Who should be allowed to marry?

[PrinceofWands]

So is this why you are going to carry over the rights and most of the rules associated with marriage currently, except for the fact you will now allow same-sex couples to get civil unioned.

I would rather there were NO marriages, civil unions or anything else (at least as far as the government goes). I think the nation should ONLY recognize individuals. Saves SOOOO MUCH paperwork and confusion.

However, if we're going to have ANYTHING for contractual/liability reasons then it must be separate from religion totally and open to all equally. That means if we're going to recognize anything remotely close to what we now call marriage as a separate legal status then it needs to be done my way. Nothing else is even remotely rational or just.

This has NOTHING to do with gay rights or any other selective special rights bullshit. It's a basic right of citizenship or it isn't.

 

[nehalem256]

I would rather there were NO marriages, civil unions or anything else (at least as far as the government goes). I think the nation should ONLY recognize individuals. Saves SOOOO MUCH paperwork and confusion.

If you oppose marriage does it make sense to argue for expanding the definition of marriage?

However, if we're going to have ANYTHING for contractual/liability reasons then it must be separate from religion totally and open to all equally. That means if we're going to recognize anything remotely close to what we now call marriage as a separate legal status then it needs to be done my way. Nothing else is even remotely rational or just.

This has NOTHING to do with gay rights or any other selective special rights bullshit. It's a basic right of citizenship or it isn't.

Everyone has the right to marry a single person of the opposite sex. You do not have the right to "marry" someone of the same sex, animals, corporations, toasters because that is not marriage.

Your redefinition of marriage is irrational. You are saying we should redefine marriage to cater to one specific minority sexual orientation, but will still discriminate against other ones. This is neither rational nor just.

 

[werepossum]

Gay couples and straight couples are inherently not equal in value to society. It is not unequal to treat things of unequal value unequally.

In order for the federal government to recognize marriage it must first define what marriage is.

But all couples are inherently not equal in value to society. If you have a stable gay couple who adopt an unwanted child and raise it to be a productive member of society, by what possible grounds can you make an argument that couple is of less worth to society than the hetero couple who raises a gaggle of criminals on welfare, or the childless hetero couple who save not a penny and retire on taxpayer dollars, or the hetero couple where he beats the crap out of her twice a month and they're in court every month? Evaluating a couple's actual worth to society would require setting values on everything we do and practically speaking would be impossible. Is a rich man whose wealth is gained entirely on day trading (one winner, one loser, no net change in wealth) worth more to society than the suicide prevention counselor who earns minimum wage but saves lives? What about the big city man who stamps out widgets all day, actually producing a net societal increase in wealth via manufacturing but never earning enough to pay in taxes his own cost in government services?

Frankly, the very idea of government setting out to determine one's legal privileges based on one's value to society seems to me far too Orwellian to be a good idea. Much better to treat everyone the same unless there is some compelling reason to do otherwise. As for gay couples, anything bad in having open homosexuality we already have; going back in time is simply not an option. The societal benefits of marriage, on the other hand, are exactly the same regardless of whether one's spouse is an innee or an outee, has matching private parts or mirrored private parts. It truly baffles me that people who honestly believe that homosexuality is a significantly negative societal force, having lost the war, are still fighting the last battle against what by any measure are positive societal benefits. For a small government fiscal conservative or libertarian, is it not good that every family can keep more of what it earns? For a social conservative or traditionalist, is it not good that everyone can choose to embrace what we advocate, marriage and family? THIS is the battle we're fighting now, not whether homosexuality is to be accepted in our society but whether or not homosexuals are to be afforded the same basic rights we enjoy and which we insist strengthen society. That we're fighting this battle at all, considering that there is no practical detriment to non-homosexuals, is just baffling. This isn't homosexual teachers or homosexual Scout Masters or homosexual priests or anything else even indirectly affecting others, it's merely about legal protections and the legal relationship between two adults and their government. There is no down side.

 

[cybrsage]

if a state wants to ban gay marriage, I'd say that's their choice.

but I don't see how DOMA -- and forbidding gay couples who are married in states where it's legal from getting the same federal marriage recognition that any straight couple would get -- isn't a violation of the equal rights amendment.

DOMA (I am assuming you mean the Fed Defense of Marriage Act) would most certainly be unconstitutional. The feds do not have that power.

 

[zsdersw]

Marriage is not just a contract between 2 people. It confers obligations onto 3 parties such as the government.

Because government obligates itself to have obligations.

Children are not typically allowed to consent to things.

But they are capable of saying yes or no to something. Objects are not.

Citizenship is not required for marriage, so nothing needs to change.

Learn how to read. I said citizenship status... even if you're not a citizen you're in some way categorized by government as a person. Objects are not people.

I don't think the legal "hurdles" are really all that large. More like mental hurdles

Then you're far more stupid than any of us can imagine.

But Im glad that you appear to believe that same-sex marriage is just as sensible as object-sexual marriage.

Sensible? No... there are significant fundamental legal hurdles to making object-sexual marriage possible. Same-sex marriage is infinitely more sensible because it doesn't require anywhere near as much change on the part of government and law. Expanding the scope of government and law to apply to objects is a lot more complicated than allowing gay people to marry.

 

[nehalem256]

Because government obligates itself to have obligations.

But they are capable of saying yes or no to something. Objects are not.

Which is relevant to the concept of legal consent how? I mean I could train a parrot to say yes, does that mean parrot-human marriages should be legal?

Learn how to read. I said citizenship status... even if you're not a citizen you're in some way categorized by government as a person. Objects are not people.

Citizenship status is about whether you are a citizen or not.

Sensible? No... there are significant fundamental legal hurdles to making object-sexual marriage possible. Same-sex marriage is infinitely more sensible because it doesn't require anywhere near as much change on the part of government and law. Expanding the scope of government and law to apply to objects is a lot more complicated than allowing gay people to marry.

Actually liberals are always saying that in traditional marriage women were really nothing more than property anyway. In a sense they are saying that women were nothing more than objects, and yet marriage happened for centuries without legal problems. :sneaky:

 

[zsdersw]

Which is relevant to the concept of legal consent how? I mean I could train a parrot to say yes, does that mean parrot-human marriages should be legal?

People think about a choice and then make a decision. It is called a conscious choice.

Citizenship status is about whether you are a citizen or not.

Yes, and objects cannot be citizens.. because they're not persons.

Actually liberals are always saying that in traditional marriage women were really nothing more than property anyway. In a sense they are saying that women were nothing more than objects, and yet marriage happened for centuries without legal problems. :sneaky:

"Traditional" marriage was a lot of things.

 

[cybrsage]

It comes down to consent. The phrase "of sound mind" is often used because you have to be able to give consent with an understanding of what that entails. If you are not of sound mind, you cannot give consent. This immediately invalidates all non-living items, for they have no mind. For living things, the being must be able to understand what the legal contract entails - and this limits it to humans. We then put a lower age limit allowable on human contracts due to where each individual state believes it should be. That age is somewhat arbitrary, but still based on being able to give consent.

 

[nehalem256]

People think about a choice and then make a decision. It is called a conscious choice.

I don't know if I would say all people think about their decisions

Yes, and objects cannot be citizens.. because they're not persons.

So, could possibly be a citizen is part of your definition of marriage?

 

[nehalem256]

It comes down to consent. The phrase "of sound mind" is often used because you have to be able to give consent with an understanding of what that entails. If you are not of sound mind, you cannot give consent. This immediately invalidates all non-living items, for they have no mind. For living things, the being must be able to understand what the legal contract entails - and this limits it to humans. We then put a lower age limit allowable on human contracts due to where each individual state believes it should be. That age is somewhat arbitrary, but still based on being able to give consent.

Consent has never really been part of the definition of marriage(although it is a sensible requirement in modern society with regard to any people in the marriage).

It is basically being used as a distinguishing characteristic to allow bigots to discriminate against sexual minorities.

 

[zsdersw]

So, could possibly be a citizen is part of your definition of marriage?

And you're a dumbass... who can't follow along, apparently. The potential to be a citizen means you're a person... and as a person, you can use the government to enforce/recognize a contract; the contract of marriage.

 

[zsdersw]

Consent has never really been part of the definition of marriage(although it is a sensible requirement in modern society with regard to any people in the marriage).

Hmm... so when the official asks the participants "Do you ..." or something to that effect, consent is not really a part of it?

It is basically being used as a distinguishing characteristic to allow bigots to discriminate against sexual minorities.

Only in your inane non-argument against SSM.

 

[nehalem256]

And you're a dumbass... who can't follow along, apparently. The potential to be a citizen means you're a person... and as a person, you can use the government to enforce/recognize a contract; the contract of marriage.

So why did you bring up citizenship status instead of just saying person?

Hmm... so when the official asks the participants "Do you ..." or something to that effect, consent is not really a part of it?

Only in your inane non-argument against SSM.

Consent is not required for marriage.

Legal marriage is a subset of marriage in which consent is required.

As marriage is between people of the opposite sex any subset of marriage will also be between people of the opposite sex.

 

[cybrsage]

Consent has never really been part of the definition of marriage(although it is a sensible requirement in modern society with regard to any people in the marriage).

It is basically being used as a distinguishing characteristic to allow bigots to discriminate against sexual minorities.

It is part of all legal contracts. Marriage is a legal contract.

 

[nehalem256]

It is part of all legal contracts. Marriage is a legal contract.

Non-humans are allowed to sign contracts. Its called a corporation.

Also, http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/02/living/put-your-pet-in-will-mnn

If you can establish Pet Trusts, why can you not marry them?

 

[zsdersw]

Non-humans are allowed to sign contracts. Its called a corporation.

Do non-humans create corporations? Are corporations comprised of humans or non-humans?

Also, http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/02/living/put-your-pet-in-will-mnn

If you can establish Pet Trusts, why can you not marry them?

Pet trusts provide for care of the pet after the owner dies... that doesn't mean the pet has the ability to give consent.

 

[zsdersw]

So why did you bring up citizenship status instead of just saying person?

Just to get you to go into another stupid irrelevancy... like toasters and other objects.

Consent is not required for marriage.

Legal marriage is a subset of marriage in which consent is required.

As marriage is between people of the opposite sex any subset of marriage will also be between people of the opposite sex.

So, if the official asks "Do you take this (wo)man ..." and you say "no", you can still be married anyway?

Consent is required for marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

Do non-humans create corporations? Are corporations comprised of humans or non-humans?

A corporation has human owners who can consent. And object has a legal owner who can consent.

Pet trusts provide for care of the pet after the owner dies... that doesn't mean the pet has the ability to give consent.

The Pet is able to be the beneficiary of a legal trust. The pet is part of a contract. So maybe what you are saying is that consent is not necessary to be part of a contract :sneaky:

Just to get you to go into another stupid irrelevancy... like toasters and other objects.

So basically you were being an idiot. Citizenship status has nothing to do with marriage.

So, if the official asks "Do you take this (wo)man ..." and you say "no", you can still be married anyway?

Consent is required for marriage.

Consent is not required for marriage. It is required for legal marriage in the US. Legal marriage in the US is a subset of marriage.

 

[zsdersw]

A corporation has human owners who can consent. And object has a legal owner who can consent.

Nope, that's not the analogy you're hoping for. Corporations' "owners" are a part of what comprises the corporation. The decisions they make are as if the corporation was an actual person. An object's legal owner is not a part of the object. I own the toaster, but I am not a part of the toaster.

The Pet is able to be the beneficiary of a legal trust. The pet is part of a contract. So maybe what you are saying is that consent is not necessary to be part of a contract :sneaky:

... and then you woke up.

So basically you were being an idiot.

Well, you're doing an excellent job of that already. I could never hope to match you in that regard.

Citizenship status has nothing to do with marriage.

Persons do, not objects. Citizenship status is a characteristic of persons, not objects... and is one of the many ways in which objects are not acted upon.. or at the behest of.. by government and law.

Consent is not required for marriage.

What are you talking about, exactly? Examples? Arranged marriages? They require consent of the two families involved.

 

[nehalem256]

What are you talking about, exactly? Examples?

Examples. I gave one earlier I believe:

Ever hear of a shotgun wedding?

Or how they marry 9 year old girls in Saudi Arabia.

History is rife with examples of people being forced to get married.

Again there are many kinds of marriage that I do not think should be allowed (children, without consent, siblings, people currently married), but that does not make marriages I do not approve of not marriage.

Same-sex, objects, animals are inherently not marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

What are you talking about, exactly? Examples? Arranged marriages? They require consent of the two families involved.

So the consent of the people getting married is not required for marriage. Thank you for conceding.

 

[zsdersw]

Examples. I gave one earlier I believe:

Ever hear of a shotgun wedding?

Or how they marry 9 year old girls in Saudi Arabia.

History is rife with examples of people being forced to get married.

Again there are many kinds of marriage that I do not think should be allowed (children, without consent, siblings, people currently married), but that does not make marriages I do not approve of not marriage.

Shotgun weddings are still consented to, even if it's done under duress or violent coercion.

Same-sex are inherently not marriage.

Wrong.

 

[zsdersw]

So the consent of the people getting married is not required for marriage. Thank you for conceding.

Yes it is. It was made before their consent was legally sought or recognized, but their consent is ultimately still required; they can either agree to the arranged marriage or get it annulled.

 

[nehalem256]

Shotgun weddings are still consented to, even if it's done under duress or violent coercion.

I am pretty sure that a contract that is "consented" to under violent coercion is not considered valid. So if marriage is just a legal contract a shotgun marriage is not a valid marriage.

Its "consent" in the same way a trained parrot is consenting to marriage if it says yes.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes it is. They can either agree to the arranged marriage or get it annulled.

Nice backtrack

What are you talking about, exactly? Examples? Arranged marriages? They require consent of the two families involved.

Problem is you are on record as saying that the consent of the families counts as consent.