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.
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.
Actually, I think you're confusing conversations. What I was responding to was this post. In which he replied to a comment of mine to texdav... Your proposal (which came AFTER my response) was no part of that discussion and I'm not sure why you think it does.
Actually, I think you're confusing conversations. What I was responding to was this post. In which he replied to a comment of mine to texdav... Your proposal (which came AFTER my response) was no part of that discussion and I'm not sure why you think it does.
(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.
The constitution also does not allow Social Security at the federal level.
In fact, I stated that this is my opinion. Your disagreement is perfectly acceptable.
However, you are wrong about the Christian church. You are wrong about what the bible says about marriage. This is not a religious forum. I will not get into the particulars. Most Americans DO NOT support gay marriage. That includes Christian and non-Christians. That is why anti-gay-marriage laws have passed in places like California.
(dont tell anyone but on this I might be getting liberal? LOL.
Your secret is safe with me!
Quote:
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.
Granted - as I've said before, the old social-religious belief system which supported marriage as historically understood has collapsed. I think it's now very hard, impossible, to defend marriage as exclusively man-woman. The logic pushing us toward universal marriage (or civil partnership or whatever) is inexorable - in part for the fairness/egalitarian point you make, but for other reasons as well.
Quote:
I think something like Social Security benifits becomes difficult....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.
Again, I agree. I don't see how it will be feasible to extend such marriage/partnership benefits to same-sex couples and yet somehow insist that they be sexually involved, on the model of "old marriage" where the presumption was that there would be a sexual relationship.
And if this new, egalitarian civic partnership is available to any two adults (perhaps allowing for certain exceptions for consanguinity, insanity or - dare I say it - genetic defects?), and if this new civic partnership confers the same benefits as the existing model of marriage, then many people will enter into the arrangement in order to secure the benefits. That is the crux of the same-sex campaign, after all - to gain access to marriage benefits.
Some portion of the population will see this as exploitative: we still have some gut-level notion that "marriage" means sex, and if and when it's demonstrated on some TV show that two platonic friends have entered into this new kind of "marriage" simply to secure those benefits, there will be those who will fail to grasp the argument and will make accusations of "gaming the system" and "fraud".
Same-sex marriage campaigners are presumably aware of this issue, though AFAICT it doesn't get much comment, probably because the main thing is simply to secure the "new marriage" in law and worry about the fallout later.
But if that's something which will have to be navigated, the other point is just as salient: extending, for instance, survivor's benefits to platonic friends who enter into a civic union will place new strains on SSA, and so on throughout the system. Again, presumably, the leaders of same-sex campaigns are aware of this issue, but haven't commented on it very much.
Quote:
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.
Once again, I agree. Fairness and civic equality logically require the extension of "marriage" to all forms of voluntary partnership: opposite-sex, same-sex, sexually active or platonic, romantic or simply convenient.
"Marriage" until now has meant more or less the same to the churches as it has to the state - that will clearly not be the case in future. We'll have "civil marriage" or whatever we end up calling it, and we'll have "holy matrimony". Unless of course, the state were to impose it's definition on the churches, but that's completely unacceptable and very implausible, at least in the U.S.
Except that, with your example, the logic of "ability to procreate" could define a brother/sister relationship. Correct?
Yes, correct, but obviously this historical understanding of the chief purpose of marriage ("First, it was ordained for the procreation of children") was always subject to certain limits, consanguinity not least among them.
Quote:
Why does there need to be criteria?
I seem to be repeating myself: in our brave new world, at least in terms of civic marriage (marriage as understood by the laws of the state), there in all probability soon or already is no criteria at all, apart from the willingness of two people of any sort or condition to enter freely into the contractual union.
Historically in the West, however, matrimony was understood as a special condition, for a particular set of purposes, defined by specific criteria, and reserved to those who conformed thereto.
Quote:
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.
Are you quite deliberately misconstruing my views? I pointed out that expanding the availability of a civic form of marriage beyond the historical criteria (a man and a woman) will have policy implications - this can hardly be a controversial point, since it must be obvious. If the present "package" of benefits conferred by marriage is extended to a potentially much larger group of candidates, then the resources which pay for those benefits will either be strained or the benefits themselves reduced. This is logic, but if you insist on characterizing it as demeaning and abusive, please feel free to blaze away at your strawman as much as you'd like.
Quote:
Ability to procreate should never be requirement.
Once again, I repeat: it was historically understood as the purpose of marriage (see BCP quote, above) and necessarily imposed a limit on who could take part. Clearly, that will not be the case in the future. You should really consider being less obtuse.
Squarian, your theory pretty much gets blown out of the water when you consider how many people marry after loosing a spouse thru death or divorce. I mean, once you hit menopause there is not even a pretense of creating any new citizens, yet the benefits are there. Really, the system never has worked the way you seem to think. The main thing marriage has historically done is for allegiances between families, countries, fortunes, etc. Yes, there were limits on who could take part and those limits have been chipped away when they no longer make sense.
No relationship meets that standard unless it engaged in the rigorous and important act of creating new citizens.
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.
Many of us have children. Many hetero married couples don't. Did you know that there are methods that couples having trouble conceiving can use to have children? Did you know that homosexual couples can, and do, use those same methods?
Signed,
A lesbian mother of three.
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.
