CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MrFun

Apparently, the thread is no longer about equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

Now, it's about incestuous relationships.

Why do you care? Either way, it's about you.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by MrFun
Are you seriously saying that Slowwy holds the keys to enlightenment??

Have you ever doubted it?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Evidence:

"The Westermarck effect is named after the Finnish anthropolgist, Edward Westermarck who in his "The History of Human Marriage" (1891) proposed the following theory; that humans avoid mating with individuals with whom they have been closely associated in childhood.

An interesting theory but I guess that ignores the old marrying the girl next door idea... which does happen.

Sigmund Freud dismissed this idea as "preposterous" and advanced a different hyothesis, namely that heterosexual lust between family members was the norm; "The first choice of object in mankind is regularly an incestous one, directed to the mother and sister of men, and the most stringent prohibitions are required to prevent this sustained infantile tendency from being carried into effect." James Fraser, the author of "The Golden Bough" agreed with Freud, arguing that if the Westermarck effect existed there would no need of an incest taboo, and since such taboos were widespread there was no effect.

Yep... you can always count on Freud to say it's all about your mother

So the ideas of Westermarck were rejected and those of Sigmund Freud became the orthodox view until the late twentieth century when evidence began emerging as to which of the two competing theories were correct.

Maybe there was a little truth in each theory

Arthur Wolf carried out a study of 14,200 Taiwanese minor marriages between 1957 and 1995. (A minor marriage is a Chinese custom by which a family adopts an infant girl, with the intention of later marrying the girl to their son.) Wolf discovered that the children in question often strongly resisted the idea of marrying when they were of age, that they were three times likely to become divorced, produced 40% fewer children, and the wives were three times more likely to commit adultery. He identified the key factor as the closeness of the relationship during the first thirty months of the lives of both partners. The more time they had spent together during those crucial first thirty months, the more likely they were to reject the idea of marriage and more likely any subsequent marriage would fail.

First... what does this really prove. This was almost a slavery type arrangement, let's give away our useless daughters and force them to marry some boy in another family.

Let's see... they stronly resisted the idea of marrying when they were age... DUHHHHH... We aren't talking consential here, it was an implied contract. Is anybody surprised many of the woman rejected the idea.

Hmmm... and they were three times more likely to get a divorce... No surprise here, since the marriages were forced in the first place.

Oh, and even better, they were three times more likely to commit adultry... another REAL SURPRISE considering they were forced to marry somebody they didn't love.

And less children, again, no surprise here. Doing a study like this is kind of asking a horny guy if he wants sex... we all know what the majority of them will answer

But more important, what does this prove except the concept that prearranged slave based marriages is a bad idea. This study really has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. You might claim that it proves people have no interest in people that they grew up with... but nowhere does it state that ALL of the woman hated the relationship. I'm sure some did.
There are no absolutes here

Further evidence arose with the work of Joseph Shepher in 1960s in Israeli Kibbutzim. There children where raised collectively in creches, and Shepher found that not only did children raised in such an enviroment not marry within their kibbutz peer group, but that there were no instances of any sexual contact whatsover between peer group members.

Again, I have to laugh. Another "study" that has nothing to do with what we were discussing. You might argue that kids brought up in a highly religious enviornment, and who were watched closely at all times, didn't want to marry with the kibbutz, but that's not what I would call a normal situation. And last, does anybody really think that there was NO SEXUAL CONTACT WHATSOEVER HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I'm sure there was none that anybody was willing to admit to, and I'm sure any that occured was done in front of the adults or the researcher

The evidence therefore shows that Sigmund Freud was wrong and that Edward Westermarck was correct. Science has yet to determine how the Westermack effect originated and neither has the stimulus that triggers the effect been pinpointed, but it is reasonable to now state that humanity operates by a simple rule of thumb whereby individuals inherently reject the idea of sexual intercourse with those with whom they have been in close contact with in early childood."

Frankly... the studies you show don't PROVE any such absolute. There are many cases of people marrying the girl next door which alone proves that any such absolute statement is incorrect.

So what do these studies really prove... nothing.

They have nothing to do with emotional damage occuring in a consential relationship between two relatives... and they don't even prove that people who hang out together when they are young will never want sex with each other.

So if this is the best you can do....

[TCO]

Ming:

He contributed studies and thoughts. Of course they are not compelling. These are tricky issues. But it's still a step up from endless juvenile arguments from theory. So, while noting the non-conclusiveness, you ought to appreciate the effort, and DIAL BACK on the mocking smilies.

[Ming]

I would appreciate it if the studies had been focused on the issues he meant for them to prove... but they weren't.

If that was the best he could find, and if he really thinks those studies prove his point... the mocking smiles were indeed appropriate considering he is the one that claims hes the only scientist here.

[Vesayen]

I do not know if this was said yet and I do not want to read 500 posts to find out......

California ELECTS it's judges, they are not appointed. Many of the judges who made this decision recieved over 70% of the vote.

We do not have judges to pass popular laws or do the popular will. The point of the judiciary is to interpret and make the law workable. Anyone who says this is overturning the will of the people do not understand how the govmt works. Instead of a law passed by refferendum, they would of needed an amendment to the California state constitution, which if they did, the court would not be able to overturn.

They elect appeal court judges which has the mandate to "make sure all laws which are passed line up with the state constitution".

Summary: Complainers and opponents of this have no idea what they are talking about or how the system works.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Vesayen
California ELECTS it's judges, they are not appointed. Many of the judges who made this decision recieved over 70% of the vote.

The justices are appointed to twelve year terms by the Governor of California.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_California

[Vesayen]

Retention Votes
After justices are appointed, they are subject to a retention vote at the next general election, and thereafter each twelve years.

The electorate has occasionally exercised the power not to retain justices; Chief Justice Rose Bird and Associate Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin were removed in 1986 because they opposed capital punishment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_California

Reading is fun!

It is similar to the way many position in the federal gvmt work, they are appointed by some officer and then confirmed by the people via the legislature.

California has a similar process, they are appointed but then must be confirmed by the populace. This is not judicial activism, the law passed violated the constitution, the judges ruled the right way.

[asleepathewheel]

rule of thumb: its not judicial activism if you agree with the ruling.

I'd hardly call a retention vote the equivalent of them being elected. I'd be curious to see how many weren't retained in the history of the court, my guess would be an exceedingly small number.

[Aeson]

I suppose we'd prefer judicial... um... inactivism?

If I'm ever a judge I'll just pass on ruling on anything. That's clearly the people's will.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by Aeson
I suppose we'd prefer judicial... um... inactivism?

If I'm ever a judge I'll just pass on ruling on anything. That's clearly the people's will.

So being a Judge (if you were) - Your reason for being in your position would be???

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Wittlich
So being a Judge (if you were) - Your reason for being in your position would be???

Inconclusive evidence to support a ruling either way. *takes a nap*

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Aeson
I suppose we'd prefer judicial... um... inactivism?

If I'm ever a judge I'll just pass on ruling on anything. That's clearly the people's will.

I would say a fair number of people would prefer total governmental inactivism to what they're getting, not just from the judiciary.

[Vesayen]

Marriage being a contract sanctioned by the gvmt, that means no heterosexual marriages either .

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Wezil


Have you ever doubted it?

I never thought Slowwy and word "enlightenment" could be used positively, in the same sentence.