. And you know, I support gay marriage.

[TheOrator]

I can only say three things:

You can see Spoon and I both realized earlier you weren't talking about the same stuff as we were, but you seemed oblivious to it because you would disagree when we brought it up. Or just repeat what you'd said before.

My motivation is not to exclude gays. I'm sorry you can't accept other possibilities, but if you can't it's probably best we just stop trying to discuss this.

I know we only have history for about six thousand years, but we've got archeological history dating back one hundred thousand years. The fact that the species survived during that period (or any period of any length without marriage, assuming liberally that there even was undocumented marriage as long ago as 99,000 years ago) proves that we don't really need it.

[J m HofMarN]

Spoon: You can't see spending that much money on a human being you intend to spend the rest of your life with? Ok, obviously neither of us has that kind of cash lying about, but if I had that, plus some surplus for expenses, and I loved someone enough to want to marry them (an absurd idea for me, I don't believe, personally, in getting myself married) then I would spend it. And not all couples require this. A wedding catered on your mum's stove can be just as good as one done at the Ritz.

The accusation that a lot of females are shallow and materialistic will not be accepted just because you're a female. The wedding day is an important societal ritual, not just some silly party. Photos will be taken that will be kept forever. Your entire family and your future family in law will be there. Considering ones appearance is pretty natural, and weddings are majorly hyped from a young age, so its natural for girls to look forward to it, have a certain image of the event, and try to fulfill said image. But I don't think it's only about the image. You can't say a catholic mass is all about image just because the priest makes sure to get dressed up for it.

So I'm not sure if I can see the amount of money someone spends on a wedding as a valid argument. I dunno. I kinda think the money one spends on a wedding doesn't necessarily mean what you guys want it to mean.

The fact that, and I can attest to this, people routinely spend thousands of dollars on a wedding, doesn't demonstrate that said ritual pact is important? In what way?

(And yes, if people stopped spending so much on catering it would affect Jm's business, and that's sad, but that's really pretty irrelevant to the argument, heh. "Get married so catering businesses have more business!" ...Not so much )

No, that is pretty relevant. I am not primarily a caterer, but two of my friends are. They would straight up lose their jobs if people stopped getting married. Therefore, for that reason alone, I have a problem with the idea of eliminating marriage. Why is the negative effect of your idea on my/my friends chosen professions irrelevent ?Would it be more relevent if you stood to lose your job from its implementation?

JM, you likely didn't benefit from this wedding. They didn't hire any riff raff.

Yeah, but they did have an open bar. WOOOOOOOOOO!

The benefits of marriage are being given to the wrong people

Married people, you mean? Forgive me but thats a very silly statement.

especially if you consider that when my parents got divorced (when I was two), they still had a child to raise and lost those benefits. The benefits should be given to the two legal guardians of a child, not to two people in love.

Then they could either work out their differences and remain married, or remarry other people. And what if a child has only one legal guardian? Or three? Should they all get marriage benefits? What if I love my son, but his mother happens to be a coke whore. Now, we are his legal guardians since I cant gain sole custody, and then I die. Now, in your world, even though my only connection to the coke whore is through my son, it means she becomes the heir apparent to all my properties, which she will sell for coke. And what if I have a girlfriend? I would rather that my girlfriend has benefits than the person whom I share child custody with. The more systems you make to replace marriage the more complications and problems you create. Also, what about childless couples? They still provide a rather stable purchasing unit in capitalist society, far more protected from financial chrisis than a single individual, so society should encourage them too.

assuming liberally that there even was undocumented marriage as long ago as 99,000 years ago) proves that we don't really need it.

Wow. Just, wow. That is an absolutely fantastic jump of logic.

Assuming that mankind survived without Chefelf.com forums for the previous hundred thousand years, I think I'm going to finish up posting, since, clearly, I don't need to be here as the cave men were just fine without forums.

And penicillin

etc.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 13 November 2008 - 11:45 PM