Yeah, right. You just happened to parrot one of the usual stupid anti-SSM arguments. But here’s the factual answer: various municipalities started passing domestic partner policies in 1984. The state of California enacted the first domestic partnership law in 1999. And the state gave full legal recognition of marriage to same-sex relationships between May 15, 2008 and November 4, 2008. So, no, marriage has not “always” been between one man and one woman in the state of California.
I guess it takes into account the majority, but it’s more “majorities”, over the ages. It is my belief that homosexuality has been around for at least those 10,000 years. And during that time their were countless societies and civilizations that figured out how to deal with it. Some thought it evil (and still do) and kill homosexuals. Other societies have been much more accommodating for this other expression of human sexuality. But, even those in which homosexuality was taken as a part of humanity, it was never given equal status to heterosexual marriage-like relationships. So, even when we take Christianity out of it, and look to times when societies were most accepting of it, they gave heterosexual relationships special status. Given the thousands and thousands of little experiments over the ages, it seems logical to conclude that either it was tried and quickly abandoned, or as a society neared equating the two, the y prevented it from happening. One other possibility i see is that there were, indeed, small societies that might have grand SS couples equal status. But, if so, none of them have flourished to a point that history is aware of them.
So, we have what we, at the very least, could call a norm, i.e., marriage or marriage-like status being reserved for heterosexual couples. A norm that has zero or near zero deviations. And we now have a group of people who want us as a society to change that en masse. That’s drastic, to say the least. That doesn’t necessarily make it a mistake, but it is a big change. The call for this is, theoretically, the rights that are afforded married couples. But when I’ve proposed numerous times that SS couples be granted those vary same rights and privileges married couples enjoy, the idea is derided.
Now, there is an upside to this. I look at what a lot of posters have written this morning and last night and I crack up at some of them. It’s comedy gold. They scream and whine about how times change, stating and implying that I am arguing for restricting SS rights to what they were 50, 150, or 1,500 years ago. The fact that I support gay people being extended ALL the rights on privileges as heteros (sans “marriage”) is lost in their toggled view of the world. So they spout and scream and whine losing sight of what their spouting, screaming and whining about. Like I said, comedy gold.
The claim in the long view is that marriage has always involved, as I said, man + woman. Do you really think that anyone in these discussions is unaware of polygamy, both as it has existed in the U.S. and throughout the ages? ::sigh:: Please.
I’d be mightily suprised that the definition of “always” regarding that book you presented (or anything related to that book) has been a part of the the anti-SSM parrotable arguments
Domestic partenship is not marriage (it is quasi).
I’ll ammed my "always"to “in the course of its 161 years of existence, California only allowed marriages between one man and one woman except for the period of 15/5 to 4/11 2008”.
[quote=“magellan01, post:382, topic:549433”]
No, retard, it’s the “sans marriage” part that’s the entire issue. “We don’t wanna lynch blacks anymore, we just won’t allow them to eat in our establishments” is hardly an enlightened view.
ETA: Fucking bitch-ass quote tag bullshit! I was quoting magellan01, obviously.
The reason you get derided is because I’ve already pointed out to you: (1) prior to 2008, the state of CA made a serious attempt to equalize domestic partnerships and marriages, and they still fucked it up and (2) since the legal rules surrounding marriage change often, it is difficult to keep two separate legal institutions in sync (and I’ve already explained to you why this is). But that never penetrates your thick skull. You just keep bleating the same shit over and over again, without even attempting to understand how the legal system works and why your proposal is stupid.
So? I gave you an overview of the evolution of same-sex marriage in CA.
Since the marriages that took place during that period are still valid marriages, California still has same-sex marriage. It is just not issuing new licenses.
But you do care. You keep responding to my posts. You want my position to be yours. And not just mine, you want everyone’s position to be yours. At least a majority, so the laws will sync with your views. Fortunately, that’s not the case in liberal California. It may be in the future, but the people have rejected it—twice. And now that it is in the court’s hands and will likely wind up in the hands of the Supremes, the odds of things going your way just went down, not up.
Personally, I don’t give a good goddamn what you believe just so long as you’re not allowed to infringe on another’s civil rights.
Nope. We still refer to the people with the tits as women and people with the dicks as men. Yet, amazingly, they both enjoy identical rights and privileges under the law. Similarly, we could have marriages and civil unions (or whatever else) and have them both tap into the same SINGLE set of rights and privileges.
I keep responding to your posts because you keep spewing stupid shit. I know that you are so happy to wallow in your own ignorance that you will never change your mind, so I’m not planning to try.
Of course I want a majority to have my opinion, and we’re headed there. That’s why I don’t have to convince you of anything. A majority is on their way to being convinced. As I already stated, it may take 10 or 40 years, but it’s coming. Here’s polling data on the state of opinion. Even if they’ve overestimated it, the trend is clear.
Because they not only want to pretend that their abnormality is somehow not really an abnormality, they want to make everybody else pretend along with them.
Very few societies have ever given homosexuality full acceptance. The reasonable assumption is that they must have had compelling reasons for denying it.
Nope? Because you know how the legal system works and have studied how the rules surrounding legal institutions get changed? Obviously not, or you wouldn’t make this moronic statement. You keep hand-waving away knowledge from people who actually study these things as if you know better. This is a clear example of that. Instead of actually responding to the arguments I laid out here, you just bleated the same exact thing again. Moron.
Then I don’t understand the point of the claim. Man+woman marriage will continue to exist. It wasn’t made extinct by man+women or any other historical variant, why would this modification matter?
Are you assuming monogamous hetero marriage is under attack? Are you… stupid?
Nope.
See the [URL=“https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf”]Perry vs. Schwarzeneggar](https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf) decision, page 127 (of the pdf file, page 125 of the transcript):
“Plaintiffs presented evidence at trial sufficient to rebut any claim that marriage for same-sex couples amounts to a sweeping social change… Instead the evidence shows beyond debate that allowing same-sex couples to marry has at least a neutral, if not a positive, effect on the institution of marriage and that the same-sex couples’ marriages would benefit the state.”
Also no. In the Perry decision the judge determined that the evidence shows that having two separate institutions does not serve the rights of the people of California, and also adds an administrative burden. Since the supporters of Prop 8 were unable to show that it would further anyone’s interests, he concluded that it would only serve to create a separate, and inherently unequal status. Page 133 (131 of the original document) goes into some detail on this.
This is the kind of stupid shit he does that I’m talking about. It hasn’t always been man+woman. Sometimes, it’s been woman+man+man+man… and sometimes it’s been man+woman+woman+woman…
Now, he’s going to come back with some stupid nonsense about how within the polygynous marriages, there was always a distinction between each of the individual man/woman relationships. But we’re talking about legal rights and responsibilities here, not the made-up shit he has bouncing around in his head. There are some legal regimes (such as Sharia) which make a very formal distinction between the individual relationships and there are some in which everything was treated as a communal unit (such as with some of the Tibetan polyandrous marriages). And most of the others, because of the concept of coverture, ended up being a hybridization between the two.
Here’s your side of the argument distilled down for you, magellan.
man, you think you’re really smart, but you’re one dumb bitch. I didn’t say “one man + one woman”. No, I said—more than once— “man + woman”. Go ahead, scroll up and see for yourself. It’s as if you think that polygamous marriages are some near-secret only scholars of the institution are aware of. Like I said, you fashion yourself as being quite smart, but not being able to grasp very basic logic puts you more into the set of “dumb bitches”.
If one can accept the use of the word “abnormaility”, yes, it’s a good distillation of that particular argument.
So any number of individual men plus any number of individual women is covered by “man + woman” ?