A Rant.

[NotPublished]

Can't we just peform unOfficial marriages with the Pope Cards. If a Civil Union is all it takes to be recongised by Law (Becaue thats what it is mostly about right?), does it matter what method of union is done?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think we should ban marriage in all states.

THIS! 





I also think we should ban government in all states, but I won't win that argument

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No, they'd just go after Gays wanting to adopt.

There are simply too many reasons that government recognizes marriages (taxes, survivor benefits, etc).

They do already, so that's not an issue.  I guess they might get more vocal on it rather than give their blowholes a rest, but that's beside the point.

as far as the second statement, i would say that the 'reasons' are not viable excuses from what i've seen.  

Really?  So, a man works, and his wife looks after the house, etc.  Then the man retires on SS.  Then he dies.

So we starve the wife, right?

apart from the fact that i'd get rid of SS if i had my druthers, i'd say that a person should be able to set whomever they want as their beneficiary for those benefits...
and to get it out of the way, i'd say an analogous thing for taxes, hospital visits, inheritance, etc.

Sure, we should get rid of SS.  The poor should work until they die.  If they can't work, they should starve.

Right?

uh-huh....

So you're saying the reason we need Govt. approval of whether two people get married is because if they didn't we wouldn't be able to have the forced ponzi scheme that keeps poor people from starving?

not buying it.  I think people should be able to marry if they choose with it being solely between themselves, "god", and their family/friends.
I also think that we should not be forced to rob peter to pay paul, and call it a 'safety net'...

So poor people should starve.  Gotcha.

[Kai]

Kai,
what is your position on legal recognition of marriage in general?
do you think that ending govt. involvement in the institution would be desirable, or is it impossible, shortsighted, or improper in some way?

It seems to me that if the govt. got out of the "you're married, and you're not" business, the whole issue would be moot, and there would be once less thing for bigots to flap their gums about...

Historically, societal recognition of union has been significant, whether there was a legal definition of it or not. There are few cultures on this planet that do not recognize marriage in some form. That being said, I know your question was about legal recognition.

The original reason that marriage was legally delt with was I think a matter of inheritance. This is also the reason that polygamy (whether polygyny or polyandry or a mixture) has been such a problem. Sure, people will claim it's on moral grounds, but really it's a matter of, if there are multiple spouses and many children it's much harder to legally divide up inheritance. This would be easily solved by will writing and revising, but getting people to do this is another matter. To that point, ending of legal marriage would be undesireable, though the rules should be changed so that any two people over a certain age can marry. And divorce, for that matter; I find it funny how many people standing behind the Institution of Straight Marriage forget about the divorce rates.

Getting rid of legal definitions of marriage maybe would be shortsighted to a point, and IMO impossible in this culture, but certainly not improper. I mean, who's definition of propriety are you gonna go by? A single christian denomination? The greater community of Islam? The Unitarian Universalists? Orthodox Judaism? Hinduism? Those are the largest religions in this country and none of them agree on definitions of marriage. And by the words of the founders this country obviously wasn't founded in christianity, so you can't just automatically fall back on that. And then you have all the nonreligious ideas of what is proper in marriage and what is not.

[Pariah]

See I'm the exact opposite. I have a bit of a problem with couples showing ridiculous amounts of public affection and I've noticed that the trend of what pisses me off tends to lean towards when gay people do it and that kind of freaks me out because I like to consider myself open-minded. Not too much but a bit. However I don't think that the government should be pull over the discrimination of it's citizens into the government.

[Elder Iptuous]

I don't see why inheritance can't be dealt with separately from marriage...

as you pointed out, it can be dealt with by explicitly writing desires in a will.  failing that, why couldn't the assets of the deceased be treated under the legal framework for unowned/abandoned property?

So, if we entertain the improbable notion that marriage were simply done away with in a legal sense, what do you think the reaction of the gay community would be?  would they be amused that they gained equality by denying hetersexual unions their special privileges, or would they be upset that they didn't get them?
i guess that gets at whether they are ultimately seeking the specific benefits for their sake, or equality for its sake...

(I'm glad you replied. i was afraid i was jacking your thread improperly)

[Kai]

See I'm the exact opposite. I have a bit of a problem with couples showing ridiculous amounts of public affection and I've noticed that the trend of what pisses me off tends to lean towards when gay people do it and that kind of freaks me out because I like to consider myself open-minded. Not too much but a bit. However I don't think that the government should be pull over the discrimination of it's citizens into the government.

Seeing other people being affectionate makes you feel uncomfortable? Sounds like a personal problem of emotional/sexual maturity/security.

[Kai]

I don't see why inheritance can't be dealt with separately from marriage...

as you pointed out, it can be dealt with by explicitly writing desires in a will.  failing that, why couldn't the assets of the deceased be treated under the legal framework for unowned/abandoned property?

So, if we entertain the improbable notion that marriage were simply done away with in a legal sense, what do you think the reaction of the gay community would be?  would they be amused that they gained equality by denying hetersexual unions their special privileges, or would they be upset that they didn't get them?
i guess that gets at whether they are ultimately seeking the specific benefits for their sake, or equality for its sake...

(I'm glad you replied. i was afraid i was jacking your thread improperly)

1) Because people feel entitled, especially when it comes to money, and frankly there's nothing wrong with this within a family group, whether that's a uncle and his three nephews and niece, a traditional nuclear family, a gay couple, or even a group of friends who have lived communally in the same house for the past 30 years.

2) I don't particularly care what the reaction of the gay community would be. I personally would have a problem with it.

3) Equality is worth it, no matter what the reasons of some particular group are. The prime exception is in education, where some hypotheses are better supported than others and time is limited, so you want the kids learning the useful stuff and not bullshit. Why should I care whether the "gay community" whatever the hell that is would be smug about it?

[BabylonHoruv]

I was arguging with a friend about it, and she keeps insisting that you are removing a special bond created by the Mother - since she carried the baby and all. While I agree with it to a point. I argued back what about the children who don't have mums or due to circumstance want nothing to do with her - and the special bond isn't exclusive to the mum only - I am sure there are children who are very close to their dads and want nothing with mum.

She said I wasn't listening, and I said the same back .. She's using Science as her reasoning. I'm saying nothing is set in stone, and times are changing. Now I refuse to argue any further ...

I think that there is definitely a valid point there,  not only the bond of actually being carried in someone's womb but also breastfeeding, which is a very strong imprinting activity.  However breastfeeding can be simulated pretty convincingly with a harness.  Carrying someone in a womb can't (yet) but that just means that the goal is the best possible situation, rather than the ideal situation.  The best possible situation is often going to involve same sex couples raising children.

I personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple, but that is far from the most important part of it, that those two are materially and emotionally able to provide fro the child is more important, that they have a relationship that will give the child a healthy model for adult relationships also.  I also think that a supportive community surrounding the parenting couple is an important factor and more so than the sex or gender of the parents.

Homosexual parents should not (usually) be compared to heterosexual parents on a one to one basis because they are adopting the children.  There are exceptions but that is the general rule.  If homosexual parents are compared to heterosexual ones as adoptive parents they end up coming out as superior in a lot of categories, they are usually better off financially, the incidences of child abuse tend to be lower, and the children tend to grow up more aware and accepting of alternate lifestyle choices of all kinds.

Also, as Dot brought up, sexuality is not the only metric that can be considered.  A pair of sisters who are both heterosexual but not in relationships could adopt a child together.  There are a lot of other possible combinations, that one is just easy.

[BabylonHoruv]

Kai,
what is your position on legal recognition of marriage in general?
do you think that ending govt. involvement in the institution would be desirable, or is it impossible, shortsighted, or improper in some way?

It seems to me that if the govt. got out of the "you're married, and you're not" business, the whole issue would be moot, and there would be once less thing for bigots to flap their gums about...

There are some very important things covered by marriage that would be a hassle to put together otherwise.  Visitation rights and other next of kin issues that are not even involved with financial matters (which seem to be the main concern of anti-gay marriage folks who aren't motivated purely by religion) I'm in favor of getting government out of everything, but until they are out of all of the things affected by a marriage I'd prefer they stay involved in marriage.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

as you pointed out, it can be dealt with by explicitly writing desires in a will.  failing that, why couldn't the assets of the deceased be treated under the legal framework for unowned/abandoned property?

Nice.  So everything Joe works for reverts to the state - or salvagers - when he dies.

That's awesome.  Makes me want to run right out and take part in the economy.

[Elder Iptuous]

as you pointed out, it can be dealt with by explicitly writing desires in a will.  failing that, why couldn't the assets of the deceased be treated under the legal framework for unowned/abandoned property?

Nice.  So everything Joe works for reverts to the state - or salvagers - when he dies.

That's awesome.  Makes me want to run right out and take part in the economy.

I don't know...
Is that what the laws say for unowned/abandoned property?

If so, that would certainly make me want to make my will explicitly known.
that would alleviate so much squabbling that ensues when somebody dies without doing such a thing...

[Kai]

I personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple

Why?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

as you pointed out, it can be dealt with by explicitly writing desires in a will.  failing that, why couldn't the assets of the deceased be treated under the legal framework for unowned/abandoned property?

Nice.  So everything Joe works for reverts to the state - or salvagers - when he dies.

That's awesome.  Makes me want to run right out and take part in the economy.

I don't know...
Is that what the laws say for unowned/abandoned property?

If so, that would certainly make me want to make my will explicitly known.
that would alleviate so much squabbling that ensues when somebody dies without doing such a thing...

How very nice that you can afford such luxuries.  However, with the mode income of the United States being a whopping $19,500/year (before the recession, it is likely worse now), the majority of families cannot afford to lay out money on anything more than the bare cost of living...which makes your notion all the more horrible, when the state would be able to take what little a family DOES have, for the crime of being poor.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple,

Yeah, that 50%+ divorce rate is ideal, all right.