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

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
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.
And why should the government grant benefits to people in certain types of relationships?

Property and medical care can be taken care of with medical proxy and a will.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
And why should the government grant benefits to people in certain types of relationships?

Property and medical care can be taken care of with medical proxy and a will.
Because certain types of relationships are beneficial to society.
 

Ketchup

Elite Member
Sep 1, 2002
14,494
220
106
Because certain types of relationships are beneficial to society.
And who would determine what is beneficial to society? At one point, people thought marriage was beneficial to society, and look where we are now.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
And who would determine what is beneficial to society? At one point, people thought marriage was beneficial to society, and look where we are now.
The people who make and change laws and the tax code.

If marriage is no longer beneficial to society it should be removed from government and law completely.. for everyone, heterosexual and otherwise. If it is still beneficial to society, it should take into account all of the benefits not just those inherent to heterosexual couplings.
 
Last edited:

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
And why should the government grant benefits to people in certain types of relationships?

Property and medical care can be taken care of with medical proxy and a will.
I don't think insurance companies are required to provide spousal benefits, and that's their right... but if they provide spousal benefits to heterosexual partnerships, they should be equally required to provide those same benefits to homosexual partnerships.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
I don't think insurance companies are required to provide spousal benefits, and that's their right... but if they provide spousal benefits to heterosexual partnerships, they should be equally required to provide those same benefits to homosexual partnerships.
Why should the government, insurance, corporations, anyone provide benefits to someone based on their relationship status?
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Why should the government, insurance, corporations, anyone provide benefits to someone based on their relationship status?
Already answered your question regarding government. As for insurance, actuaries can find all sorts of reasons to provide benefits to some and not others. Corporations and other companies can choose to offer those benefits as a way of attracting/retaining employees and/or customers.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Why should the government, insurance, corporations, anyone provide benefits to someone based on their relationship status?
again... I'm not saying that should be required to at all.

if a private insurance company decides that it's not going to provide spousal coverage for any couples, that's their prerogative.

but if they chose to, they should be required to do it for everyone and not only just provide spousal coverage for white couples or heterosexual couples.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
And why should the government grant benefits to people in certain types of relationships?

Property and medical care can be taken care of with medical proxy and a will.
Because they choose to.

Pensions, social security, other survivor's benefits. It's been a promise of both public and private employers that some or all of your benefits will still go to a spouse after your death.

The point being that religious bigots should not be able to deny these benefits to atheists, mixed-race couples, non-whites, or homosexuals.

If they offer survivor's benefits they should not be able to use a religious definition of marriage to discriminate.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Because they choose to.
I don't care who people fuck or marry or share benefits with or anything else, but that's a horrible reason.

If government can do something just because it chooses to, then a democratically elected government is well within it's right to deny rights just because it chooses to.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
And who would determine what is beneficial to society? At one point, people thought marriage was beneficial to society, and look where we are now.
Marriage is beneficial to society as long as married couples stay true to their vows.

Too many cases are arising where irreconcilable differences is a valid reason for divorce, or we just "grew apart". People are physically and emotionally checking out of their marriages these days and don't want to work on them anymore. Someone makes you unhappy, burns the food, watches too much sports.. yeah, go find a frivolous reason to divorce them.

Same-sex marriage does no better. It only causes more confusion, I personally think. Little John may be wondering why he doesn't have a mom like all his friends in his Eight Grade Science class does. Or why his mom isn't a woman. Or why mom can't have carry a baby like all his friends moms. Oh why he is teased because he has two dads....

What benefits society is for people to change their attitudes toward things, and marriage in general. It's silly to think that same-sex marriage is gonna makes things any different/better, either.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
I don't care who people fuck or marry or share benefits with or anything else, but that's a horrible reason.

If government can do something just because it chooses to, then a democratically elected government is well within it's right to deny rights just because it chooses to.
No, if the government chooses to offer a benefit to spouses, they should not allowed to only give that benefit to white Anglo-Saxon Protestant spouses and say Jews, African-Americans, Catholics and gays don't get it.

All or nothing, everyone or no one. Equality is supposed to be the American way.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Because they choose to.

Pensions, social security, other survivor's benefits. It's been a promise of both public and private employers that some or all of your benefits will still go to a spouse after your death.

If they offer survivor's benefits they should not be able to use a religious definition of marriage to discriminate.
And why should those benefits go to a spouse after death?

Marriage being defined between a man and a woman is not a religious definition of marriage. See China and Japan for example.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
And why should those benefits go to a spouse after death?
for the hundredth time... no one is saying they should.

but if an insurance company or employer decides to provide survivor's benefits, they shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily only provide them for Asian Catholic heterosexual couples and exclude all other races from those benefits.

providing benefits in the first place is their choice, but if they decide to, it should be provided equitably, especially in states with legal recognition of gay couples via civil unions.
 

Ketchup

Elite Member
Sep 1, 2002
14,494
220
106
Oh why he is teased because he has two dads....
You just reminded me of a fun late-80's sitcom. Funny show.

Seriously though, there are a wealth of issues there, but the issue we are dealing with is what right, if any, does the government have to say one deserves special benefits and the other does not.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
for the hundredth time... no one is saying they should.

but if an insurance company or employer decides to provide survivor's benefits, they shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily only provide them for Asian Catholic heterosexual couples and exclude all other races from those benefits.

providing benefits in the first place is their choice, but if they decide to, it should be provided equitably, especially in states with legal recognition of gay couples via civil unions.
Sounds like an argument for eliminating marriage entirely, not for extending it.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Sounds like an argument for eliminating marriage entirely, not for extending it.
I'd be fine with either.

personally, I see 3 acceptable solutions, in order of most to least complicated --

1. government isn't involved with marriage at all. civil unions for everyone, if anything, and let "marriage" be a purely religious ceremony with no legal implications whatsoever. if churches want to marry gays, straights, or polygamous couples, let them go nuts as long as all parties involved are legal and consenting.

2. marriage and civil unions coexist, with laws mandating that any company who provides benefits for married couples is also required to provide them for civil union'd couples (companies are within their rights to not provide any spousal benefits whatsoever, but cannot arbitrarily provide benefits for some legally-joined couples and not others without cause)

3. legalize gay marriage
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Sounds like an argument for eliminating marriage entirely, not for extending it.
For pensions it's just a job benefit, so how so? Is whether or not to offer vacation days an argument against marriage? How about free coffee at work?

Survivor's benefits are like any other benefit, they are used to make a job more attractive, knowing that if you die your companion will get some of the retirement money that you earned instead of it disappearing.

Social security is perhaps a special case since it is not tied to a specific job, but the idea was to still give some of your retirement money to your companion so they are not driven into poverty by losing it. This seems fair since you have no choice about handing the money over to SS in place of making other investments with it that could be included in your will.
 

Ketchup

Elite Member
Sep 1, 2002
14,494
220
106
I'd be fine with either.

personally, I see 3 acceptable solutions, in order of most to least complicated --

1. government isn't involved with marriage at all. civil unions for everyone, if anything, and let "marriage" be a purely religious ceremony with no legal implications whatsoever. if churches want to marry gays, straights, or polygamous couples, let them go nuts as long as all parties involved are legal and consenting.

2. marriage and civil unions coexist, with laws mandating that any company who provides benefits for married couples is also required to provide them for civil union'd couples (companies are within their rights to not provide any spousal benefits whatsoever, but cannot arbitrarily provide benefits for some legally-joined couples and not others without cause)

3. legalize gay marriage
What is wrong with #2?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
For pensions it's just a job benefit, so how so? Is whether or not to offer vacation days an argument against marriage? How about free coffee at work?

Survivor's benefits are like any other benefit, they are used to make a job more attractive, knowing that if you die your companion will get some of the retirement money that you earned instead of it disappearing.

Social security is perhaps a special case since it is not tied to a specific job, but the idea was to still give some of your retirement money to your companion so they are not driven into poverty by losing it. This seems fair since you have no choice about handing the money over to SS in place of making other investments with it that could be included in your will.
And this is all discrimination against single people. That is the problem.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
And this is all discrimination against single people. That is the problem.
There certainly is an argument for offering only 401k-style retirement accounts for all citizens, but that's a side issue.

There's also an argument for abolishing all favorable treatment for married couples, but that's another side issue.

As long as special benefits are being handed out to "married" couples, it's discrimination to say that only whites or Protestants or straights can be "married" and claim those benefits.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
There certainly is an argument for offering only 401k-style retirement accounts for all citizens, but that's a side issue.

There's also an argument for abolishing all favorable treatment for married couples, but that's another side issue.

As long as special benefits are being handed out to "married" couples, it's discrimination to say that only whites or Protestants or straights can be "married" and claim those benefits.
And if you hand out benefits to "married" couples, but not singles that is discrimination.

So why is it acceptable to discriminate against singles people but not gay people?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
What is wrong with #2?
nothing wrong with it, but it would take someone to put those laws/protections into place.

as it's played out in NJ, with civil unions and marriage coexisting, companies will leap onto the distinction to deny benefits to civil union'd couples that they'd provide for married couples without complaint... it's especially an issue with interstate companies.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Because it's rather difficult for a single person to claim their own survivor's benefits?
Why shouldn't they be able to give them to anybody they choose? A sibling? A parent? A cousin? A friend?

Why should someone's right to collect money they are owed be limited to a person they can legally marry, regardless of gender?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY