Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, sure - this is semantic, isn't it? If we're headed for same-sex civil unions, probably without any workable limitation requiring the partners to be sexually-involved, then we're talking about expanding a range of civil benefits and duties from a limited group of people (opposite-sex couples, originally because the state took a vested interest in a) the furtherance of holy ordinance and b) procreative family units) to a potentially much wider group.
It might make Christians (including myself) and adherents of other faiths which teach similarly (Judaism, Islam?) more comfortable if the state didn't use terminology for these unions which sounded confusingly close to what we, in our churches, regard as a holy sacrament or however your denomination describes it. But it's a semantic issue - it's easy enough for an intelligent person to distinguish in their own thoughts: oh, we're talking "state-regulated marriage" here, not "holy matrimony". Right?
What concerns me more is the implications for public policy and especially public expenditure. Do we expand the pool of those entitled to various perks, like SSA survivor benefits? Or do we go the other way and say, no one gets any of that now: from now on there are no civil benefits defined as deriving from marriage.
(dont tell anyone but on this I might be getting liberal? LOL.
because my idea would in fact expand SS benifits. Bottom line however, if we are going to say the state has a vested interest in this kind of relationship, then the state is not treating everyone as equals.
I think something like Social Security benifits becomes difficult. in reality those that pay into the system, ought to have some control on the return. Thus the opening for a partner to get access to that. Especially a partner that does not work and therefore does not qualify for SS Benifits on their own.
Or as with may couples, where one is a high earner and the other not so much.
if we just extend benifits to same sex partners, then it is just symantics. Changing the entire nature of the thing is vastly different. two sisters who never married could be Primary Relationship partners and not be anything other than normal sisters who are roomates. etc.
My view comes from two clear perspectives that I will not let go of.
The state has no business being involved in religous matters and Marriage has been a religious insitution far longer than it has been a "state" institution.
The constitution does not allow the state to treat gay and straight people differently.
There are none. However, if those civil benefits are to be extended beyond a clearly defined class (traditionally, the ability to procreate within the partnership), then likewise there is no objective reason to deny such benefits to any partnership. Two brothers, for instance, or two elderly friends who live with each other celibately for mutual aid and companionship.
Except that, with your example, the logic of "ability to procreate" could define a brother/sister relationship. Correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
This is logically inescapable: there is no other criteria with which to replace "ability to procreate" as the definition limiting marriage eligibility. We can assume that in future, the civil benefits of marriage will be available to any two adults.
Why does there need to be criteria?
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
But obviously this will have distinct and significant policy implications. Expanding the range of people eligible for the civil benefits presently confined to same-sex couples will have ramifications on everything from the tax code to the sustainability of Social Security and Medicare.
So basically, homosexual couples should continue to carry the burden of paying taxes toward a system that they will never be given access to.
That's pretty demeaning and abusive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
Which means, in all probability, that the expansion of marriage benefits to all adults will either require the curtailing of those benefits, or a proportionate increase in taxes.
If allowing everyone the ability to exercise use of the same system requires an overhaul of the system, then perhaps it needs to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
The law doesn't inquire into the question of fertility; it is one of our legal fictions: two people of opposite sex are held to be eligible to procreate, and therefore eligible to marry. Consanguinity is an exception which does not disprove the rule.
Ability to procreate should never be requirement.
Unless you want to stop old and/or infertile couples from marrying. Oh, and open marriage to brother/sister relationships.
Otherwise, you're being subjectively hypocritical. And subjective hypocrisy should not a law make.
But obviously this will have distinct and significant policy implications. Expanding the range of people eligible for the civil benefits presently confined to same-sex couples will have ramifications on everything from the tax code to the sustainability of Social Security and Medicare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator
So basically, homosexual couples should continue to carry the burden of paying taxes toward a system that they will never be given access to.
That's pretty demeaning and abusive.
I dont mean to speak for Squarian, but the above was in reply to something I said, where i suggested a change in law that allows any two people to create a Primary Relationship contract. Squarian was not restricing the comment to expansion to the 2% of gay people that might potentially become married, but to the entire nation, and any two people who might enter such a contract.
He rightly sees that my suggestion would allow any two people, regarless of their sexual preference, or even if they were or were not in a relationship that had a sexual component. So he is not being demaning or abusive. He is rightly pointing out that expanding this to include everyone for any reason to create such a relationship would expand government services pretty drastically.
What I am trying to do, and what Squarian and I are talking about, is moving beyond just a "gay straight" conversation to a national conversation on what marriage is, and how the state looks at it.
Hey, I dont care about gay marriage, or even marriage for that matter....but I was just thinking: I noticed a lot of religious people, or I guess just opponents of gay marriage in general feel that gays and straight proponents of gay marriage are trying to redefine marriage. But redefinition of the word marriage couldnt be the objective of gay marriage proponents in politics. Because if "redefinition" of the word marriage is the objective, then that means redefinition of words is desirable or at least acceptable in general, regardless of its constitutional relevance...meaning that if we can redefine the word marriage to mean another thing, then we can redefine the word bigot, or racist, or love or hate or any other word to mean anything any individual or minority of people wants it to mean, which would not be an effective political move.
I dont mean to speak for Squarian, but the above was in reply to something I said, where i suggested a change in law that allows any two people to create a Primary Relationship contract. Squarian was not restricing the comment to expansion to the 2% of gay people that might potentially become married, but to the entire nation, and any two people who might enter such a contract.
He rightly sees that my suggestion would allow any two people, regarless of their sexual preference, or even if they were or were not in a relationship that had a sexual component. So he is not being demaning or abusive. He is rightly pointing out that expanding this to include everyone for any reason to create such a relationship would expand government services pretty drastically.
What I am trying to do, and what Squarian and I are talking about, is moving beyond just a "gay straight" conversation to a national conversation on what marriage is, and how the state looks at it.
Perhaps I should be explicit in my response:
Squarian has a "concern" that people outside of a relationship would abuse "marriage" contracts if they were open to two adults regardless of gender.
His concern ignores that can people do this already. Thing is, the percentage of persons/friends (of opposite genders) who use marriage strictly for benefits without a relationship is tiny. And it's not bankrupting the country. So what objective reasoning would lead to the conclusion that opening up marriage contracts to include same-sex partners would thus create such a huge burden?
Without an objective reasoning, his concern is but a logical fallacy that continues the system of homosexual couples paying into things like Social Security, but never being able to use them the same as heterosexuals.
That is because you have been brainwashed by the left to think that marriage has no significant meaning.
What a bunch of disingenuous drivel. If a person felt mariage had no "significant meaning" then why would they fight for equality in marriage?
It would seem that there is little "significant meaning" to marriage among heterosexual couples, where cheating and divorce are more the norm than stability and long-lasting marital relationships, right?
Let's bear in mind these two little facts whilst on the subject:
1. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever--not one--to oppose same sex marriage that isn't rooted in hatred, ignorance, fear, bigotry, or some combination of those four things.
2. To preclude consensual adult couples from marrying based solely on their gender is the very definition of bigotry and discrimination.
Which was almost never. Funny how the state in Britain got involved in 1753 when estate planning and legtimacy became an issue. What exactly is an illegitimate child anyway? and why did Sparta , the joy ridding homosexual state that it was, have this link to legitimacy of offspring? Pray tell.
So once again I am voting no to collecting the benefits of the social safety net from your sex buddies. I mean why not allow twins a social safety net union? Is their not inseparable love and affection? Here is my social security benefit postmortem, sex pal.
Which was almost never. Funny how the state in Britain got involved in 1753 when estate planning and legtimacy became an issue. What exactly is an illegitimate child anyway? and why did Sparta , the joy ridding homosexual state that it was, have this link to legitimacy of offspring? Pray tell.
So once again I am voting no to collecting the benefits of the social safety net from your sex buddies. I mean why not allow twins a social safety net union? Is their not inseparable love and affection? Here is my social security benefit postmortem, sex pal.
So basically, any relationship that doesn't meet your "standards" is nothing more than "sex buddies" regardless of whether or not sex is actually taking place.
What objective reasoning can you give as to why your standards of a relationship should be backed by law?
Squarian has a "concern" that people outside of a relationship would abuse "marriage" contracts if they were open to two adults regardless of gender.
His concern ignores that can people do this already. Thing is, the percentage of persons/friends (of opposite genders) who use marriage strictly for benefits without a relationship is tiny. And it's not bankrupting the country. So what objective reasoning would lead to the conclusion that opening up marriage contracts to include same-sex partners would thus create such a huge burden?
Without an objective reasoning, his concern is but a logical fallacy that continues the system of homosexual couples paying into things like Social Security, but never being able to use them the same as heterosexuals.
I think I can answer your question why would you an uptick? because my proposal (which our friend was responding to) would GET RID of the idea of Marriage as it relates to the state entirely.
It would be replaced by simple contract law, that would allow any two people for any reason to join a Primary Relationship contract. That alone could drive up usage by a large amount.
Squarian and I were not talking about gay marriage. we were talking about redefining how the state deals with everyone. I really dont know exactly where he falls in the discussion, but you are reading in something that doesnt exist, by picking his replies to my radical proposal as somehow anti-gay.
So basically, any relationship that doesn't meet your "standards" is nothing more than "sex buddies" regardless of whether or not sex is actually taking place.
No relationship meets that standard unless it engaged in the rigorous and important act of creating new citizens.
Quote:
What objective reasoning can you give as to why your standards of a relationship should be backed by law?
Legal parenthood, natural or adopted. Pretty substantial wouldn't ya say?
That is unless you have a clever plan to destroy the legal profession by the elimination of probate? I am listening and possibly interested. However I fear what we will have is fraud, abuse, fake relations and arbitrary enforcement. Shall I kiss my roommate in court?
So sorry, gotta dump the who relationship thing to something tangible, not because you want to be a proxy to social freebies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
