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:)

"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?

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?

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 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)."

"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?

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.

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.

"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.