• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Rights contradiction?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Because if marriage has no meaning why should it exist at all?

If no one is in the wrong, why are they even getting divorced?
At one point it meant something.
People can change.
Fall out of love, infatuation.
Pressure of a family
Realization that the flaws that one thought could be repaired can not be.
Economics

Multitude of reasons.

They get divorced because they no longer are able to live together. Being married no longer accomplishes the desired result.
Simple.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
I agree that divorces are too common and that the marriages that preceded them shouldn't have existed in the first place, but that is not something that impacts everyone else.

Why should I not be able to marry my partner because other people treat marriage so cavalierly?
At one point it meant something.
People can change.
Fall out of love, infatuation.
Pressure of a family
Realization that the flaws that one thought could be repaired can not be.
Economics

Multitude of reasons.

They get divorced because they no longer are able to live together. Being married no longer accomplishes the desired result.
Simple.
I'm not sure I understand what divorce has to do with gay marriage at all :confused:
If marriage describes a permanent relationship between a man and a woman. And you want a government sanctioned relationship for people who are not in a permanent relationship, and can be of any gender. Why are you even using the word marriage to describe something that is completely different?

It seems to me like you want something completely different than marriage, but are calling it a marriage in order to be able to get government benefits.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
If marriage describes a permanent relationship between a man and a woman. And you want a government sanctioned relationship for people who are not in a permanent relationship, and can be of any gender. Why are you even using the word marriage to describe something that is completely different?

It seems to me like you want something completely different than marriage, but are calling it a marriage in order to be able to get government benefits.
What should the punishment be for divorce, in your opinion? Should divorce even be an option?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
If marriage describes a permanent relationship between a man and a woman. And you want a government sanctioned relationship for people who are not in a permanent relationship, and can be of any gender. Why are you even using the word marriage to describe something that is completely different?

It seems to me like you want something completely different than marriage, but are calling it a marriage in order to be able to get government benefits.
I'd challenge the entire premise of your "if"

marriage does not describe a permanent relationship between a man and a woman in contemporary society, and probably hasn't since Henry VIII.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
What should the punishment be for divorce, in your opinion? Should divorce even be an option?
I would say divorce is a legitimate option in the case of adultery or legitimate instances of abuse. In which case one party would be in violation of the marriage contract.

I'd challenge the entire premise of your "if"

marriage does not describe a permanent relationship between a man and a woman in contemporary society, and probably hasn't since Henry VIII.
I did not realize Henry VIII was an example of behavior we should emulate.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
I think you hit the nail on the head.
the problem is that it doesn't work.

at least in NJ, where we have civil unions but not gay marriages, there have been many, many stories of companies using the distinction to deny benefits to same-sex couples that would be granted to heterosexual couples without a thought (regardless if they were "permanently" married, two friends married for insurance benefits, a green card marriage, etc)
 
Nov 29, 2006
14,737
2,584
126
If marriage describes a permanent relationship between a man and a woman. And you want a government sanctioned relationship for people who are not in a permanent relationship, and can be of any gender. Why are you even using the word marriage to describe something that is completely different?

It seems to me like you want something completely different than marriage, but are calling it a marriage in order to be able to get government benefits.
Does anyone else wish this guy (if not already) will get married someday and end up hating his wife with a passion (for whatever reason) in 2 years? With your thinking you'll be stuck with someone you can no longer stand to look at for the rest of your life. Gee..that sounds lovely.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
I would say divorce is a legitimate option in the case of adultery or legitimate instances of abuse. In which case one party would be in violation of the marriage contract.
What about divorces that occur for other reasons? What should the punishment be?

I did not realize Henry VIII was an example of behavior we should emulate.
He isn't, and loki wasn't saying we should.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Gay people have as much right as anyone to tell others they're married. What they want is for the government to recognize the legal union of two separate entities.

Frankly, I'd rather see government get out of the marriage business completely. Government has not business in such personal affairs. Anything marriage does could be handled in a boilerplate contract, and that can be done by anybody, no restrictions. Gay, straight, hermaphrodite, polygamy. As long as everything is spelled out in the contract, do whatever you want. I really don't care.
 

Ketchup

Elite Member
Sep 1, 2002
14,494
220
106
the problem is that it doesn't work.

at least in NJ, where we have civil unions but not gay marriages, there have been many, many stories of companies using the distinction to deny benefits to same-sex couples that would be granted to heterosexual couples without a thought (regardless if they were "permanently" married, two friends married for insurance benefits, a green card marriage, etc)
So why is that? would something initiated on a national level make any difference?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
What about divorces that occur for other reasons? What should the punishment be?



He isn't, and loki wasn't saying we should.
The most logical course of action would be to disallow divorce that are "just because". Or alternatively they are free to leave so long as their spouse keeps the assets, custody of the kids, etc.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
So why is that? would something initiated on a national level make any difference?
we'd probably need the Defense of Marriage Act repealed and a law passed mandating companies treat marriages and civil unions as being the same thing.

or just legalize gay marriage.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
28,234
10,923
136
The most logical course of action would be to disallow divorce that are "just because". Or alternatively they are free to leave so long as their spouse keeps the assets, custody of the kids, etc.
I'll let you enforce 'til death do us part' if you make it legal for me to kill her. :colbert:
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
181
106
Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is something created by gay activists; you cannot just create a new institution and then demand it is your right.
My Webster's Concise English Dictionary; marriage: (a) state of being legally joined as Husband and Wife; (b) ceremony of being married. In my old hard back it has only one three word definition; a religious ceremony. But ask a Divorce Lawyer where it is ground down to its finest, marriage is just a social/property contract, male/female just doesn't come into it. Your definition not found except in the religiously right.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
My Webster's Concise English Dictionary; marriage: (a) state of being legally joined as Husband and Wife; (b) ceremony of being married. In my old hard back it has only one three word definition; a religious ceremony. But ask a Divorce Lawyer where it is ground down to its finest, marriage is just a social/property contract, male/female just doesn't come into it. Your definition not found except in the religiously right.
And Japan. And China. Or are you arguing that the Religious Right is secretly controlling the Japanese and Chinese government. Maybe they are the new Jews!
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
I agree with the position that state and federal governments should not have anything to do with marriage, they should only recognize civil unions for legal purposes including property, benefits, and issues such as medical care.

Those civil unions should be between any consenting adults.

The religious should be free to determine who can and can't be married under their religious laws, but these marriages will have no legal standing with government, only the civil unions will matter in the eyes of the law.

Divorce in the legal sense would involve ending a civil union, which could always happen even if a person's chruch refuses to allow them to end their marriage.

Employers, etc. would not be allowed to even ask about the religious martial status of employees, only about their civil union.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY