Marriage Debate

Meadmaker said:
1. Procreation may occur as a result of sexual conduct between two persons.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. We're talking about marriage. Procreation is a non-sequitor, for reasons others have mentioned earlier in this thread.

2. The possibility of procreation creates a situation where the two parties engaging in sexual intercourse require legal protection against each other, in order to coerce a reluctant partner to keep promises he or she made, which promises were made as a condition for consent to engage in sexual intercourse.
Click to expand...

Equally applicable to homosexual couples where children are involved. I know several homosexual couples who have children as the results or previous marriages with the opposite sex, or from adoption. Are not they entiled to the same protection?

3. To facilitate those sorts of agreements and enable those legal protections, it is in the interest of the state to create a standard legal agreement between two people that protects those interests.
Click to expand...

Equally applicable to homosexual couples.

4. Eligibility rules for that agreement need to be established such that all potentially procreative couples may enter into that standard agreement.
Click to expand...

Sure, if you like. Homosexual couples included.

5. No harm is done if non-procreative couples are allowed to enter into the standard agreement, but no state interest is served by allowing them to do so.
Click to expand...

How wrong you are. If people are unable to inherit the property of their partners, and unable to file jointly for taxes, unable to have comunal property and unable to share spousal privilage, I would dare say that is a detriment to society. By no sound logic can you say only breeding couples are entitled to these benefits.

6. The common law definition of marriage, as being between a man and a woman, serves those purposes by allowing all potentially procreative couples to enter into the state defined standard agreement.
Click to expand...

It also allows infertile people of all sorts, including the elderly and those with reproductive problems to marry. We're been over this. We already extend marriage benefits to people unable to breed. Why are homosexual couples any different?

7. No change in eligibility requirements should be made unless the change is necessary to include a potentially procreative couple . Doing so would suggest that the state has an interest in regulating sexual behavior of people, as opposed to their procreative tendencies.
Click to expand...

I'm going to use small words, so you understand: When the state stops any two people from getting hitched, the state is interfering with the liberties of those people. The state is not harmed by allowing two people of the same sex to get married. Ergo, the state is already "suggesting that the state has an interest in regulating the sexual behavior of people".

8. Therefore, addition of same sex couples into marriage agreements serves the interests of neither the state, nor the individuals. It suggests that the state should regulate sexual behavior independent of its ability to create children.
Click to expand...

Here are ways same sex marriages serve the state and the individuals:

*Joint taxes and comunal property.

*Ability to visit one's loved one in the hosptial. (Many hosptials allow only family to visit. Many such hosptials refuse to recognize same sex unions in that regard)

*More homes for children are avilable, since it's hard to raise children when the state refuses to recognize you are married. It makes many tax exempt expenses difficult to file for, and many States refuse to allow people in same sex unions to adpot or foster children. Extending marriage rights and privilages to them would give homes to many more children. Are you in favor of denying needy children homes?

And so on and on, as many people have already posted in this thread.

Meadmaker, your procreation arguement is at best a non-sequitor, and at worst a smokescreen to hide your irrational bigotry.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
What's more, if you do make those vows, in public, in front of witnesses, there's no longer any requirement to acknowledge them as being of any significance. They are cheap sentiment, right?
Click to expand...

No, but nor are they for the state to decide. What vows you make and whether you keep to them are for you and your spouse to decide.

Marriage is pretty much whatever you decide what you want it to be.

It's better that way, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes. There's no one-size-fits-all marriage, even in strictly heterosexual marriages. Or should we go back to the traditional "love, honor, and obey" vow?
 
Meadmaker, are you saying that my sister who had a hysterectomy at 17 shouldn't have been allowed to marry because she would have gone into a marriage not being able to procreate? Sure, she could adopt and sure she could have had a child by a surrogate mother (I volunteered), but she was limited to the same procreation options as a gay couple of either sex would have. It is approximated that a full 50% of heterosexual couples today require medical intervention to become pregnant, are they not supposed to get married unless they can somehow prove before the wedding that they’re fertile? I’d love to see someone propose that idea with a straight face…

This is personal for me, given that I’ve dealt with friends who have lost their partners, and the legal wrangling and drama that went on as a result, several times. Bob and Ted were together for 20+ years. They had a house together, although it was legally only in Bob’s name. It was beautifully decorated and they had renovated and remodeled it several times. Ted paid half of the mortgage (along with half the bills) and they felt because they both had wills naming the other as sole heirs, they were protected in the event that one of them died. Wrong, oh so wrong.

Five years ago, Bob got ill with cancer. Ted nursed Bob through the illness, held his head when he was sick and made his last days as comfortable as possible, while maintaining the house and taking care of their three dogs. When Bob finally got to the point of needing hospice care, his mother flew in from out of state, put Bob into the hospice and barred Ted from seeing Bob because she had never approved of her son’s “lifestyle” and she wanted to make sure that Bob died in a wholesome environment where he had a chance to “repent” his evil ways before meeting his Lord and Maker without the wicked influences of Ted. Bob’s mother, Janice, asked Bob where his will and financial papers were, went into the house, found the will and destroyed it, thereby gaining control of all his worldly possessions. Ted was livid, but legally there was not a damn thing he could do about it. Now, Ted and Bob do share some of the blame here because they kept their flipping wills where an unscrupulous person could destroy them, but did they really deserve this?

Bob died alone, without the comfort of his partner. Ted got kicked to the curb with nothing. Janice even had the dang dogs put down because she “couldn’t stand the hairy little beasts”. If you were married for 20 years, wouldn’t you want your spouse to have the final say over you, not your parents or siblings? Who is likely to know you better? How would you like your spouse’s parent to bar you from the funeral services because of what their friends might think? How would you like your name not to be in the obituary because “people would talk”…

My parents, who celebrated their 49th wedding anniversary three days ago, don’t feel that their union is somehow threatened or the sanctity violated by allowing gay couples to marry. How would allowing Ted and Bob to have legally married affect my parents’ marriage, my marriage or anybody else’s marriage on a personal level?
 
I've seen it happen three times over the past 30 years... When my Uncle died, we were sweating whether his current wife (legally, although they had been separated for four years and hadn't spoken to each other in over three) was going to move into the family house that Uncle Bobby died in. Had she clued in and acted quickly enough, she could have moved into the house before the will was probated, paid the utilities and lived there until she died. We, as the family, would have had no recourse to evict her at that point. The house is paid for and was in my Uncle’s name as well as his three surviving siblings, which means that his legal wife would have every right to occupy that house as long as she lived.
 
The Mutha said:
Meadmaker, are you saying that my sister who had a hysterectomy at 17 shouldn't have been allowed to marry because she would have gone into a marriage not being able to procreate?
Click to expand...


Go back and read my post, and try and find anyplace where I said that.

Read, people.


ImaginalDisc,

I have a friend. She's 53 years old, never married. Her father died about ten years ago. A few years later, her mother moved in with her. Shortly after that, they moved into a house they bought togeter

Can you provide a fact based, rational argument, devoid of logical fallacies, that doesn't invoke tradition or religion, that says why these two people should not be allowed to marry?

I don't think you can, at least not without asserting that government has some sort of interest in regulating private sexual behavior. Economically, these two people have all the characteristics of a married couple. The only differences are that 1) they are blood relatives and 2) they aren't having sex.
 
The Mutha said:
Bob died alone, without the comfort of his partner. Ted got kicked to the curb with nothing. Janice even had the dang dogs put down because she “couldn’t stand the hairy little beasts”. If you were married for 20 years, wouldn’t you want your spouse to have the final say over you, not your parents or siblings?
Click to expand...

Aside from the mistake of not having a lawyer with a copy of their will, Bob also made a mistake in not having given Ted medical power of attorney. You can grant this power to anyone, including relatives or even friends who are married to other people, so it's much more flexible than same sex marriage in terms of protecting your wishes, and it's available to everyone already. It's a shame that the importance of taking this step isn't being promoted by gay-rights advocates.
 
Meadmaker said:
Go back and read my post, and try and find anyplace where I said that.

Read, people.


ImaginalDisc,

I have a friend. She's 53 years old, never married. Her father died about ten years ago. A few years later, her mother moved in with her. Shortly after that, they moved into a house they bought togeter

Can you provide a fact based, rational argument, devoid of logical fallacies, that doesn't invoke tradition or religion, that says why these two people should not be allowed to marry?

I don't think you can, at least not without asserting that government has some sort of interest in regulating private sexual behavior. Economically, these two people have all the characteristics of a married couple. The only differences are that 1) they are blood relatives and 2) they aren't having sex.
Click to expand...

Do they want to get married? If so, why stop them?
 
Ziggurat said:
Aside from the mistake of not having a lawyer with a copy of their will, Bob also made a mistake in not having given Ted medical power of attorney. You can grant this power to anyone, including relatives or even friends who are married to other people, so it's much more flexible than same sex marriage in terms of protecting your wishes, and it's available to everyone already. It's a shame that the importance of taking this step isn't being promoted by gay-rights advocates.
Click to expand...

Way to blame the victim, Ziggy.
 
Ziggurat said:
Aside from the mistake of not having a lawyer with a copy of their will, Bob also made a mistake in not having given Ted medical power of attorney. You can grant this power to anyone, including relatives or even friends who are married to other people, so it's much more flexible than same sex marriage in terms of protecting your wishes, and it's available to everyone already. It's a shame that the importance of taking this step isn't being promoted by gay-rights advocates.
Click to expand...

firstly, it is commonly promoted. Secondly, it's tedious, and costly. Straight people enjoy these benefits, and more, just by getting married. What justifies the extra hurdles?
 
Cleon said:
Way to blame the victim, Ziggy.
Click to expand...

Don't be an idiot, Cleon. I'm not blaming Bob any more than I'd be blaming someone who got robbed by saying that they should install locks on their door. The only person to blame was the one who did something wrong (in this case, the mother, in the case of a robbery, the thief), but that doesn't mean it's not useful to point out how to avoid being victimized. I would have thought you might be interested in knowing how someone in such a position can protect themselves, but perhaps I'm wrong about that.
 
No, I realize that they should have had a power of attorney, it probably would have made things easier. But, 20 years ago, I saw a father go to court and get one overturned on the basis that he knew better what his darling son wanted, not his partner of five years... Conservative Judge = he got her way. Times do change and it may not happen that way now, but nothing legal is 100% guaranteed, cut and dried, unfortunately. Look at the Schaivo case.

And honestly, how many of you married couples have wills, power of attorneys, living wills, orders of disposition of your children, etc? Quite a number of married couples that I know don't bother with that stuff because it's one of the legalities that come with getting married. I have all of the above because I'm a single parent raising a 16 yr old. I don't want my ex-husband gaining any control over my daugthter's money or what happens to her (as much as I can legally manage, anyway).

To me, having your legal affairs in order is the morally responsible thing to do as a parent or a spouse. But sadly, I find myself in the minority on this belief amongst my friends and co-workers.
 
A man and a woman who have know each other for less than a day can walk into a courthouse, pay a small fee, say a few words in front of a justice of the peace, and receive all the legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage.

Two men can spend years and thousands of dollars attempting to obtain those same benefits and responsibilities and will never quite get there.
 
Ziggurat said:
Don't be an idiot, Cleon. I'm not blaming Bob any more than I'd be blaming someone who got robbed by saying that they should install locks on their door. The only person to blame was the one who did something wrong (in this case, the mother, in the case of a robbery, the thief), but that doesn't mean it's not useful to point out how to avoid being victimized. I would have thought you might be interested in knowing how someone in such a position can protect themselves, but perhaps I'm wrong about that.
Click to expand...

You know what would really be effective at preventing this sort of victimization by religious modivated, predatory family members? Marriage.

Oh wait, you oppose that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom