Marriage Equality Comes to Wisconsin

I can't wait to hear what those who rely on an appeal to tradition will have to say about this!

 

Yes, I don't really understand the appeal to history. The beauty of our nation is that it defies tradition.

Traditionally Jewish puerile have been subjugated. Our nation defied that. Traditionally black people were slaves, our nation defied that. Traditionally women weren't considered equal to men. Our nation defied that. Traditionally there were kings and rulers that created a national religion, our nation defied that. Traditionally anybody that spike against the rulers was punished for treason our nation defied that.Traditionally there were noblemen that were seen as better than common folk, our nation defied that.

Our nation was built on defiance of tradition. I don't see tradition serving any purpose but to confine people to rules that we can't explain any better than, "welp that's how we always done it." There is no reason to continue doing something that has no purpose just because that's how we have always done it. In fact I would say that it is great that we question these traditions and examine them, and even discard them if they have no real point beside some obsolete religious value.

 

Next up:

Brother sister marriage.

 

Logical fallacy of the slippery slop variety. This is about marriage equality. Same sex couples being treated as equal to heterosexuals. That is the issue before us. Please stick to it.

 

Why don't you just say, next up, murder, or genocide, or any other possibility nit in the least related.

I imagine if there is going to be another battle for marriage equality, it would be for polygamous marriages. But that is distant.

 

Technically it isn't as much about 'equality' as it is about freedom. If we separate marriage and state as we should, the politics behind the debate should become moot.

 

It's about both. Separate marriage and state ? How do we do that ? What would it look like in practical terms? What would distinguish the married from the unmarried.?

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-equality.html

 

Marriage is a contract between individuals. The courts will naturally be available to settle any disputes over such a contract but that would be the extent of any state involvement. Otherwise it's hands off.

 

So then, you don't believe that the state has any interest in the enforcement of contracts?

That is a unique, and incredibly naïve, perspective.

- - - Updated - - -

Every Sunday, you somehow manage to remind me that Game of Thrones is on tonight!

 

What do you think I meant by the following?

 

I see... "The courts" are independent of "the state".

You really should just stop while you aren't too far behind.

 

Marriage already is a contract between individuals. Contracts and the dissolution of same are regulated by law, only the state makes law and therefor the state cannot divest itself of marriage

Are you proposing to do away with all regulations? Age of consent? Sibling marriage? All of the government benefits of marriage thereby destroying all incentives to marry and the institution of marriage itself? Why would you want to do that. I have found that this sort of thing is often promoted as a means of avoiding the issue of granting equality to gays. Would that be your purpose here? You would sink your ship to drown the rats?

 

First of all, you are quoting a highly biased source. The web page starts out by asking "why do Christians oppose gay marriage? It's presented as though all Christians are like minded and they are not. Second of all, and I've said this before, while you and other Christians are entitled to you beliefs, this is a secular issue. Read the first amendment!

Third, of course it's about equality. It's not a matter of attaching a new label. It has always been about equality. People who oppose equality are in fact irrational among other things

 

Why should I support something that goes against my beliefs?

 

No one cares if you support it. The problem is that too many who believe as you do work against it using propaganda and out right lies to prevent others who do not believe as you do from having rights. Just stay out of the way. No one is asking you to get gay married and when others get gay married it will have nothing to do with you

 

Sometimes the slippery slope is real and is not a fallacy.

The wings of a butterfly can cause a tsunami on the other side of the world.

- - - Updated - - -

In all seriousness, I sometimes wonder about those too, and why they should be outlawed, especially if morality shouldn't be legislated, because all laws are based on someone's idea of morality.

 

If you are going to make the argument for "traditional marriage", then polygamy should be the standard. It was the traditional practice of all of the Abrahamic religions.

 

Are you in favor of that?

 

I don't believe in traditional marriage. That's just a buzzword to me.

The American idea of "traditional" marriage is actually not that traditional. Marriage being between a man and a woman only was first trumped by the Catholic Church in 590 AD.

The idea of a traditional nuclear family is also actually fairly recent, originating roughly around the 1950s with shows like Leave It To Beaver focusing on it. That form of marriage has not been around for very long.

 

Yes, I know. Still, it is supremely ironic for people who oppose polygamy to argue for traditional, Biblical marriage. Guess they never bothered to actually read the book?

 

That's one big problem with Western culture, is most people just accept what they've been told without actually critically thinking about it or checking it out and not knowing anything about where their staunchly held beliefs come from.

Me, I do what I can to check things out and even if it's something I believe in, I am always questioning and learning about where these beliefs come from, at least to the best of my ability.

 

True but it is not a reason to deny gays rights. We can deal with whatever comes next in due course. But if we let the current debate fester much longer, whatever is to come next will just be messier and more entangled. You might want to consider this:

 

So you are off the opinion that no longer discriminating against sex in marriage equates to complete anarchy?

That is about the absolute lamest argument I have ever heard.

Discriminating against sex in marriage reallyaccomplishes nothing. Outlawing murder promotes peace.

 

No, I am not. That is a slippery slope fallacy.

And I am against discrimination period, regardless of what my own prejudices are.

However, I hate all marriage period and want to see it abolished.

Those were two different arguments.