Tradition is no argument. We have seen many changes where traditional values have been replaced by new ones.

Yes, we have seen changes in society, some have been good and others have been awful... Just because it's a tradition doesn't make it bad, and just because it's change doen't make it good.

Geeze Ted, where do you even find out about this shit? Just delete that spam and find a happy place.

Just because it's a tradition doesn't make it bad, and just because it's change doen't make it good.

Spoken like a true conservative:)

Yet another update. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vowed to veto the bill passed by the assembly.

According to news reports here: Schwarzenegger Vows Gay Marriage Bill Veto he will ban the bill as he see's it as the legislature over-ruling the will of the people.

From that article:

Schwarzenegger said the legislation, given final approval Tuesday by lawmakers, would conflict with the intent of voters when they approved an initiative five years ago. Proposition 22 was placed on the ballot to prevent California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries. "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote," the governor's press secretary, Margita Thompson, said in a statement. "Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto (the bill)." Proposition 22 stated that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The bill to be vetoed by Schwarzenegger would have defined marriage as a civil contract between "two persons."

More at the original linked article.

"Urm... why? Seriously, who made that rule, you? If we wanted to make it illegal to, say, walk backwards, why couldn't we? Would Zeus come down and stop us? You have to have a reason for your "musts" too, right? Why must we have a better explaination? What enforces that "must"?"

Why? I explained it. The tradition argument can be used to defend racial segregation and opposition to gay marriage. Assuming that racial segregation is wrong, the tradition argument is also wrong. Thus the tradition argument does not explain why gay marriage is wrong.

The "must" is not enforced, it is, as I explained, merely an imperative that comes with the ability to reason. Some laws, like a prohibition of walking backwards, are simply nonsense and must not (in the sense of "must" I explained) be made, not if we want the law to be an instrument of reason.

"Oh? Oddly enough it was common practice not many generations ago for people to get married at 16, or even 14. Regardless the fact that you have to say "16, 18, or 21" shows there is no universal truth to it. It is a social value, and not not based upon any objective idea of "harm"."

The change in common practice would be another example of the failure of the tradition argument. And I disagree that laws about an age of consent have been made in a vacuum with no relation to reality. I believe that such laws were made to reflect the facts as perceived by society. Society did not pick a random number and make that the age of consent. The number was instead based on observation and is meant to be an approximation of what the value could be in reality.

"Just because it's a tradition doesn't make it bad, and just because it's change doen't make it good."

So you agree with me now? Can I now hear your argument against gay marriage?

"The "must" is not enforced, it is, as I explained, merely an imperative that comes with the ability to reason."

AH, so because you find it subjectively reasonable, it is law. So, rule by reason, not by the WILL of the people, huh? I'm thinkin you aren't Jeffersonian.

Then all laws that don't address direct harm or danger are overly restrictive?

For instance, you'd find local laws limiting construction to "traditional" architecture to also be pointless and therefore null and void? What harm is there in putting a moder high-rise in historic areas? None, other than it goes against the traditional sensibilities of the residents?

What about 'dry' laws that restrict the sale of alcohol in particular areas? Unconstitutional?

Yes, Bakerstreet, that's exactly what I said. But you have convinced me. I repent.

I admit that age of consent laws are arbitrary and not based on any such fact of nature as a difference between children and adults. I admit that tradition is a very good argument that completely explains why same-sex marriage should be illegal. I admit that no further explanation is necessary for a position once it has been established that it is a traditional position.

I also agree that there is no logical reason for why a marriage between two human beings, members of a human society, is totally different from a marriage between a human being and a squirrel.

I furthermore now support any law supported by the majority, regardless of how idiotic or unreasonable such laws may be. And I certainly won't ask the majority what their reasons for their decisions are, because I realise now that they need no reason but a love for traditions.

Does that sound more reasonable to you?

Alternatively, does anybody have an actual argument against gay marriage now?

Alternatively, does anybody have an actual argument against gay marriage now?

This thread was not about the legality of gay marriage! It was about a bunch of elected "idiots" who think they know whats best for their constituents, even though the constituents said otherwise. And tried to over-ride what the voters voted for!

"This thread was not about the legality of gay marriage! It was about a bunch of elected "idiots" who think they know whats best for their constituents, even though the constituents said otherwise. And tried to over-ride what the voters voted for!"

Ok. I withdraw the question. I see now that the actual subject the elected idiots and the voters decided about has nothing to do with the matter and should not be discussed.

I must also admit that I am no longer very interested in why people are against gay marriage. It seems obvious to me that all these remarks about traditional values are all they have. Perhaps there simply is no real argument against gay marriage.

This is perhaps the conclusion the elected idiots have reached. But we are not interested in their reasoning when we try to judge their actions. Now, is it unconstitutional for elected idiots to vote on a law that voters reject? Are California elected idiots obligated to vote according to current popular will or are they supposed to follow their conscience?

When members of a parliament in the US or elsewhere vote according to party lines rather than their constituents' will, are they doing something wrong or is a member of parliament free to vote as he pleases?

This is perhaps the conclusion the elected idiots have reached. But we are not interested in their reasoning when we try to judge their actions. Now, is it unconstitutional for elected idiots to vote on a law that voters reject? Are California elected idiots obligated to vote according to current popular will or are they supposed to follow their conscience?

What conclusion they reached should be immaterial. The "voters" are the ones that said "NO"! And just an fyi they did so with an over-whelming majority. And yes they "are" obligated to go with current popular opinion. That "current" popular opinion is what put them there, isn't it? And since those elected idiots can't seem to get it right, it looks like the governor will do it for them. But to answer your question, no it's not unconstitutional to vote on a law that was rejected by the voters. But if they'd like to keep their jobs......it "sure" ain't smart! Just look at Gray Davis as an example.

"We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote," the governor's press secretary, Margita Thompson, said in a statement. "Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto (the bill)."

"Are California elected idiots obligated to vote according to current popular will or are they supposed to follow their conscience?"

So everyone's concience will lead them exactly where yours does?

You can't expect all laws to be reliant on an objective set of values, because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN OBJECTIVE SET OF VALUES. Like I said, there's no universal, objective moral value that leads people to legislating the aesthetics of buildings in particular neighborhood or whether someone 17.9 years old is a minor while someone 18.1 is an adult.

So... what you really seem to be saying is that your admittedly subjective values trump those of the voters in California. Sure, if their legislators are left with the decision, fine, but this was a referendum orginally. The legislators didn't like what their constituants wanted, so now they thwart it.

I can understand accepting the will of legislators if the people ONLY speak by voting for them. In this case, though, the voters were asked through a referendum, they answered, but their opinion didn't satisfy those who SERVE them.

"So everyone's concience will lead them exactly where yours does?"

You think so? I honestly don't know why the elected idiots voted the way they did. But they obviously disagreed with the idea that gay marriage is wrong.

"what you really seem to be saying is that your admittedly subjective values trump those of the voters in California."

I said no such thing.

"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN OBJECTIVE SET OF VALUES."

I didn't say there was. I am merely pointing out that some objective facts exist and that some values are based on them. Certainly a law about age of consent is based on the _OBJECTIVE FACT_ that children and adults are _PHYSICALLY_ and _BIOLOGICALLY_ different and that this difference is quite relevant when it comes to marrying them because two of the differences are that a) children cannot meaningfully have sex below a certain age and children cannot make educated decisions for themselves, because they need to learn about the world first. Whether the age where that changes is 18 or should be is a different matter, but the fact is that some such age exists for each child and that is where this particular value comes from.

But where does the value that says that gay marriages are wrong come from? What relevant difference is there between a same-sex couple and a mixed couple? Unless you insist that a marriage requires biological children and thus must not exist between two people who can't have such children (including sterile mixed couples), there is no objective fact that promotes the idea of the one type of marriage over the other. That is why the tradition argument is used, because there exists no other argument.

A same-sex couple with adopted children does more for society than a mixed couple who don't have or raise children at all. The biological argument thus doesn't support mixed marriages per se, only a subset of them.

So what is the argument against gay marriage?

"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN OBJECTIVE SET OF VALUES." I didn't say there was. I am merely pointing out that some objective facts exist and that some values are based on them."

Um, but that is validating your values as being objective, isn't it? Or at least branding those who disagree with you as ignorant of "objective facts"...

But where does the value that says that gay marriages are wrong come from? What relevant difference is there between a same-sex couple and a mixed couple?...So what is the argument against gay marriage?

LOL, stop trying to bait me into your side of the argument. You are trying to get me to prove that these laws are more than cultural tradition, when my point is laws don't really need to be more than cultural tradition.

Again, you've overlooked the fact that this isn't about the validity of homosexual marriage, even after having been reminded and conceding the point. This is about the right of people who have been offered the voice of a referendum to have that vote respected.

question (please don't ignore it)

If tomorrow, we have a nation-wide referendum of the Patriot Act, and the people choose to reject it, how would you feel if legislators simply went back to work Monday and passed it back into law again?

That is *exactly* what is being done to the people of California on this subject. This doesn't need to be about homosexuality for it to be a bad thing for legislators to do.

Marriage is recognized and even encouraged by the government because it is positive for society. A loving couple of one man and one woman is good for not only population growth, but raising stable children who are ready for the responsibilities of that society. The children (generally speaking) have their emotional needs met, are provided for, and are raised in an environment that promotes healthy morals and ideals. In gay marriage, reproduction is not possible (if you can think of a way, please don’t tell me) any children must be adopted and are raised in an environment that promotes gay relationships, resulting in less population growth.

So what is the argument against gay marriage?

I thought we were going to debate that elsewhere?

Oh, and by the way, I am IN NO WAY suggesting that adoption is detremental to scociety, I just think that adoptions should take place in stable, heterosexual homes for the reasons I have above.

Just some more of my two cents.

"Um, but that is validating your values as being objective, isn't it? Or at least branding those who disagree with you as ignorant of "objective facts"..."

Do you agree or disagree that moral values are based on observation of and a reaction to objective reality?

If you agree, you know the answer. And, yes, some people sometimes are ignorant of objective facts.

If you disagree, you can only believe me when I say that I think that moral values are a reaction to objective reality.

"If tomorrow, we have a nation-wide referendum of the Patriot Act, and the people choose to reject it, how would you feel if legislators simply went back to work Monday and passed it back into law again?"

For me that answer depends on the constitution of the country where such a referendum happens. In Germany, for example, referanda are not part of the democratic process and I would support sticking to the constitution and make laws in the way the constitution demands it, regardless of public opinion.

I consider stability and adherence to the constitution to be more important than democracy.

This does not mean that I would agree with the MPs' decision. But it does mean that I will support their decision because it is legal and legitimate.

I don't know what the legal status of referenda in the US is.

Then, of course, your analogy is, while not flawed, possibly incomplete. You perhaps tried to make this a black-and-white issue to confront me with a referendum for a position I support (you perhaps assume that I am for gay marriage and thus wasn't objective).

One reason we have parliaments and constitutions is because we do not want laws to be made by referenda. We prefer informed MPs to discuss bills and make into law what they think is the best bills.

If you want a more democratic system, I applaud your ideals. But I do not agree with them.

"Do you agree or disagree that moral values are based on observation of and a reaction to objective reality?"

I don't think there is any objective reality in terms of homosexuality, which is a pov held up by the assertions of homosexuals quite often. I'm often told I can't understand what it is to be in their shoes, so no, I don't think this has anything to do with objective reality. Nor can you refine the pov of 300 million people and find enough common ground to establish any kind of moral reality, in my opinion.

Stability and adherance to the Constitution are all well and good, but someone has to decide on issues not covered specifically. In a democracy is that better done by a few of the elite, or the people as a whole?

Is allowing a "priest class" to arise and dole out justice in keeping with the Constitution? Not in my interpretation. We don't need dynastic legislative regimes, or worse, under the table political machines deciding our will for us. To me that is solidly counter to the democratic process.

As I said, if the will of Californians wasn't known, I'd be agreeing with you. They were offered a referendum, though, and in the end I don't see how the representitives in a representitive government ever have the right to thwart the spelled-out will of their constituants.