U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-10-2013, 12:59 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
9,033 posts, read 8,758,128 times
Reputation: 5666

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
As do I.
Including gay people?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-10-2013, 12:59 PM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,176,253 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
This is because you don't understand what the purpose of marriage is - and lends credence to my previous assertion that you see this in terms of benefits rather than equality.

Marriage was intended to join a man and a woman together for the purpose of providing the foundation for a family. Since the family is the foundation of society, it is important that it be stable - and thus an element of committment must be in place for the family to remain intact. Hence - marriage. The married couple vowed to commit to each other for a lifetime.
Why should I - and everybody else - be governed by your particular religious and traditional conceptions of familiar constructs? We don't live in a theocracy (although I imagine you wish we did).

Quote:
My proposal is simply an acknowledgement of this change in values and a compromise that allows everyone to commit civilly without having to argue over the definition of marriage.

The contract does not have to "do anything" in order to be valid - it is a contract of commitment and that is enough. Like any other contract, reasonable terms can be agreed upon, and if for example, you wanted to include language that distributed property, that could be done.

What exactly is it that you want the contract to "do" that can't be done without government sanction?
Oh, so you just think we should do away with civil marriage legal framework and let couples construct any contract they want to? That seems very strange to me. First, can't any unmarried (and not wanting to get married) couple already do that when it comes to things like property distribution?

And how would you deal with the many, many legal rights of marriage that could not be dealt with by personal contracts between 2 people? I'm think things like spousal immigration visas, military wives being able to live in base housing and shop at the commissary, etc. Your "compromise" seems woefully inadequate, unless of course you want to just do away with these rights and start deporting foreign born spouses and throwing military wives out of base housing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 01:12 PM
 
Location: South Minneapolis
4,766 posts, read 5,443,625 times
Reputation: 7014
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Here you go again conflating religious or otherwise traditional marriages with civil marriages (and I wholeheartedly disagree with the second sentence I bolded and underlined - that describes a theocracy).

The "gay marriage" debate in the US is over civil marriage within the law. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about about whatever marriage means to you in your particular religious or cultural tradition. I'm not talking about some sort of unchanging throughout the eons "Marriage is what it is" concept. I'm talking about a civil, secular, legal contract that forms joint legal entities of two people and confers to them a collection of rights and responsibilities that just so happens to be called "marriage" within our laws. That kind of marriage is whatever we decide it to be. It can be changed at anytime, even up to the point of being gotten rid of.

And sure, the gay parents from your hypothetical would still BE the parents of the kids regardless of whether their jurisdiction provides them with the legal benefits and responsibilities it provides to heterosexual parents. I was simply pointing out that your discriminatory hypothetical is a perfect illustration of why gay couples should have equal access to marriage law.
There is a clear contradiction in your thinking revealed by your statements that marriage can be changed by law "up to the point of being gotten rid of," but the parents in my hypothetical "would still be the parents" even when the law says they aren't.

In the first, the law is the determinative factor, yet in the second it irrelevant, and your continued attempts to introduce religion into the mix are only further evidence of muddied thinking. I think you need to think this through to see why it is you believe what you believe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 01:21 PM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,176,253 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenfield View Post
There is a clear contradiction in your thinking revealed by your statements that marriage can be changed by law "up to the point of being gotten rid of," but the parents in my hypothetical "would still be the parents" even when the law says they aren't.

In the first, the law is the determinative factor, yet in the second it irrelevant, and your continued attempts to introduce religion into the mix are only further evidence of muddied thinking. I think you need to think this through to see why it is you believe what you believe.
Let me revise my answer a little bit - to be honest, I didn't closely read your initial hypothetical since it was a later addition via an edit and I'd already responded to what you first posted.

If the law in fact explicitly stated two gay people could not be parents (that's the part I kinda skimmed over) and required that any children under their care be removed , then no, these hypothetical gays would not be the legal parents of the child. They would be two criminals (unjustly defined as such in my evaluation) illegally acting as parents in a willful violation of the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 01:33 PM
 
Location: South Minneapolis
4,766 posts, read 5,443,625 times
Reputation: 7014
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Let me revise my answer a little bit - to be honest, I didn't closely read your initial hypothetical since it was a later addition via an edit and I'd already responded to what you first posted.

If the law in fact explicitly stated two gay people could not be parents (that's the part I kinda skimmed over) and required that any children under their care be removed , then no, these hypothetical gays would not be the legal parents of the child. They would be two criminals (unjustly defined as such in my evaluation) illegally acting as parents in a willful violation of the law.
Thank you very much for your response. This is where we have a fundamental and, I believe, irreconcilable difference. I would say that they are the children's parents and that the law cannot change that. Being a parent means more than being a legal guardian. There are certain conditions and circumstances that dictate this. There must be love, caring, support, all of that, but one thing that absolutely must be present is that in the initial stages of the relationship, one party must be an adult and one must be a child. The law cannot determine this relationship; that it exists is self evident.

And that is my point with respect to marriage. It is not determined by legal status, and a change in legal status or terminology cannot make something that is not marriage into marriage. What is cannot be taken away by law, but it also cannot be granted by law.

We disagree on that point, but now we disagree on a clear basis. Thank you for the discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 01:53 PM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,176,253 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenfield View Post
And that is my point with respect to marriage. It is not determined by legal status, and a change in legal status or terminology cannot make something that is not marriage into marriage. What is cannot be taken away by law, but it also cannot be granted by law.

We disagree on that point, but now we disagree on a clear basis. Thank you for the discussion.
Sure, a religious or traditional marriage is not determined in any way whatsoever by legal status. Anybody in this country can get any kind of church or familiar marriage they want (except that some states have on the books never-enforced private association polygamy laws that I find to be egregiously unconstitutional). Any married couple can keep their marriage strictly within their particular traditions and not file paperwork with the state. And I do use the word particular because marriage means many different things to different people, different religions, and different cultures. There is not one "marriage is what it is" concept like you seem to think there is.

But for those who want to form a legally supported, joint entity that comes with a collection of rights and responsibilities, they have the option of agreeing to a governmentally enforceable civil marriage contract. That type of marriage IS ENTIRELY DETERMINED by the law, including its existence or non-existence. And as a contract defined by law, it is governed by to our Constitution which says that our laws must treat all equally and cannot discriminate. Civil marriage law is beholden to the Constitution, not anyone's particular understanding of what marriage means in his or her religion or culture.

Which brings me back to what I keep saying. I'm talking about civil marriage, whereas it seems to me you're conflating religious or otherwise traditional marriage with civil marriages. The two are separate things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,223 posts, read 1,594,297 times
Reputation: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
Read this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/fa...=weddings&_r=0

My point to you conservatives is this: not all gays fit the stereotype you have of some immoral promiscuous gigolos who hang out in bath houses.

Here are two men who are highly educated and accomplished in their fields. And they demonstrate no less long-term commitment and love for each other than heterosexual couples...probably more, if you consider the 50% divorce rate.

So why would I or anyone else look down on their relationship? By all accounts, they are more admirable as individuals and as a couple than many conservative heterosexuals who disparage them.
Not all conservatives fit the stereotype as someone who believes all gays are promiscuous. Some of them realize that while statistically yes, most people who engage in this perverse lifestyle are prone to promiscuity, drug use and diseases associated with these activities this by no means defines everyone in this demographic.

As for divorce rates, I would like to see a 'valid' study examining the rise of the gay lifestyle in American society alongside the rise in divorce and social issues plaguing teens and young adults.

I think someone brave enough to buck group-think from the ivory tower might find some interesting parallels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 02:16 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,172 posts, read 7,049,605 times
Reputation: 4175
If you want to get serious about it the constitution doesn't provide for the concept of marriage. The fact that married people receive preferential treatment is technically unconstitutional.

In 1776 marriage was entirely religious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 02:20 PM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,176,253 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
If you want to get serious about it the constitution doesn't provide for the concept of marriage. The fact that married people receive preferential treatment is technically unconstitutional.

In 1776 marriage was entirely religious.
I disagree with this assessment. Sure, there is nothing in the Constitution about marriage, but I don't see anything there that prevents states from crafting their own civil marriage laws.

Do you find it "technically unconstitutional" that people who file for a license and pass a simple test receive preferential treatment when it comes to driving on roadways?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,172 posts, read 7,049,605 times
Reputation: 4175
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
I disagree with this assessment. Sure, there is nothing in the Constitution about marriage, but I don't see anything there that prevents states from crafting their own civil marriage laws.

Do you find it "technically unconstitutional" that people who file for a license and pass a simple test receive preferential treatment when it comes to driving on roadways?
The state's have a right to do what they please under the constitution as long as they don't violate some other section of the constitution in the process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:27 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top