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.
As long as two (or more) people are consenting and happy with the arrangement, it is quite frankly none of my business. Nor yours, nor anyone else's, especially the government.
Incorrect. As long as marriage affects things like taxes, inheritance, insurance, etc it is society's business. Marriage is a contract with ramifications and it is the government's job to enforce contracts. Therefore marriage is their business. You can make the argument that government should allow anybody to marry who wants to if you want. That's valid. But declaring it is none of the government's business is not valid.
Quote:
Why does the RW want less government in people's lives unless the people are different from them?
Also invalid. This same attempt at a "gotcha" is used for nearly everything. "If the right wing wants smaller government, then how can they support X" Just insert your favorite government function, law, government agency, or expenditure of public funds in place of X and presto, instant argument. One size fits all. Unfortunately, they're all wrong. It doesn't work that way since wanting smaller government in general doesn't require supporting the cut of any given specific thing.
Quote:
What they actually mean is that they want a band of hired thugs to make everyone conform to their personal beliefs.
You don't know what they "actually" mean since you aren't them. Especially when it involves telling someone they don't really want or mean what they explicitly say they do want or mean. That's pure strawman argument.
Quote:
Gay marriage will be the law of the land in ten years. Deal with it, and congratulate your gay friends when they decide to marry.
Why should they deal with it? If it looked like a law was going to be passed that you felt was wrong, would you just deal with it? Or would you expect the right to advocate for what you felt was best?
Quote:
Yes, you do have gay friends. You probably don't know it yet, but you do.
Yes I have gay friends. A few of them are married. I fully support gay marriage. I support the same end goal that you support, but I don't support the way you try to argue for it. Making a case for gay marriage doesn't need to involve condescension or strawman arguments.
How so. Instead of attacking the messenger, attack the message. Judging by your hostility, you support redefining marriage. Do you support consensual incest. Why or why not? Thanks
Do you support opposite-sex marriage? If so, by your logic, then we can ask if you support consensual incest between a father and a daughter, or between a mother and a son, or between a brother and a sister. That's YOUR logic, which is attempting to connect incest with same-sex marriage, even though there is no connection.
Rational people understand that there is a real reason to be against incest, because biologically it concentrates bad genetic mutations in one family if it is systematically practiced. Recognizing that, the laws against incest are also designed to prevent child abuse, since in the United States, where there isn't any systematic incest practiced, incest is often between an adult and a minor who is unable to participate in a consensual sexual relationship, because minors are unable to give consent.
No one supports incest. Consensual or not. No one.
People who support the rights of homosexuals don't necessarily support homosexuality. They aren't advocates FOR homosexuality. They are advocates for EQUALITY. The idea that what a person does in the bedroom with another person, both of whom are adults and consenting, shouldn't limit their rights as citizens may seem foreign to you, but to those of us who don't want the government in our bedrooms, it's rational and right to support equal rights for people. Period. Equal rights. Homosexuality isn't a crime. Please try to remember that, even if you think it's a sin, we are all of us sinners, you included, and you don't lose your rights as a citizen because you are a sinner. You lose them when you break the law. Homosexuals aren't breaking the law. People who commit incest are. Two different things. Two different unconnected things.
Government and society prop up and regulate marriage because they believe it is in the best interest of society, primarily because families take care of children. If we are switching that paradigm, then there can be a valid argument that government needs to end its role in marriage. And this is what those who have said that gay marriage will destroy marriage for heterosexuals have worried about.
Bolding mine. I would submit that there is much more to a legal marriage than the care and upbringing of children. Not everyone marries in order to have children, of course. And one needn't be married to procreate. After all, adoption is a ready alternative to natural childbirth. And it's legally firm: once a parent/child relationship is established it can't be disregarded at will. It's recognized in all 50 states, carries across state lines and into adulthood.
Marriage creates a family out of two previously unrelated individuals, in large part so they can take care of each other. In our society there is no other way to forge a connection with another adult in such a way that covers all exigencies (health, wealth, inheritance, end-of-life care, etc.). Those connections already exist within an immediate-family relationship, so there is no reason to "marry" one's father, mother, sister, brother, or child to create it.
Allowing same-sex adult couples to marry would relieve society of a good many burdens it now carries, it seems to me.
"Why, if we free the Negroes, we'll will have to free horses, donkeys, oxen, and all Beasts of Burden!"
1890 - Against Female Suffrage ...
"Why, if we let women vote and hold public office, why not children? When will it stop? Soon dogs and cats will have the right to vote!"
1950 - Against Inter-racial Marriage ...
"Why, if we let Negroes and Orientals marry white people - it will be the end of the White race! It's against nature! We will have grown Black men marrying young White girls!"
I would submit that there is much more to a legal marriage than the care and upbringing of children.
I agree. But one of the reasons that government has a legitimate interest in supporting matrimony is because it helps assure that children and their mothers are taken care of financially. When that marriage does not exist in a household with a child there is a greater chance that the government will financially have to support that mother and child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanderling
Not everyone marries in order to have children, of course.
True. And as far as I personally am concerned, good for them, I hope they enjoy a happy life. However, if that were the case for everyone then government would have less incentive to be involved in marriage, anymore than with roomates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanderling
And one needn't be married to procreate.
And all kinds of outcomes for those children, from future earning to the quality of future adult relationships, are less rosy than for their peers who are born into a family with married parents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanderling
Marriage creates a family out of two previously unrelated individuals, in large part so they can take care of each other. In our society there is no other way to forge a connection with another adult in such a way that covers all exigencies (health, wealth, inheritance, end-of-life care, etc.). Those connections already exist within an immediate-family relationship, so there is no reason to "marry" one's father, mother, sister, brother, or child to create it.
Not true of the brother or sister without taking specific legal steps to create the right to cover those matters. And only true of the parents or adult children if there is no legal spouse. Even then, parents and children of adults do not have as great of a latitude in those matters as spouses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanderling
Allowing same-sex adult couples to marry would relieve society of a good many burdens it now carries, it seems to me.
I personally don't disagree. My point is that if gender is not material in defining marriage then numbers and/or prior relationships shouldn't be material either.
How is it that only humans get married, but every other species is able to propagate itself?
It's a good question. How many other species are capable of destroying themselves, both on a mass scale or on an individual basis? In that lies your answer.
It's a good question. How many other species are capable of destroying themselves, both on a mass scale or on an individual basis? In that lies your answer.
Not true of the brother or sister without taking specific legal steps to create the right to cover those matters. And only true of the parents or adult children if there is no legal spouse. Even then, parents and children of adults do not have as great of a latitude in those matters as spouses.
Can you give a specific example of how a brother-sister relationship, for example, would be changed if the two were to marry? My contention is that immediate family members in the absence of a legal spouse are indeed charged with next-of-kin rights, responsibilities, and privileges.
If there is a legal spouse, of course, that person takes precedence. But we're talking about whether there's a difference between being a spouse or being another first-degree relative. If someone wants to marry a first-degree relative, isn't it pretty safe to say there wouldn't be some other legal spouse waiting in the wings?
Can you give a specific example of how a brother-sister relationship, for example, would be changed if the two were to marry? My contention is that immediate family members in the absence of a legal spouse are indeed charged with next-of-kin rights, responsibilities, and privileges.
Depends on the sibling's ranking, to some degree. Also hospitals/doctors will require legal intervention if there are multiple siblings and they disagree on treatment, whereas a legal spouse's wishes will be honored, no matter what anyone else thinks. Child custody can become real hairy when there is not a surviving spouse. Real quick.
My husband in a JAG officer and he spends lots of time giving briefings about how important wills are and trying to convince people who think they are invincible or that it doesn't matter because they have no assets to make one. Convincing them to have living wills is even harder. He will tell you, other than parents of minor children, it is actually more important for unmarried people to have wills and living wills than married ones. Parents of minor children are just flat out negligent to not have wills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanderling
If there is a legal spouse, of course, that person takes precedence. But we're talking about whether there's a difference between being a spouse or being another first-degree relative. If someone wants to marry a first-degree relative, isn't it pretty safe to say there wouldn't be some other legal spouse waiting in the wings?
Not necessarily true if we legalize polygamy.
Again, my point is, if gender is immaterial in defining marriage, numbers and prior relationships should be immaterial too.
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.
Arguments from the past ...
