Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

So, this has been on my mind for a while and I need to spill my thoughts.

I feel like every time I turn on the news, there's some fat-cat politician saying something along the lines of:

"If we do that, it will go against tradition!"

I've heard this phrase over and over again in opposition to a number of topics: immigration, abortions, abstinence, evolution, contraceptives, gay marriages, you name it, if it's a social issue this phrase has been used, the latter being more common. Now, I'm going to ask you to think really, really hard:

Name one reason that the repetition of something throughout history can justify it.

Okay, as an example I'm going to use a common topic of today: gay marriage. The backbone of the arguments against same-sex marriage is that it goes against tradition. People like the way things have been done and they don't want to change. But that brings up not only a big political question but also a philosophical one: If we don't want to change, how can we ever make progress?

There's an old outdated political party from the late 1800's and early 1900's that don't receive the credit they deserve: the progressives. Their whole party was founded on the premise, of, well, progress. They received a lot of flack back in the day because it was something new, something that broke tradition. Well, what "traditions" were the progressives opposed to? To name a few:

-Sexism
-Racism
-Slavery
-Prejudice
-Segregation

Regardless of your political standpoint, I'm sure you think those were all traditions worth breaking. These are all things that have broken away from mainstream society and changed humanity for the better.

Now, back to gay marriage. The primary argument against gay marriage is that it will go too far, and eventually instead of one-man one-woman marriages we'll change to the point where we'll be marrying animals and children and yada yada yada. It is true that with most major breakthrough changes, more changes soon follow. So, let's look back at how the aforementioned changes affected one another. Well, there's something I forgot to mention: each change inspired the others. If you were to play things out in chronological order, it would go something like:

- 1861-1865: Civil War was won. Slavery was abolished. However, African-Americans are still very much discriminated against in everyday life, so
- 1880-1913: people realized something was wrong, and made changes accordingly. Voting segregation was abolished and various reforms were made to give minorities a voice.
- 1921-1963: But, of course, that wouldn't go over so well with everybody. Protests, slimy politicians, and the Ku Klux Klan spread their message of racism. Integration supporters would eventually win, but damn, that took a long time.
- The 1960's: If racial equality is being spread, what about gender equality, too? The Feminine Mystique and a number of other publications fight off sexism.
- 1913-1970: Segregation was a pressing problem. So pressing that it took half a century to get rid of it. Tradition-freaks claimed it would bring disaster, yet now that it's here, it's not so bad after all. Integration spreads. Yippee.

...Now, of course, none of these problems completely went away - they'll always exist on some level. But boy, society sure did put a dent in them.

Now, with that in mind: What would happen if gay marriage was legalized? I can't answer that for you, you have to think about it yourself.

So, the next time you want to oppose something just because it seems very different from what you're used to, think twice. What could it really do?

This has been a T3XT public service announcement.

At 6/20/13 02:30 AM, T3XT wrote: This has been a T3XT public service announcement.

I meant to italicize that, not underline it.

There is no justification for supporting either side really.

1: Gay marriage is inevitable, so all this effort will only bring it around a little sooner and there is little point trying.

2: The practical result will be gay couples receiving more tax breaks and bigger welfare checks just for being married. So this isn't comparable to slavery and racism and the basis for this isn't about ending discrimination but rather allowing gay couples to discriminate against the unmarried.

3: The real problem is that people have psychologically indoctrinated themselves to get frustrated and angry over what is a non-issue.

4: Most of the political institutions behind the gay marriage movement intentionally abuse religious or egalitarian ideals to further unrelated agendas, such as promoting Chik-fil-A or Starbucks fast food chains or distracting people from more important political issues.

Do you have a favorite media pundit or someone who has convinced you to support this issue? I wouldn't be surprised if your most beloved and trusted leader received paychecks from Chik-fil-A for their work stirring up controversy (and free advertizing).

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/02/chick-fil-a-appreciatio n-day-sets-record-restaurant-chain-says/

At 6/20/13 10:12 AM, HibiscusMallow wrote: discriminate against the unmarried.

WILL YOU PEOPLE PLEASE STOP USING THIS TERRIBLE ARGUMENT!!!

Marriage discriminating against the unmarried is like walking into a McDonalds and claiming that giving out ranch cups with their nuggets is discrimination against those who got hamburgers.

An benefits recieving institution that is a choice FOR ALL is not discriminating against those who choose not to do it. However, when you cetagorically deny someone the choice of entering that institution, THEN you have discrimination.

At 6/20/13 11:08 AM, Camarohusky wrote: An benefits recieving institution that is a choice FOR ALL is not discriminating against those who choose not to do it. However, when you cetagorically deny someone the choice of entering that institution, THEN you have discrimination.

Not allowing someone to enter an institution for no good reason is discrimination and I apologize for not making that clear, but what if the institution itself is screwed up? Marriage is a personal decision, I don't see why the government should step in and provide incentives for people to marry in the first place.

At 6/20/13 11:20 AM, HibiscusMallow wrote: Marriage is a personal decision, I don't see why the government should step in and provide incentives for people to marry in the first place.

True, marriage is a personal decision. But it's also a legal one. Things we tke for granted in marriage, such as the combination of property, child custody, intestate rights, medical rights, and so on are all legal issues that are extremely intertwined with marriage. To remove the government would essentially remove ALL of these benefits that we consider integral parts of marriage.

At 6/20/13 02:30 AM, T3XT wrote: - 1861-1865: Civil War was won. Slavery was abolished. However, African-Americans are still very much discriminated against in everyday life, so
- 1880-1913: people realized something was wrong, and made changes accordingly. Voting segregation was abolished and various reforms were made to give minorities a voice.

No no no no. You skipped Reconstruction, that's when the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were ratified along with things like Civil Rights Acts and the Freedman's Bureau (which was essentially a welfare organization for the Freed Slaves). After 1876 Conservative Republicans decided that they had done enough. Now 1880-1913 could be anything but advancing of Civil Rights, in fact the opposite occurred, segregation in Public facilities was declared legal in 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson, things like Jim Crow Laws, Grandfather clauses, poll taxes etc. all of those arose in this time. This was also the Progressive Era and Civil Rights ended up playing next to no role in it aside from the African Progressives. Theodore Roosevelt sort of helped out CIvil Rights when he tried to ban Segregation in the New York School system as governor, but other than that non-Black progressives paid little to no attention to the Civil Rights movement.

Also the "Chinese Exclusion Acts" were passed during this time, this banned Chinese immigration and treated the Chinese as 2nd class citizens. Not to mention the rampant racism against the Chinese in California.

Basically, the time period you picked out was incredibely racist and the problem of racism got even worse during the time.

- 1921-1963: But, of course, that wouldn't go over so well with everybody. Protests, slimy politicians, and the Ku Klux Klan spread their message of racism. Integration supporters would eventually win, but damn, that took a long time.

Don't lump in the 1920's with anything after because the 1920's was the peak of intolerance since after the Civil War. This was the peak of the Ku Klux Klan as they gained a foothold in not just the South and the Federal government but in states outside the South, hell the biggest Ku Klux Klan chapter was in Indiana (although modern Republicans tend to label the KKK a Democrat organization, during this time they were non-partisian outside of the South and had members in both parties, like the Governor of Indiana who raped a girl and ended up crippling the Klan). Keep in mind at the time Blacks weren't the only targets, it was also Catholics and Jews. 1928 was the first time a Catholic ran on a major party ticket and he lost terribly. Why? Because the Protestant majority at the time claimed that he would be a puppet of the Pope and he would usurp the Constitution so that the Pope could control America.

You also skipped most of the 1910's, like when a Jew named Leo Frank was accused of raping a girl and hung simply because he was Jewish (and some claimed secretly a Catholic), or when during WWI Germans were targeted for lynchings and denied jobs due to their ethnicity. That's not even mentioning when Woodrow Wilson segregated government offices again.

Almost forgot to mention Japanese Internment Camps during WWII which you should probably know by now.

So no, most of the period between 1865-1945 was a period of intolerance and government expanding its discrimination against minorities. Not that of cautious empowerment.

At 6/20/13 11:55 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

True, marriage is a personal decision. But it's also a legal one. Things we tke for granted in marriage, such as the combination of property, child custody, intestate rights, medical rights, and so on are all legal issues that are extremely intertwined with marriage. To remove the government would essentially remove ALL of these benefits that we consider integral parts of marriage.

Because obviously those things can't be settled through contracts, right?

No, it HAS to be that ONE and ONLY PARTICULAR word... whose definition frequently changes throughout history and culture.

At 6/20/13 11:08 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

WILL YOU PEOPLE PLEASE STOP USING THIS TERRIBLE ARGUMENT!!!

but they'll receive benefits that unmarried couples won't and that IS WRONG! Everyone should get the SAME and EQUAL opportunities. I shouldn't require some chunk on metal on my finger and a piece of paper from the government to get the benefits that married people get.

At 6/20/13 01:30 PM, Korriken wrote: Everyone should get EQUAL opportunities.

Wait, so you're saying I'm right?

At 6/20/13 02:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Wait, so you're saying I'm right?

partially. EVERYONE deserves equality in every way. equal work, equal pay, equal opportunity, equal justice, equal benefits. the notion of having to be married at all to have the benefits of being married is a sham. a metal loop and piece of paper should not confer special privileges.

I'm all for equality, as long as the person wanting it really wants equality and not preferential treatment.

At 6/20/13 01:00 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Yeah I imagine the whole, freeing the slave thing really took its toll on them in terms of likability. Among the northern states it barley passed right??

Freeing the slaves was one thing, giving them the whole "10 acres and a mule" was another. Integrating them was another issue as well considering the North was incredibly segregated by law. Viewing them as equals was another issue as well. Basically, these are the same issues that the US had to tackle in the 1950's, the difference was that the North was still racist. What really stopped all of these were the Conservative Republicans trying to just simply end it, end slavery and bring the Southern States back in as soon as possible. There's a reason Brown v. Board of Education started in a school district in Kansas, a solid Republican state.

At 6/20/13 02:09 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

At 6/20/13 01:19 PM, Memorize wrote: Because obviously those things can't be settled through contracts, right?

Marriage is a contract.

This is true, but in my opinion it doesn't justify an entire government-sponsored status. Having a government definition of marriage is no longer relevant in today's society.

Basically it's become a one-size-fits-all contract, the terms of which can be altered by a third party without the consent of either signatory party. That seems weird, right? Plenty of people these days are signing prenuptial agreements to supersede some of the government terms, which raises the question, why not just include all of the terms in the prenuptial agreement (or "nuptial agreement" if you will) and leave it at that?

At 6/20/13 02:09 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

If you have a big ceremony and after party but don't actually file the proper paperwork, then technically you aren't married.

Based on whose definition?

Personally I think it'd make more sense to refer to the ceremonial, not-legally-binding event as 'the marriage', and call the governmental, contractual aspect of it a 'civil union' regardless of what gender the two people are. Basically it'd be handled like a dual-proprietorship type of business partnership.

How is it that you can agree with me while thinking that you don't?

At 6/20/13 06:06 PM, Elfer wrote: Basically it's become a one-size-fits-all contract, the terms of which can be altered by a third party without the consent of either signatory party.

First ff, exactly HOW can a third party unilaterally alter a marriage contract?

That seems weird, right? Plenty of people these days are signing prenuptial agreements to supersede some of the government terms, which raises the question, why not just include all of the terms in the prenuptial agreement (or "nuptial agreement" if you will) and leave it at that?

Efficiency and ease. Why make all of these various things have to be included everytime when you can just make a status that has the form contract (especially as most who get married are about as literate in legal words/consequences/common sense as I am in the language of the Xiung-Nu.

A prenup allows people to make small changes to an already established tome of rules. That way people can abrogate some of the agreement, but the entirety of the agreement does not need to be spelled out every time.

At 6/20/13 08:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote: First ff, exactly HOW can a third party unilaterally alter a marriage contract?

"Third party" being the government. One sort-of example from recently is BC, where they recently passed legislation saying that people living in a common-law relationship for two years will legally be considered to be married. That's hugely overstepping boundaries, IMO.

Efficiency and ease. Why make all of these various things have to be included everytime when you can just make a status that has the form contract (especially as most who get married are about as literate in legal words/consequences/common sense as I am in the language of the Xiung-Nu.

A prenup allows people to make small changes to an already established tome of rules. That way people can abrogate some of the agreement, but the entirety of the agreement does not need to be spelled out every time.

Simple: have a public-domain boiler-plate contract that's equivalent to the current rules. People can still get that if they want or have alterations if they want. The government doesn't need to be involved with the exception of its judicial duties to civil law.

I'll just briefly express my opinion on the original topic:

At 6/20/13 02:30 AM, T3XT wrote: "If we do that, it will go against tradition!"

"Your traditions, not mine." That should be the end of the argument. (It isn't, but it should be.)

At 6/20/13 09:04 PM, Elfer wrote: "Third party" being the government.

The government has wide power to affect terms of contracts before they are made. Nothing you speak of is unique to marriage.

One sort-of example from recently is BC, where they recently passed legislation saying that people living in a common-law relationship for two years will legally be considered to be married.

Common law marriage is better left to... drum roll... common law. It can be used offensively and defensively. However, this decision should be by one or both of the parties, not by the government.

Even then, the de jure creation of an implied contract based upon action sis very common. If two people start a business together they will have been deemed to have contracted to form a general partnership, even when they never made a contract. If I sent you something with a price on it and you pay me the price with no words exchanged between us a contract has been made, even though no words have been excahnged.

Such things are very common among contracts of all sorts.

Simple: have a public-domain boiler-plate contract that's equivalent to the current rules. People can still get that if they want or have alterations if they want.

You just defined legal marriage! If I were married by a judge no religious institution would have to accept it. You don't even need to do ANY ceremony except for the operative language required to make the contract valid.

In short, you already have what you want, just with a word you don't like.

At 6/21/13 12:00 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/20/13 09:04 PM, Elfer wrote: "Third party" being the government.

The government has wide power to affect terms of contracts before they are made. Nothing you speak of is unique to marriage.

Yeah, but the government (particularly the courts, but legislature as well) can effectively alter the terms after the contract is signed, because it's a license rather than a contract proper.

You just defined legal marriage! If I were married by a judge no religious institution would have to accept it. You don't even need to do ANY ceremony except for the operative language required to make the contract valid.

In short, you already have what you want, just with a word you don't like.

Oh, I don't give a shit about the wording (other than the fact that it seems to get people all confused about the delineation between the legal institution and the personal meaning). Having government-issued licenses leads to all sorts of complications that wouldn't exist if it was just a private contract.

For example, there are many issues rolled up into international law pertaining to family and personal law. If two dudes get married in Canada then move to Texas (which bans not only same-sex marriage but also any unions similar to marriage), does the court recognize the union in the event of a divorce? The property-sharing terms of a marriage also differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and also hinge on any cases that set precedent. A private contract with explicit terms eliminates all of those issues by making the agreement unambiguous.

Also with divorce relatively common these days, not having previously agreed terms for property splitting at the termination of a union leads to a lot of resources being wasted on court cases. Obviously there's no way to avoid custody battles, but property issues could be largely streamlined.

Basically, I think we'd be better off if the legal burden of these shenanigans was shifted to the people involved. It would also help to clarify the difference between the legal side and the religious/personal side of marriage. The government isn't really in charge of what two (or, for that matter, N) people believe marriage means to them, so why put them in charge of the property aspects as well?

It reminds me of Huckleberry Finn, where it features these two families that are constantly fighting even though they don't even remember the reason. They simply do it out of tradition. I thought this was a good message of how traditions need to be stopped. Society has changed over centuries and you could say that about practically anything ever. You could say having no laws breaks the tradition that we had while we were hunter-gatherers.

Yes, I read novels.

Honestly politics is really dumb its almost so dumb that it shouldn't even exist. If we didn't have politics we would be better off in so many levels.

The problem about change is when you grow up with a philosophy that something is wrong it is really hard for you to accept. So gay marriage is a HUGE ISSUE. Because the elders in our community grew up believing it was almost a taboo. So they associate it with other taboos. The only real problem is how long its been around like that and how new this is, its not a bad problem its just people are scared of it. So they don't go in so quickly. Thats a smart way to approach problems you don't just throw grease into a fire all at once, you dabble it in slowly and check to see for a reaction, so when a reaction occurs you can patch things up and continue putting grease into the fire.

Thats what this is. Our society is a raging fire, and gay marriage is grease. If you just throw it in without clever thought or practice, you COULD get some serious problems. So its best not to do it right away and take it slow and let people accept it on their own terms. If they ever do.

Its a delicate process changing peoples minds and its not something you should do quickly or expect to happen quickly. Sometimes it requires extremes to wake people up on wrongs in the world, but if you don't need to take extreme measures to get the job done you shouldn't. No need to provoke and seperate our country, if there is a way to bind us together and have everyone accept gay marriage i think its worth exploring, maybe we can even get hard-core religions to rewrite the bible.

At 6/22/13 12:23 PM, PMMurphy wrote: Thats what this is. Our society is a raging fire, and gay marriage is grease. If you just throw it in without clever thought or practice, you COULD get some serious problems. So its best not to do it right away and take it slow and let people accept it on their own terms. If they ever do.

In short, it's best to appease the hateful than to grant the oppressed ANYTHING? Sounds very civilized.

Thats just kinda how it works man. Its one of those things that aren't easy to fix. You can like it or not. Not everything in the world works in everyones favor. Not everything is fair. Also the solutions to solving problems aren't always ideal.

Also if you think this is a heated and controversial topic.

Wait until they start fighting rights for the mentally ill trying to get them to get away from life sentences when it comes to murder.

That will be an interesting series of court cases and back to back legal debates.

There are reports of people without family who need heart transplants. Their girlfriends/boyfriends are same sex thats all they have in life thats everyone.

They are on a death-bed set up to die in a hospital with no funds no money.

The girlfriend and boyfriend is trying everything they can to save them. They are putting all their money into it trying to save up, they stop eating they work 2 jobs. They do everything they can possibly do.

They go to file for insurance to try to claim rewards to save their spouces life. But the insurance companies all deny them because they don't have a "valid" relationship.

In the context of this scenario, if this was a heterosexual couple. Treatment would occur, funding would be brought to attention. Someone would live.

âEUoeThe less there is to justify a traditional custom, the harder it is to get rid of itâEU âEU* Mark Twain

A while back a young woman with a conservative upbringing posted on this forum that she had new light to bring to the same sex marriage discussion. After a nice introduction stating that she read books to know more of the world, I looked forward to what she had to tell. I wanted to see how much she had grown from her upbringing.

Unfortunately it was exactly the type of reasoning that you would see in an average "why gays shouldn't marry" youtube video only this time nicely written and supported by articles. Since same sex marriage has been legal in my country for some time, all the reasoning made no sense. The lack of empathy and one sided arguments really made the whole discussion detached from reality. At some point the conversation ended, if dogs could or could not sign legal documents to marry a human....grow up?

But it´s easy for me to not take her serious. Like we do when we talk to people who don´t want women to vote or racists. And they in their time could laugh at the people who were idiots before them.

But the key word is empathy here, tradition makes us able to depersonalize a problem and avoid developing empathy to the people who are worse off because of it, by making it a brainless activity aka tradition.
In the future people will laugh and look in disgust at me for the same reason.

One example is that I am not vegetarian and defended my right to eat meat in the past quite aggressively towards vegetarians.

But seeing the health problems ( not only by consumption but also the side effects of keeping those animal free of sickness thus increasing bacteria resistance to our own medicines), the tremendous live stock costs, the direct and indirect damage to the environment and the poor life conditions of these creatures makes me a bit more reluctant about jumping into vegetarian related discussions.

I am pretty sure that this and other problems that we still hide from through the power of tradition will make us look like complete barbarians in the future :D