Polyamory and Marriage

[nehalem256]

Civil Unions have a distinct worth. Often in the past families have denied the rights of partners of gay relatives. What a civil union does is it creates favorable conditions for joint ownership of property and inheritance rights, and even the right to visit a partner in a hospital. It is like saying to the world that two people have a valid legal contract as partners in life and it established joint ownership of property.

I understand what a civil union does. The question is why should the government establish a method for favorable ownership of property and inheritance rights? Practically a civil union would be a way for rich people to avoid estate taxes.

Even marriage has a 50% divorce rate. And that is for an institution which has a long history of being regarded as more than just a contract to get government benefits. A civil union would be nothing more than a contract to get government benefits. Why wouldn't such an institution have an even higher rate of dissolution?

I would not say that there is no reason for a civil union. Some states also have laws about men and women that live together after a certain number of years. This was basically a legal condition to protect the property of women from abuse of strong male partners and I guess vice versa.

Are you referring to common-law marriage? As far as I know that requires the people with in the union to represent themselves as married to the community. It was probably from an era when record keeping and transportation were issues. I mean what if you got married in Virginia then moved to Wisconsin and represented yourself as married for 10 years and then the guy decided he wanted to have a younger wife... in the mid 19th century how would you prove a couple was really married?

 

[nehalem256]

All unmarried people have the choice to get married, unless of course it is to someone of the same sex.

What is your point? You said there are rights granted to married people, but not unmarried people. This is clear discrimination.

Now, I am not against getting rid of marriage altogether, but lets be perfectly honest here, that will not happen.

I am sure there was a time when it looked the same way to abolitionists. But they didn't start arguing for making Asian people slaves too.

Hell, 15 years ago it probably looked the same for SSM activists.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Ok,so why should civil unions* exist? Why should someone for example get to designate someone to inherit their things while avoiding estate taxes?

I've always been fine with eliminating any government recognition of marriage as a civil union or anything else. Marriage was traditionally a religious rite, and it can stay that way, but the government doesn't need to know about it or treat married parties any differently than before they married.

I have a feeling that neither side of this argument would really be happy with that solution though. Some people on the homosexual side pay lip service to the idea of either making marriage equal to everyone or eliminating it entirely from government, but the majority of them obviously want marriage badly. Actually eliminating it would be snatching the prize away from them as much as from traditionalists.

Someone like me, who really truly doesn't care about marriage, would drop it from government in a heartbeat. I don't think that's what you're dealing with though.

 

[piasabird]

I was watching 2 and a half men and they describe marriage as giving up half your assets! This is something to think about.

 

[piasabird]

Is it also discriminatory that people with children have to support their children?

What happened to "It takes a village to raise a child?" Single should have to pay for all the children also. That would be fair and equitable.

Is it fair that a single parent is paid money to help raise a child and a married person is not? Isnt that discrimination?

So my point is it discrimation by people and titles or is it that the Tax code is discriminatory? Lets be honest here??? It all boils down to greed and government welfare!

The Government is the source of all evil!

It is the government and the IRS Tax code that created this discrimination. How can the goverment give you equality when it is this government that created the inequality? Even without the tax code you would complain because some people would still make more money than others or be born into rich or poor families. Life is not fair so grow up!

 

[nehalem256]

I've always been fine with eliminating any government recognition of marriage as a civil union or anything else. Marriage was traditionally a religious rite, and it can stay that way, but the government doesn't need to know about it or treat married parties any differently than before they married.

That is a lie put forth by people trying to advance SSM. Marriages predates Christianity. It is found in countries such as Japan that are not Christian countries.

Religion was involved in marriage, because marriage is/was important to society, and religion was involved in lots of things historically. I mean people typically swear oaths of office on bibles. It doesn't mean becoming President is "just a religious rite".

 

[SlitheryDee]

That is a lie put forth by people trying to advance SSM. Marriages predates Christianity. It is found in countries such as Japan that are not Christian countries.

Religion was involved in marriage, because marriage is/was important to society, and religion was involved in lots of things historically. I mean people typically swear oaths of office on bibles. It doesn't mean becoming President is "just a religious rite".

I don't see how seeing marriage as a religious rite could support the SSM desire to have marriage for themselves. It would be more likely to legitimize the opposition's view that civil unions are more appropriate for couples that have a composition that would fall outside of religious doctrine. I never claimed that it had anything to do with Christianity either. It is quite clear that marriage is very nearly universal among different groups of people with different religious beliefs. It also predates recorded history, and therefor any known government allowances for it. That last is why I say that before it had any relevance in government it had religious underpinnings.

 

[nehalem256]

I don't see how seeing marriage as a religious rite could support the SSM desire to have marriage for themselves. It would be more likely to legitimize the opposition's view that civil unions are more appropriate for couples that have a composition that would fall outside of religious doctrine.

Saying marriage is religious rite is a way to portray opponents of SSM as bigoted religious zealots which is an effective way to get people to at least grudgingly support you.

SSM supporters will say that once government got involved in marriage it stopped being about religion.

I never claimed that it had anything to do with Christianity either. It is quite clear that marriage is very nearly universal among different groups of people with different religious beliefs. It also predates recorded history, and therefor any known government allowances for it. That last is why I say that before it had any relevance in government it had religious underpinnings.

It has societal underpinnings. Due to the importance of religion in many societies it stands to reason it would become entangled with other important aspects of society like marriage.

 

[piasabird]

In many early societies religion was part of government and vice versa. However, not all religions had a belief in gods per se. Some of the eary religious beliefs in Korea had a general belief in the Mandate of Heaven but didnt mention a God. However, there was this ideal that unmarried priestesses had certain powers like spiritual healing power and the ability to use a type of vision for prophesy and spritual sight. In korean customs sometimes with arranged marriage they were married or promised around age 13.

http://www.crunchyroll.com/jumong

 

[Pulsar]

What exactly do gay couples produce for the next generation? It is just selfishness and greed. Children are our future.

Are you really against marriage or are you against an unfair tax code?

Gay couples are actually substantially better right now for this world (and this country) than hetero couples. The population of the world is increasing and will become unsustainable in the relatively near future. Gay couples help to lower the birth rate.

Proportionally, they also have a substantially lower 'divorce' rate, and there's a good arguement that they would be far better for child development than a single parent would.

I don't think anyone is 'anti-marriage'. That's a strawman people trot out to make people who believe in equality look bad. I think most simply want an avenue for other unions to be equal in the eyes of the law. Of course, I can't speak for everyone.

 

[Pulsar]

Is it also discriminatory that people with children have to support their children?

What happened to "It takes a village to raise a child?" Single should have to pay for all the children also. That would be fair and equitable.

Is it fair that a single parent is paid money to help raise a child and a married person is not? Isnt that discrimination?

So my point is it discrimation by people and titles or is it that the Tax code is discriminatory? Lets be honest here??? It all boils down to greed and government welfare!

The Government is the source of all evil!

It is the government and the IRS Tax code that created this discrimination. How can the goverment give you equality when it is this government that created the inequality? Even without the tax code you would complain because some people would still make more money than others or be born into rich or poor families. Life is not fair so grow up!

What on earth are you talking about? Government affords married couples special priveleges that same sex couples want access to.

Life is not fair? Tell it to the slaves.

 

[Vaux]

"Gay couples are actually substantially better right now for this world (and this country) than hetero couples. Gay couples help to lower the birth rate."----------

Yeah that is a bit of a ridiculous statement.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

"Gay couples are actually substantially better right now for this world (and this country) than hetero couples. Gay couples help to lower the birth rate."----------

Yeah that is a bit of a ridiculous statement.

It may be a stretch to say that they are "better" than heterosexual couples. But certainly the argument that heterosexual couples are better because of "breeding" is at least as ridiculous, given our ever-growing population and the problems it is creating.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not sure why anyone is bothering with the discussion of religion and which one is better anyway. The facts in this case are pretty simple.

We change the definition of words constantly. Always have, always will.

The parameters of marriage have changed numerous times throughout our history. Always have, always will.

Opponents of same sex marriage cannot articulate any concrete harm that comes from these unions, just hand waving, nebulous threats, and slippery slope fallacies.

Opposition to same sex marriage is fundamentally irrational and is clearly motivated by homophobia. It is no coincidence how closely gay acceptance and gay marriage acceptance track.

Finally, the homophobes are all dying off anyway, so in a few years the argument will be moot. There is no point in engaging people like nehalem.

 

[piasabird]

I think that people that are married and raise children should be respected. Their status is different than the status of other people. They take on more responsibility to raise children along with all the long-term Financial obligations it takes to bring up the next generation. Even if a person dislikes their parents or they were mistreated, they cared enough to bring you into the world. You owe them your life so how can you ever repay them?

When you say marriage is the same between say your parents and between gay people you are belittling what it means to be a parent, a mother and a father. People that made families and husbands that stuck together with their wives and their children made compromises for the future. Do not belittle them with your crass claim of discrimination until you have raised a child. of your own. When you look down into the shining eyes of newborn child and decide them to raise that child that is what separates the selfish from the real married people.

One theme I try to get accross is the a union of 2 stable gay people is different than a relationship between two people of the opposite sex. Someone has to raise the next generation of children. It is parents that do that for the most part. I know sometimes gays adopt children and I know that some females could be artificially ensemanated or have sexual relations with a male friend. However, I am not into looking at exceptions and using that as an excuse in a discussion as proof to make a point.

 

[piasabird]

When you use the term Homophobe that is name calling. That is not discussion, that is hate.

I have accepted that fact that some people are gay and they should be able to have a legal and personal relationship. You will never be the same as what your parents were. Marriage is more than that. When you hold the child that you created in your own hands you are changed forever.

 

[jackstar7]

I think that people that are married and raise children should be respected. Their status is different than the status of other people. They take on more responsibility to raise children along with all the long-term Financial obligations it takes to bring up the next generation. Even if a person dislikes their parents or they were mistreated, they cared enough to bring you into the world. You owe them your life so how can you ever repay them?

When you say marriage is the same between say your parents and between gay people you are belittling what it means to be a parent, a mother and a father. People that made families and husbands that stuck together with their wives and their children made compromises for the future. Do not belittle them with your crass claim of discrimination until you have raised a child. of your own. When you look down into the shining eyes of newborn child and decide them to raise that child that is what separates the selfish from the real married people.

One theme I try to get accross is the a union of 2 stable gay people is different than a relationship between two people of the opposite sex. Someone has to raise the next generation of children. It is parents that do that for the most part. I know sometimes gays adopt children and I know that some females could be artificially ensemanated or have sexual relations with a male friend. However, I am not into looking at exceptions and using that as an excuse in a discussion as proof to make a point.

Being a parent does not require being married. Period.

Thus none of this has anything to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Vaux]

"Opponents of same sex marriage cannot articulate any concrete harm"------

This is getting played out. Since when does something not harming anyone give you permission to do something that isn't right?

Nobody else gets harmed if I jump off a bridge. It must be right then?

"Opposition to same sex marriage is fundamentally irrational"------

Actually it's the opposite. Same sex marriage is what is irrational, and it leads to opening up marriage to all different kinds of meanings, some of which other people besides me and maybe you are uncomfortable with.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This is getting played out. Since when does something not harming anyone give you permission to do something that isn't right?

Since people have yearned to be free. It's actually a pretty fundamental notion of freedom and fairness -- that others have a right to dictate what you do only if there's a reasonable argument that they are affected.

A better question is: who decided that you get to decide what is and isn't "right"?

Nobody else gets harmed if I jump off a bridge. It must be right then?

It may be right to you, from your perspective. I wouldn't be happy about you doing it, but it's your choice, not mine.

 

[SlitheryDee]

"Opponents of same sex marriage cannot articulate any concrete harm"------

This is getting played out. Since when does something not harming anyone give you permission to do something that isn't right?

Nobody else gets harmed if I jump off a bridge. It must be right then?

I think we both know jumping off a bridge isn't comparable to same sex marriage, even from the perspective of "rightness". It's easy to point to who gets harmed when you jump off of a bridge. At least in the very physical sense of causing yourself trauma to the point of death, you are being harmed. In a same sex marriage, who is getting harmed? Two (or more?) people are getting something they want. Nothing is taken away from anyone else. It's a net increase of the happiness in the world. That's all.

"Opposition to same sex marriage is fundamentally irrational"------

Actually it's the opposite. Same sex marriage is what is irrational, and it leads to opening up marriage to all different kinds of meanings, some of which other people besides me and maybe you are uncomfortable with.

Personally I'm uncomfortable with lots of stuff, but only as they pertain to me. There's plenty of potential kinds of marriages that I would never engage in. Fortunately allowing SSM or other non-standard marriages doesn't obligate me to participate in them. That's the key thing here. I can't really get too uncomfortable over stuff that's just happening somewhere out there in the world so long as no one is being forced to do anything they don't want to do. However irrational SSM may be to you, being concerned about it to the point of blocking it when it basically won't affect you at all is equally so.

 

[EagleKeeper]

This is getting played out. Since when does something not harming anyone give you permission to do something that isn't right?

Since people have yearned to be free. It's actually a pretty fundamental notion of freedom and fairness -- that others have a right to dictate what you do only if there's a reasonable argument that they are affected.

A better question is: who decided that you get to decide what is and isn't "right"?

Nobody else gets harmed if I jump off a bridge. It must be right then?

It may be right to you, from your perspective. I wouldn't be happy about you doing it, but it's your choice, not mine.

Freedom of choice also comes with the cloak of responsibility for ones actions.

Society has ruled, some built on morals other common sense.

To live with society at s given level, you ate expected to adjust your freedoms an amount in return for what society as a whole provides to you.

Swap the freedom of expression and choice for the blanket of acceptance and "security".

However, nothing stops one from rejecting society, you are expected to exit with the same responsibility that you came in on.

Once clear, then you ate on your own without either being responsible or expecting anything from the other.

Most times, the rejection is not mutual who h causes one or the other side to be burned and blamed. Selfishness abounds.

 

[Vaux]

Since people have yearned to be free. It's actually a pretty fundamental notion of freedom and fairness -- that others have a right to dictate what you do only if there's a reasonable argument that they are affected.

I would say usually that doing things that do not harm other people is a pretty good way to live. But it is not the end all be all factor when deciding to do something. Just because it doesn't hurt anyone, doesn't mean if you do it than it's perfectly fine. There are many things you could do that would not hurt anyone, yet they are unwise things. Just because it doesn't hurt anyone is not a good argument for gay marriage. I mean that's good, but there is more to it than that.

A better question is: who decided that you get to decide what is and isn't "right"?

Well that's debatable. I am part of a society and society makes laws that say what is right and not. But in this issue, and I have said this before, it is not me who is deciding. Nature and evolution decided what's best for the human species, not me. People just choose to ignore it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Freedom of choice also comes with the cloak of responsibility for ones actions.

Don't see what that has to do with anything here. If anything, gays are asking for more responsibility -- that's what monogamy is about.

To live with society at s given level, you ate expected to adjust your freedoms an amount in return for what society as a whole provides to you.

So I guess that means that all the people who oppose equal rights are going to have to do some adjusting, right?

Just because it doesn't hurt anyone, doesn't mean if you do it than it's perfectly fine.

If that's the case, then you should be able to come up with a compelling argument for that point, but I don't see it. Unless you want to live in a society where "they" get to tell you what to do based on what "they" think is good or bad for you, which I and most Americans do not.

Well that's debatable. I am part of a society and society makes laws that say what is right and not. But in this issue, and I have said this before, it is not me who is deciding. Nature and evolution decided what's best for the human species, not me. People just choose to ignore it.

This paragraph is self-contradictory -- either what's right is decided by society or it is not. If it is, then society is at the current moment deciding that equality is right. If it isn't, then you have no basis for arguing that anyone has a right to tell others what to do at all. Either way, there continues to be no rational argument against marriage equality that I can see.

As for the "human species" argument, I already addressed that in post #263, to which you chose not to respond. Again here, there is no rational argument that gay marriage in any way threatens the propagation of the species.

 

[Vaux]

I think we both know jumping off a bridge isn't comparable to same sex marriage, even from the perspective of "rightness". It's easy to point to who gets harmed when you jump off of a bridge. At least in the very physical sense of causing yourself trauma to the point of death, you are being harmed. In a same sex marriage, who is getting harmed? Two (or more?) people are getting something they want. Nothing is taken away from anyone else. It's a net increase of the happiness in the world. That's all.

I think it's comparable. I am the only one getting harmed, which is just as good as it not harming anyone, since what I do to myself is no interest of yours and you have no right to tell me otherwise. But of course, that doesn't make it a right thing to do.

Personally I'm uncomfortable with lots of stuff, but only as they pertain to me. There's plenty of potential kinds of marriages that I would never engage in. Fortunately allowing SSM or other non-standard marriages doesn't obligate me to participate in them. That's the key thing here. I can't really get too uncomfortable over stuff that's just happening somewhere out there in the world so long as no one is being forced to do anything they don't want to do. However irrational SSM may be to you, being concerned about it to the point of blocking it when it basically won't affect you at all is equally so.

So you do not have any opinions on things that don't affect you directly? I find that hard to believe.

 

[Vaux]

If that's the case, then you should be able to come up with a compelling argument for that point, but I don't see it. Unless you want to live in a society where "they" get to tell you what to do based on what "they" think is good or bad for you, which I and most Americans do not.

I already mentioned jumping off a bridge. That's not a fine thing to do. How about drinking a gallon of horse piss? Doesn't hurt anyone, yet it's still a bad idea.

This paragraph is self-contradictory -- either what's right is decided by society or it is not. If it is, then society is at the current moment deciding that equality is right. If it isn't, then you have no basis for arguing that anyone has a right to tell others what to do at all. Either way, there continues to be no rational argument against marriage equality that I can see.

Yeah, unfortunately they are deciding for all of us. That is what they have always done. But that does not mean that they are always right.

As for the "human species" argument, I already addressed that in post #263, to which you chose not to respond. Again here, there is no rational argument that gay marriage in any way threatens the propagation of the species.

Sorry I haven't really been responding to everything. Sometimes I feel like debating and sometimes I don't. In this case I didn't reply because I didn't feel like repeating myself, it's not just about having kids.