🚀 go-pugleaf

Chris Fodor (cfodor@megatek.com) wrote:
: In article <3m4sgu$fq9@canyon.sr.hp.com> mikep@sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) writes:
: >
: >	It is perhaps beyond the scope of this thread to expand fully
: >	on this subject, but suffice it to say that marriage... around
: >	the world and throughout history... has an amazing degree of
: >	fundimental consistancy. This is true despite the fact that no
: >	single entity "owns" or "promotes" marriage.  The reason for
: >	this is because the basic concept of marriage stems _fully_
: >	from the basic realities of our biology. 

: Ah, I see, it's just "natural" right?  And you wouldn't what anything
: "unnatural" fouling it up.

	Ahhhh....    no.  I'm not a 'nature' freak.  Besides, it's hard
	to get a common definition of what is or is not 'natural' wrt
	human activity... (if a beaver dam is 'natural' they why aren't
	the dams we build 'natural' as well?)

: >     All of humanity has
: >	been under pressures to form arrangements that we call 'marriage'.
: >	The details differ, but the basics, by a pragmatic imposition,
: >	are all the same. BUT *same-sex* marriage _totally_ severs itself
: >	from the fundimental pressures which gave birth to traditions/
: >	structures of marriage.  This changes marriage on it's most
: >	fundimental level... creating a major devaluation away from it's
: >	primary benefit to humanity, and moving toward a valuation of
: >	the details of transient legal issues.

: Incorrect.  It *justifies* the committment.  Same sex marriages have a
: higher success rate than heterosexual marriage.  It shows that when
: people want to form a physical, emotional, and financial union they
: should be taken seriously by the rest of us.

	Why?  If it was truly socially important, why then are not
	same-sex marriages a universal occurrence dating back to the
	beginning of recorded history? (ie: how the hell did we get
	by without them)

: On the other hand, if I wanted to devalue marriage, I would want to keep
: as many committed couples out as possible.

	Why couples?  And what do you mean "comitted couples"???  Comitted
	to what?  Also, do we not see that "committed couples" are
	becoming more and more rare?  It this important?  Why?

	(an interesting thought:  Can comittment to winning a war change
	the outcome?  Why does a nation commit?  Why did we commit to WWII
	but not make the same comittment to the Vietnam war?  Was it
	because we had a hard time answering: "why are we doing this?")

: >	This is bad news.

: This is relative as well.  We both happen to agree that the devaluation
: of marriage is bad.  The government is *not* here to enforce morals (check
: out your copy of the constitution.  It *is* here to promote liberty.

	Full agreement.  Government does screw around with society far
	too much... it's role should be strictly limited, and morals and
	tradition are an especially poor arena for government to mess with.
	In our society, laws, traditions, and morals are all valid and
	important concepts (although they may conflict with eachother).

: >	Again, this is certainly too big a topic to sit on this thread,
: >	but I hope you appreciate the condensed version.

	-Mike-