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.
It's a discussion about whether or not we need to redefine marriage. If we are redefining marriage, why wouldn't we look at all groups who want to marry? Why are the desires of the gay community more important than the desires of polygamist communities? It makes no sense to redefine marriage and only consider one minority group that wants the definition of marriage changed to fit their agenda.
Once we determine what the purpose of legal marriage is, we will know who can marry and who cannot. Obviously, marriage is no longer about protecting women and children if we're going to allow gay marriage. Once we have our new purpose for marriage, we'll answer not only whether or not gays can marry but whether or not any other minority group that doesn't fit the traditional definition of marriage may marry as well.
We haven't answered the question yet. Until we do, there is no need to change anything.
So, what is marriage? Is it simply choosing a life partner and legally binding yourself to them? If so, we cannot restrict who marries who. Marriage must be allowed between all consenting adults and with parental consent in states that allow parents to consent.
I'm curious as to how you would redefine marriage to allow gay marriage but exclude polygamy and why you would exclude polygamy.
This is really just silly.
It's not a "redefinition of marriage"
Marriage exists.
It pertains certain rights, remedies, etc.
It's an extension of those rights to consenting adults of the same gender - giving them the same exact rights as consenting adults of a mixed gender.
Just like we provided equal rights to women, minorities, etc over time.
Just like we now allow interracial marriage - when that happened it wasn't a "redefinition" - it was allowing consenting adults of a mixed racial background to have the same rights as consenting adults of a homogeneous racial background
It's not an agenda driven concept
As mentioned in my last post, polygamy isn't exactly portable to this
Also, it's very ignorant to state that children or women don't need marriage protections just because they are in a same sex relationship ........ if a lesbian couple goes through fertilization where one carries a child, does that make her sacrifice less than that of a women married to a man? Is the child less than one that is reared by a man/women. Why are you so eager to expose them if something horrible were to happen to that family. What if the women who had the child was a stay at home mom, she isn't working and traded career mobility for family. Her partner is a high wage earner who is killed during the course of her employment. Workers compensation wouldn't extend because they aren't married, social security wouldn't extend because they aren't married, she wouldn't have access to any of the federally dictated estate/savings, etc.
It's an extension of those rights to consenting adults of the same gender - giving them the same exact rights as consenting adults of a mixed gender.
Just like we provided equal rights to women, minorities, etc over time.
Just like we now allow interracial marriage - when that happened it wasn't a "redefinition" - it was allowing consenting adults of a mixed racial background to have the same rights as consenting adults of a homogeneous racial background
It's not an agenda driven concept
As mentioned in my last post, polygamy isn't exactly portable to this
Also, it's very ignorant to state that children or women don't need marriage protections just because they are in a same sex relationship ........ if a lesbian couple goes through fertilization where one carries a child, does that make her sacrifice less than that of a women married to a man? Is the child less than one that is reared by a man/women. Why are you so eager to expose them if something horrible were to happen to that family. What if the women who had the child was a stay at home mom, she isn't working and traded career mobility for family. Her partner is a high wage earner who is killed during the course of her employment. Workers compensation wouldn't extend because they aren't married, social security wouldn't extend because they aren't married, she wouldn't have access to any of the federally dictated estate/savings, etc.
Yes, and the current definition of marriage is one man and one woman so marriage has to be redefined to include gay marriage. If I didn't need redefining, we'd already have gay marriage.
Yes, and the current definition of marriage is one man and one woman so marriage has to be redefined to include gay marriage. If I didn't need redefining, we'd already have gay marriage.
Sort of like when we redefined voting, and when we redefined property ownership?
Yes, and the current definition of marriage is one man and one woman so marriage has to be redefined to include gay marriage. If I didn't need redefining, we'd already have gay marriage.
Did it redefine the word voter to include women?
Did it redefine the word marriage to include interracial couples?
Did it redefine the word marriage to ban polygamy?
Did it redefine the word citizen to include Native Americans or blacks?
Did it redefine the word property owner to allow blacks or women to own property?
No, it included more people into the definition of those terms.
Tell me why it is okay to discriminate against gay people, but not against black people or Asians or any ethnic group? Contrary to what every bigot says, no gay person chooses to be gay, same as straight people do not choose to be straight and any person who wants to use their religion to deny anyone service is subject to the laws that forbid discrimination. Having a religious belief is not a get out of jail free card that allows them to choose who to discriminate against. Do not want to do business with the PUBLIC then do not open a business to the public, PERIOD. Tolerance is a two way street and if some christians do not want to tolerate gay people and feel the need to deny them service, then who is really being intolerant?
Sorry I can't rep you. I'm sure any anti gay marriage business owner would gladly take their money in return for a provided service or product. I wonder how many of them go to church and decide not to support gay marriage in the confines of their four church walls? If a business owner decided not to be a hypocrite and post a sign in their window excluding gay couples from entering their business, the lawsuits would put them out of business. My husband and I were not married in a church, does that mean that we are not married? Perhaps in the eyes of the church, but we are legally married. This is America, home of the free. Anyone has the right to worship, vote, express opinions and believe the way they feel is right for them. The problem comes when someone or an institution crosses the line and tries to force their belief system on everyone else. This country belongs to all people and all beliefs, religious and nonreligious. Accept, respect, live and let live.
Did it redefine the word voter to include women?
Did it redefine the word marriage to include interracial couples?
Did it redefine the word marriage to ban polygamy?
Did it redefine the word citizen to include Native Americans or blacks?
Did it redefine the word property owner to allow blacks or women to own property?
No, it included more people into the definition of those terms.
Exactly
If anything, states that are passing "protection of marriage" laws are trying to do the redefining - as in most of the tax code, law, etc there isn't reference to gender so much - it mentions married, head of household, spouse, etc .... all terms that derive from marriage
The problem has been allowing same gender adults to sign marriage contracts - the contract isn't redefined or changed in anyway, it's just removing an exclusion from who is allowed to be a party to that contract which is based solely on gender and is a fairly obvious discriminatory practice
Knowing that if/when marriage licenses are granted to same gender couples or if they come from one state where it is permissible to another state where it is silent, that it could open benefits and legitimacy to same gender marriages given that the laws/codes are not explicit in defining a marriage they try to limit the definition
Ask yourself this - in a legal sense if marriage was and always has been simply a man/women and all the laws, codes, etc are written solely to address marriage between man/women then why are states putting through legislation just now to define marriage as one man/one woman?
Wouldn't the group that is looking to pass legislation to address specifically what a marriage is be the group that is looking to "redefine" something?
Sort of like when we redefined voting, and when we redefined property ownership?
Yes. Who was allowed to vote had to be redefined as well as who could own and who was/was not property. Likewise, marriage must now be redefined. We have to decide what the purpose of marriage is and once we do that, we will know who we should legally recognize as married.
Right now, marriage is one man and one woman because men and women together can have children and children need to be protected. Women also need to be protected because they are the ones who get pregnant, give birth and take leaves (though more men are taking leaves and that is great. When it becomes just as common for a man to take paternity leave as it is a woman to take maternity leave, we should start to see gender discrimination reduce) which impacts her ability to support herself and her children.
We have to ask ourselves what the new purpose of marriage will be. Is it still to address the gender issues of men and women? (gays don't have this issue) Is it still to protect children born of the union, especially those born unintentionally? (gays are not going to find themselves trapped into parenthood because of an accidental pregnancy) If gay marriage needs to be allowed, then marriage needs to be redefined. I don't see a legal reason for marriage beyond addressing the gender wage gap between mothers and fathers and insuring that children born of the union are supported. Two adopting parents are agreeing to the adoption. It is quite possible for birth parents to become parents without intending to. Right now, if a child is born to a married couple, that child is the legal responsibility of both parties even if it turns out later that the husband is not the father. The child is protected. The husband is not but our society expects adults to pony up and care for children whether it's fair or unfair as we consider a child left without support the most unfair of all situations because the child never asked to be born.
The issues marriage addresses really center around heterosexual couples having children and how having children impacts the lives of mothers and fathers differently. Many women need a lifetime partner who can support them because they spent their younger years pregnant (women in general are discriminated against by employers simply because they are female and might have kids and take leaves/quit), on leave and raising children and not building a career and it's too late for them to start one (hence marriage of women past the child bearing age).
With DNA tests and women gaining ground on the gender wage gap, it probably is time to revisit marriage and decide if this is still something the government should be involved in. Religious marriage is something different and serves its religious purpose but that has nothing to do with legal marriage. Legal marriage addresses legal issues. We need to decide what legal issues marriage addresses today since the ones marriage was put on the books to address are becoming less and less of an issue. Especially so since marriage is falling out of favor altogether. Perhaps it is time to have a different set of laws to protect children. I'm not sure what we do with the gender wage gap but making men take paternity leave would be a great start. When men start taking leaves, it won't be just women discriminated against because they most likely will have children but that is a different debate.
We need to decide what issues that the government should be involved in are addressed by marriage. When we figure that out, we'll know whether or not we should, legally, recognize marriage and who should be married. Given that so many choose not to marry, I'm thinking that marriage no longer addresses issues people care about.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 01-07-2014 at 11:50 AM..
Tell me why it is okay to discriminate against gay people, but not against black people or Asians or any ethnic group? Contrary to what every bigot says, no gay person chooses to be gay, same as straight people do not choose to be straight and any person who wants to use their religion to deny anyone service is subject to the laws that forbid discrimination. Having a religious belief is not a get out of jail free card that allows them to choose who to discriminate against. Do not want to do business with the PUBLIC then do not open a business to the public, PERIOD. Tolerance is a two way street and if some christians do not want to tolerate gay people and feel the need to deny them service, then who is really being intolerant?
Because it's not discrimination to not legally recognize a marriage between two men or two women when marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman any more than it's discrimination to not allow me to use the men's rest room because I don't have a penis. Biology dictated the need for marriage because for heterosexual couples, sex = babies in the time before birth control and still sometimes does even with birth control. This is not an issue for homosexual couples. Homosexual couples also are not dealing with a gender wage gap resulting from the fact that only women give birth which leaves mothers less capable of supporting their children than fathers and less capable of supporting themselves into their old age (much better for my generation but we still have a generation of women who paid a heavy price because they could have become mothers.). This is getting better but we're not there yet.
You need to actually have the issues that marriage addresses in order to need to be married. Dh's first son is not his biologically but because he was married to his mother, dh became responsible for the child. In this case the mother never did disclose who the sperm donor was and that could have left the child without support except that that children born into a marriage are the responsibility of both partners.
Instead of going round and round, how about discussing the legal issues marriage addresses and why the government needs to be involved in them. That's the real question here. What is the purpose of marriage now that we have birth control, now that the gender wage gap is closing, now that women are actually allowed to work after they have kids (there was a time when they couldn't and marriage dates back to that time). Is legal marriage simply archaic? Given the number of couples who never marry, I'm starting to think it is.
In my generation most of us married but in my generation women had far less earning potential than men and marriage meant they and their children would be cared for. Today, a significant portion of women have the same earning potential as men. The fear of being left without the means to feed their kids is not a strong motivator to marry. Marriage seems to be falling out of favor, at least legally.
You have to remember that in order for a law to make sense it must address issues that the government should be involved in. Are there any such issues in this day and age addressed by marriage?
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 01-07-2014 at 11:56 AM..
Yes, Green Party member here. I support it fully. There is no reason for anyone not to support it.
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.
Sorry I can't rep you. I'm sure any anti gay marriage business owner would gladly take their money in return for a provided service or product. I wonder how many of them go to church and decide not to support gay marriage in the confines of their four church walls? If a business owner decided not to be a hypocrite and post a sign in their window excluding gay couples from entering their business, the lawsuits would put them out of business. My husband and I were not married in a church, does that mean that we are not married? Perhaps in the eyes of the church, but we are legally married. This is America, home of the free. Anyone has the right to worship, vote, express opinions and believe the way they feel is right for them. The problem comes when someone or an institution crosses the line and tries to force their belief system on everyone else. This country belongs to all people and all beliefs, religious and nonreligious. Accept, respect, live and let live.
When men start taking leaves, it won't be just women discriminated against because they most likely will have children but that is a different debate.
