[quote]kamui wrote:
but marriage is not a right,
[/quote]
I hope you are not thinking this statement is correct , in my opinion this is why Gay or Polygamous marriage is none of anyone’s business other than those getting married . The law should only involve it’s self to divorce the couplings and divide the estates
Why are they asking all of us to recognize, endorse and pay for their own business then ?
Because you know, that’s exactly what we do each and every time someone else get married.
[quote]kamui wrote:
-Maybe, but marriage is not a right, it’s a privilege, a way to promote the model of the family.
[/quote]
Is this not good enough? The model of the family?
[quote]kamui wrote:
-Gay marriage is forbidden
-It’s unfair, they love each other and they don’t harm anyone
-Maybe, but marriage is not a right, it’s a privilege, a way to promote the model of the nuclear heterosexual family. They simply aren’t entitled to it.
-We don’t care about that anymore, give them their right !
[/quote]
Well, the debate has gone many ways at many times, but it could also be put like this:
Who can marry whom or what is a territory bounded arbitrarily. [In anticipation of pushback on this one: Oh yes it is. I can marry my first cousin in New York but not in Pennsylvania, and we can marry in North Carolina but then in that state I couldn’t marry a double cousin. Oh wait, my first cousin is eighteen years old. I’d forgotten. So we can marry in New York still, but definitely not in Mississippi, where we’d have to wait another three years. Oh, hold up again, my first cousin is a dude. Forgot to mention that. So, I can marry him in New York but not in Texas. There are reasons for each of these differences, but then there are also reasons to eradicate them–hence, arbitrariness–and they boil to an elemental soup of simple unprovable axioms anyway.]
The location of its boundary should be chosen with attention to risks and rewards.
In this case, the rewards outweigh the risks.
So, go for it.
Number 3 would give the advocate of polygamy a much harder time than had the advocate of gay marriage.
[quote]kamui wrote:
sine gloria vincit qui sine periculo vincitur.
[/quote]
Stultum est timere quod vitare non potest.
There are important things to worry about, and there are unimportant things to worry about. Which one do you think gay marriage is?
[quote]kamui wrote:
Why are they asking all of us to recognize, endorse and pay for their own business then ?
Because you know, that’s exactly what we do each and every time someone else get married.
[/quote]
You refer to tax breaks, yes?
[quote]kamui wrote:
Why are they asking all of us to recognize, endorse and pay for their own business then ?
Because you know, that’s exactly what we do each and every time someone else get married.
[/quote]
how do you figure it costs anyone ,anything, anytime ,anyone, gets married
[quote]kamui wrote:
In other words : polygamists now have a good legal argument for their case.
[/quote]
Which is all I have been saying from the beginning.
The rules of chess are arbitrary, but they are still the rules. Of chess.
If you don’t wanna play by them, invent your own rules, develop your own game, but don’t call it chess, and don’t try to force chess players to play your game.
[quote]
3. In this case, the rewards outweigh the risks.[/quote]
Really ?
Broken homes are the main factor correlated with school failure and crime. I’m not sure that, today, the rewards of marriage outweigh the risks, even in the case of heterosexual marriage.
In such an utilitarian perspective, we probably should ban all form of marriage, asap.
[quote]
Number 3 would give the advocate of polygamy a much harder time than had the advocate of gay marriage.[/quote]
Wait until a bunch of sociological studies find that the swinger couples last longer than traditionnal couples.
[quote]
There are important things to worry about, and there are unimportant things to worry about. Which one do you think gay marriage is?[/quote]
Not sure what you’re asking.
In my opinion, gay marriage, or man-animal marriage, or poly-marriage are not the disease. They are symptoms of a disease.
or more accurately symptoms of two diseases.
a political and legal disease : we don’t know what the res publica is anymore and we absurdly, desperately try to bend it to satisfy everyone, at an individual level.
a cultural disease : to better pretend we are an enlightened society of equal peers, we deprive ourselves of our very right to be a culture, with it’s own bias, it’s own prejudice, it’s own preference, it’s own privilege, it’s own like and dislike, it’s own… arbitrariness.
Those diseases are indeed quite worrisome, since they can be lethal.
[quote]kamui wrote:
The rules of chess are arbitrary, but they are still the rules. Of chess.
If you don’t wanna play by them, invent your own rules, develop your own game, but don’t call it chess, and don’t try to force chess players to play your game.
[/quote]
Changing the rules is called legislation. It’s how things work.
I don’t give a damn if we call it chess or blackjack.
Who is being forced to do what here?
[quote]kamui wrote:
Really ?
Broken homes are the main factor correlated with school failure and crime. I’m not sure that, today, the rewards of marriage outweigh the risks, even in the case of heterosexual marriage.
[/quote]
Men are going to impregnate women and then leave whether you call them married or not. In fact, are these broken homes not overwhelmingly never-married homes? In which case, high divorce rate and all, marriage is a good.
[quote]kamui wrote:
a cultural disease : to better pretend we are an enlightened society of equal peers, we deprive ourselves of our very right to be a culture, with it’s own bias, it’s own prejudice, it’s own preference, it’s own privilege, it’s own like and dislike, it’s own… arbitrariness.
[/quote]
What? What are you saying here? This is where this debate invariably turns–to muck, and fuzzy platitudes that have almost nothing to do with reality and don’t even know what they themselves mean. This isn’t a deprivation of arbitrariness, it’s a new (no less arbitrary) line.
A bunch of (predominantly young) people aren’t, or are less, biased or prejudiced (your words) with regard to homosexuality, and this is symptomatic of a disease. I don’t give a damn about gay sex, and yet my grandfather did–and this is a mark of cultural corrosion. No, I don’t think so.
The game of changing the rules have their own rules.
Once upon a time, one of these rules was “Plurimae leges pessima respublica.”
Now it’s “vox populi, vox dei”.
[quote]
2. I don’t give a damn if we call it chess or blackjack.[/quote]
Apparently.
[quote]
3. Who is being forced to do what here?[/quote]
Everyone is forced to recognize the unions between people who repeatedly state that their unions is none of our business.
And we are asked to forget the blatant self-contradiction.
even if never-married homes make up for a majority of broken homes, divorce/marriage ratio is greater than 50% right now.
ie : more than one marriage out of two will create another broken home.
ie : marriage is more often bad than good.
[quote]kamui wrote:
even if never-married homes make up for a majority of broken homes, divorce/marriage ratio is greater than 50% right now.
ie : more than one marriage out of two will create another broken home.
ie : marriage is more often bad than good.
[/quote]
Where do you get the 50% from? At least in the US the highest was estimated at 50% but its been in decline for the last 20 years or so.
[quote]
What? What are you saying here? This is where this debate invariably turns–to muck, and fuzzy platitudes that have almost nothing to do with reality and don’t even know what they themselves mean. This isn’t a deprivation of arbitrariness, it’s a new (no less arbitrary) line.[/quote]
if the new line is no less arbitrary, what’s the point ?
I rarely practice male on male sex myself, but i have nothing against it.
That’s not the problem, and never was.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
even if never-married homes make up for a majority of broken homes, divorce/marriage ratio is greater than 50% right now.
ie : more than one marriage out of two will create another broken home.
ie : marriage is more often bad than good.
[/quote]
Where do you get the 50% from? At least in the US the highest was estimated at 50% but its been in decline for the last 20 years or so.[/quote]
Wikipedia says 53% here : Divorce demography - Wikipedia
with sources coming from the CDC (i confess that i didn’t check their math).
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
even if never-married homes make up for a majority of broken homes, divorce/marriage ratio is greater than 50% right now.
ie : more than one marriage out of two will create another broken home.
ie : marriage is more often bad than good.
[/quote]
Where do you get the 50% from? At least in the US the highest was estimated at 50% but its been in decline for the last 20 years or so.[/quote]
Wikipedia says 53% here : Divorce demography - Wikipedia
with sources coming from the CDC (i confess that i didn’t check their math).
[/quote]
Still in decline from 10 years ago. Two things make this number hard to obtain so the 53% isn’t really accurate and its a bit less than that.
Since most people don’t get married and divorced in the same calendar year the years on those are unrelated to each other, so getting a ratio 3.6 : 6.8 is meaningless. More people got married in 2000 so their divorce numbers are skewing today’s marriage numbers.
Divorced people are more likely to divorce on their 2nd marriage, so they are adding to the ratio in favor of divorce while being represented constantly in the population size.