California bans same-sex marriage - ban overturned

[mj.scuba]

As i said, marriage is older than any of todays known religions....so if it was a religion rather than pagans that started it, that religion does not exist today.

 

From the Wiki entry for Paganism:

Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller", "rustic"[1]) is a blanket term used to refer to various polytheistic, non-Abrahamic religious traditions.

 

Seems religion and paganism are not mutually exclusive.

[Bulgarian]

I the problem is that the marriage isn't "legal", the fact that it's not recognised by the law is the problem, not the bleating of a bunch of god botherers.

 

Even if you found a religion that was ok with the mariage (I'm sure there are some) it still would be illegal under law. Personally, I don't think a religious ceremony should have any legal implications.

[mj.scuba]

That's a cop out and its not good enough.

 

The burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim not the person who doesn't believe it.

 

I believe marriage has it's origin in religion, possibly not in any in of the religions that exist today, certainly it would have come out of a set of beliefs or a structure of belief or moral principles, otherwise known as religion. And not from one religion, different versions of marriage would have evolved from different religions, quite seperately from one another just as species evolved on their own on Galapogas.

 

Think back to when we were all monkeys when we rutted with anything just to propogate the species. Do monkeys get married and make a lifelong committment to one another in a ceremony? No they don't. At least I've never seen a monkey wedding on David Attenborough.

 

Then at some point we evolved into humans and developed a collective sense of right and wrong, and rituals, and beliefs, and morals etc. Call it what you will. When a people put all those different rituals, beliefs, morals etc together under a single set of guiding principles, I call it a religion. It must be how marriage came about, otherwise actually there is no reason biologically to make a marriage committment, we would all still be beating our chests to get a mate.

[flamingjimmy]

So you have no evidence nor proof, just a hunch. One that you've thought out a little but when it gets down to it that's all it is, a hunch. You'll have to come up with something better than that if you're hoping to convince anyone.

 

Besides, quite a few of the points you made are wrong anyway. We are not the only monogamous species, and in fact for the most part we are not monogamous.

 

There are some species of birds that actively discourage cheating and will chase males who are sniffing around the mates of others.

 

Also, there are literally thousands of species of animal that form social pairs in order to raise children, but, like humans, do not always remain faithful, just like marriage.

[mj.scuba]

So you have no evidence nor proof, just a hunch. One that you've thought out a little but when it gets down to it that's all it is, a hunch. You'll have to come up with something better than that if you're hoping to convince anyone.

 

Besides, quite a few of the points you made are wrong anyway. We are not the only monogamous species, and in fact for the most part we are not monogamous.

 

There are some species of birds that actively discourage cheating and will chase males who are sniffing around the mates of others.

 

Also, there are literally thousands of species of animal that form social pairs in order to raise children, but, like humans, do not always remain faithful, just like marriage.

 

I have no wish to convince you or others the origin of marriage, that is up to you, if however you are hell bent on convincing me that I am wrong or wish me to backtrack, at least bring something to the table yourself, an explanation of what you believe the origin of marriage to be or perhaps you have knowledge of the conclusive origin of marriage or have a link to it; share it with us then. The fact is I have explained what I believe, but you bring NOTHING to the table, not even an opinion on it, just a childlike "prove it or your wrong".

[HeadingNorth]

... just a childlike "prove it or your wrong".

 

That attitude is not childlike. It's the very foundation and bedrock of all scientific and logical inquiry, and has been so for centuries. The onus of providing evidence is on the person who makes a claim; without evidence the claim is dismissed as worthless.

[Kthebean]

Actually its not even 'prove it or you're wrong', its 'prove it or it remains a hypothesis'.

[flamingjimmy]

I have no wish to convince you or others the origin of marriage, that is up to you, if however you are hell bent on convincing me that I am wrong or wish me to backtrack, at least bring something to the table yourself, an explanation of what you believe the origin of marriage to be or perhaps you have knowledge of the conclusive origin of marriage or have a link to it; share it with us then. The fact is I have explained what I believe, but you bring NOTHING to the table, not even an opinion on it, just a childlike "prove it or your wrong".

Trying to insult me by calling that sentiment childish doesn't bother me in the slightest. It only makes you look silly for saying so.

 

Saying "prove it or your (sic) wrong" is not childish, it is sensible. Children will believe pretty much anything you tell them and do not require proof.

 

I do not know what the origins of marriage are, and am entirely comfortable with that.

 

But what I do know, is that that which is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

[mj.scuba]

That attitude is not childlike. It's the very foundation and bedrock of all scientific and logical inquiry, and has been so for centuries. The onus of providing evidence is on the person who makes a claim; without evidence the claim is dismissed as worthless.

 

This is not a scientific or logical inquiry, it is an internet forum for users to chat, debate, post opinions. It might be different if this was an authoritative paper on teh history of marriage we were writing, but it isn't.

[Harleyman]

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, except teh gays".

 

I think I know more about US history than most of its citizens. I'm the bloke that left the American Experience Show at Epcot with tears streaming down his cheeks. I have the greatest admiration for the principles of Jefferson and the other founding fathers.

 

On balance, I think I'd prefer to be ruled by the views of a judge upholding the principles of the founding fathers and defending the Constitution, rather than the changing views of a government and/or the people. For example, I'm pretty certain that if the people were allowed to vote on prohibiting Islam, it would be banished in an instant.

 

 

The Constitution isn't perfect. It was written by men whose thoughts and ideas were relevent to those times but obviously far removed from what our thoughts and ideas are today. The liberal ideas that are accepted today would have shocked the founding fathers.

 

I have a problem with your statement that the changing ideas of a people come secondary to the views of a judge

 

If this is the case then why should people bother to vote? What is the purpose of government? Why should people have a say in the affairs that affect our daily lives?

 

While it's essential that there is a supreme court to interpret and advise on constitutional affairs government for the people by the people is the foundation of a healthy democracy.

 

I would have much preferred that the issue of same sex marriage have come up again as a ballot measure in the future and accordingly voted on one way or the other. Had same sex marriage been approved by the necessary majority I would have had absolutely no problem in accepting it as part of the State's laws on Civil Rights

 

Once more to emphasize. I am not hostile to same sex marriage