It was, actually, my friend's father. My father is definitely in the Palin line, straight ticket republican, etc. I wasn't speaking for Kansas though, I certainly don't have any doubt about that changing in the near future. Moreso for progressive states, like the one in the original post.

I'm with you untill you spout lines like this.

It just goes to show how much you wish to demonize your opposition.

The proper term would be "traditionalists". Marriage from the state is traditionaly about easing the finacial cost of having children. People look at same sex couples and say.. hmm, they have no possiblity of having thier own children, why should the state be supporting them? Just as we say, "hmm, the cousins marrying eachother is going to make children with birth defects, why should we be supporting them?

Labeling anyone who is a traditionalist, and finds value in adhereing to tradition if there isn't a reason to break from it, biggots, or homophobes or whatever dissmissive term you want to use, just further creates conflict for the sake of conflict and doesn't resolve anything.

Calling peopl homophobic is really the worst thing, cause that implies people are somehow affraid of same sex marriages rather than just dissmissive of them.

How dare you disagree with Xavius, you bigot?

I don't know how it's in the US, but marriage in Austria is a heck of a lot more than easing financial costs of having children. For example, only family members and spouses are allowed into hospital rooms. Inheritance, adoption, some more stuff gets better for married couples to handle.

Usually I try and stay out of political discussions on these forums, especially on this topic as I am extremely biased on the matter (I'm in a same-sex marriage and live in California). However, it is interesting to note that the San Diego Union-Tribune, a moderate-conservative newspaper has long been against same-sex marriage but pro civil unions. According to their recent editorial, they have done a 180 and come out against Prop 8. The main reason appears to be:



In other words, regardless of the esoteric philosophy and arguments surrounding this topic, the reality is that gays and lesbians can and do have children (either through adoption or other means), and thus it is in those children's best interest to support those family units. Personally, I think there are more important reasons against Prop 8 (like basic civil rights), but from this editorial board's perspective, it is pretty interesting reasoning.

I said traditionally.

I'm not sure what the purpose of modern marriage is in the government. Which is why I've been saying the conversation should really be about marriage at all, not just same sex marriage.

Using marriage for hospital rights, is really just a matter of conveniance. They could just as easily have people keep a sort of will, which lists the people you want to visit you in the hospital (like the three guys who have been my close friends for the past 23 years. I'd rather have them visit me, then a cousin I've never met)

As the san diego paper points out, the issue of children is completly circumvented by other laws.

edit: Point being, if you ask some random traditionalists on the streat, and ask them what the purpose of marriage is, they will most likely state, "raising children" (not, "true love")

Uh, it's not like that here either. (USA)

Saying that marriage is done by most people so that the government will help support you're kids is a huge stretch. I don't know anyone who has gotten married for that reason.

And I don't understand why there are still "traditionalists" out there. These people are just stuck in their ways and afraid of change. History has proved a thousand times over that this is not a smart thing to be. Slave owners were "traditionalists". Nazis were "traditionalists".

Traditionalists = ignorance = fear of the unknown.

Allow your mind to grow, people. The world is too vast and varying and beautiful to demean certain sects, cultures, and lifestyles just because they're different.

please tell me in what way nazis were traditionalist????

Also, please read what I actually write, and not what you want some fictional charachter to be saying.

I did not , in any shape or form say "that marriage is done by most people so that the government will help support you're kids", so ofcourse its a big stretch. Because nobody ever said that.

What I said, again, is that TRADTIONALLY, one of the main reasons why government got invovled in marriage, was to help and promote families with children. (via finances) The general situation that they are interested in, is the case where two people have a child, and then decide to get married. (i.e. they want the child to be supported by the family, and not by the state) Instead of the case where two people get married and then decide to have a child.

Agreeing to Deschain's point, and taking it one step further... Is it still "traditional" to be a white man who wants black slaves, and own them as property? Is it traditional to not want them to vote so that my republican candidate can win? Is it traditional to not want them to be able to sit in the same part of the bus that I do?

Aren't those all "traditional" mentalities?

What about the traditions established before those traditions? Shouldn't all of us americans be practicing native american ideals? Shouldn't the majority of you Europeans be practicing Roman traditions?

Don't you think there's a reason that traditionalists are ALWAYS being superseded by progressives?

In what way does the government "help and promote families with children" via finances? I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

From wikipedia:





If you want more details as to how they were traditionalists, I suggest you do some research and read about everything they stood for.

And Myndaen said exactly what I meant: Liberals and progressives have always been right.

I found this article which argues both sides.

hopefully people who agree with the second opinion, can read the first one more closely to better understand where the other side is comming from, and people who agree with the first opinion can better understand where the other side is comming from. (It is NOT from a place of homophobia, biggotry, or intolerance)

Where's tha article?

ROFL...

Are you being serious?

The Nazi party broke with many traditions, and sought to create a NEW WORLD (i.e, break away from tradition)

But I guess you are correct, progressives are ALWAYS right. All traditions are evil!

This means, that we should not have marriage at all. We should break from tradition and not have children. Everyone should be prevented from having more children, and we can break with tradtion and let our species go extinct. The tradition of using documents written on paper is also a terrible idea. All forms of contracts should really just be put onto digital recordings, to save the world a bunch of trees. Ditch all traditions!

We should never ever ever, learn from our past, or do what people before us did! Keep moving along, nothing to see here.

Incase you are confused about the difference between history and tradition:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tradition

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/history

odd, the link didn't copy..

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-...0,5335043.story

I don't know, are those traditions? Did your parents teach you that that is the way the world is supposed to work? Is that a tradition that has been passed down to you from society?

tradition does not mean the same thing as History. Just because something once happened in the past, does not mean it is a tradition.



I don't know the details. But the argument is made that the state should give financial benefits to couples who get married and have children, so that couples who have children and are not married, are given incentive to do so. (I assume this means combined incomes, and tax breaks, and rights of inheretence etc.

I.e., the reason we don't let two siblings transfer property tax free, via inheretance is because we wish to give incentive to families to get married, so that they may do that. Since we are not concerned that the siblings will accidently have children, we don't give them the option to enter such a union.

Hey, if you're going to start comparing me to a nazi or a slave owner, then you, i'm done with this thread.

*facepalm*

They wanted to create a new world by returning to a "pure" Germany. They were extreme traditionalists. There was absolutely nothing "progressive" about what they did.

A don't try to misconstrue my point by putting radical exclamations in my mouth that everyone knows make no sense that I was not suggesting even in the slightest.

And btw, the second half of that article didn't make any sense. According to it, since they think we should outlaw gay marriage to prevent divorces and "save the children", why not cut to the chase and outlaw all divorces?

@Stangmar: I put anti-gay on the same level as racism. It isn't any different, people just havn't had time to see that yet. A 100 years from now people will look back on how we treat homosexuals the same way we look back on how our ancestors treated slaves.

Heh.

1) What? Of course those are traditions. Do you think people hate blacks because they learned it after birth? I don't think so... People hate blacks because their parents hated blacks, whose parents hated blacks, etc. etc. That's exactly what I'd call a tradition, in fact. I'm not sure what you'd call a tradition if not hatred and bigotry handed down from generation to generation.

2) Actually... Just a few things: siblings can't transfer property tax free... Also, the joint tax return was created LONG after marriage was established in the law. In fact, the reason the joint tax return was created was thus: Various states have a policy called "community property", where every dollar earned, and all property acquired, by the couple during the marriage is exactly 50% owned by each spouse. For example, if a wife's a lawyer and a husband is a stay-at-home dad, in a community property state like California, 50% of the wife's income is the wife's, 50% is the husbands. With a graduated tax system like we have, prior to the creation of the joint tax return, this was becoming a boon to americans living in community property states, as if you only report 50% of your income, your tax rate would be lower than if it were 100% of your income. Many states were about to come around and also take on the community property policy, so the government said, "Hey look! You can now file a joint tax return!" which, at the time, had a very similar effect.

Maybe there are financial benefits to being married... and maybe that's why marriage has been an institution for so long in our country, but I'm not married, so I don't know what they are, and I can't think of what they are.. But I know it's NOT tax savings.