Marriage Debate

[ImaginalDisc]

I can think of all sorts of odd scenarios. After all, almost anything we do affects other things. For example, suppose you had a gay man who was married to a straight woman (yes, of course it happens). He might have a gay lover which kept him happy and she didn't care, since their marriage was a pretense anyway. But if he could marry the gay lover, he might divorce her.

Unlikely? Not given the number of ways to have relationships. And it would not happen if gays were prevented from marrying. But is it a legitimate reason for prohibiting gay marriage? Not in the least. People stay together in heterosexual relationships for the oddest of reasons too.

My point is, just because you can conceive of a reason why allowing gay marriage might change things is no reason to prohibit it. Divorce laws changed marriage dramatically, but I don't hear anyone arguing that divorce should be prohibited. Things always change. Marriage is not what it was a hundred years ago. Get used to it.

Tricky, I've been arguing FOR gay marriage. I was asking Meadmaker to back up his assertion that in some way, heterosexual marriages would be diminished by homosexual marriages.

 

[Meadmaker]

In a topic on gay marriage, it has been stated by several people, most recently by heavyaaron, that the government ought to eliminate all recognition of all marriages.

I would like to suggest that there is a connection between support for gay marriage, and opposition to government recognintion of any marriage. I would also like to suggest that if the government were to choose not to recognize any marriage, this would hurt heterosexual marriages.

The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

[Roadtoad]

In a topic on gay marriage, it has been stated by several people, most recently by heavyaaron, that the government ought to eliminate all recognition of all marriages.

I would like to suggest that there is a connection between support for gay marriage, and opposition to government recognintion of any marriage. I would also like to suggest that if the government were to choose not to recognize any marriage, this would hurt heterosexual marriages.

The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.

Sorry, but in reading this through, I can say, MM, that YOU are making the assertion, YOU need to provide the evidence.

My own view: we have far too much Federal and State involvement in marriage. Tax laws and property statutes either unfairly penalize married couples, or they provide unfair benefits.

Another point: when my dad's father died, (before I was born), he was living in Texas. Under Texas law at the time, all of his property went to my dad, his only son, since he died intestate. My grandmother would have been left with nothing had my father decided to keep it all. (As it was, he had to file papers with the court to allow his mother to keep anything, including the house she bought with her husband, which she helped pay for with her earnings from Sears Roebuck.)

As to gay marriage: Terry's already married. So's Scot Trypal. Whether we choose to give our seal of approval is ultimately irrelevant. The relationships exist. They're not so much asking for us to approve, but to at least provide legal recognition so that they might at least be able to provide for their spouses should the unthinkable happen, or at least have their wishes respected should it happen to them.

I don't know how Terry's family feels about his relationship with Steve, but if something were to happen to him, God forbid, it's Steve who should decide what medical treatment is provided should Terry be unable to speak for himself, not a family member who might be hostile to that relationship, or worse, the State. It's one point, but it's important.

Got news for you folks: In trucking, you don't have the choice of "what if," or "if only," or any of that crap. When I pull into a job site, or when I get loaded, I have a responsibility to deal with the load and situation as it really is. You have gay and lesbian people. They enter into relationships. They do so openly, honestly, and knowing that it will offend. (Sounds like my marriage to Peggy; my mother still hates her after 21 years of my being married to her.) Deal with it as it is, not as you want it to be. That's what's got to come first.

I've got a friend at work whose wife just left him, abandoning him and his two sons for another man. She was a youth minister in their church, but she's blabbing on about how "Jesus wants me to be happy." She sees her sons maybe 15 minutes out of the week. Those two little boys are now asking what they did wrong that their mommy doesn't love them anymore. Her husband, my friend, is torn up inside, wondering how he's going to raise those two sons of his, alone, because his "Christian" wife decided that Jesus wanted her to be happy.

I'm sure she opposes gay marriage. I know too many people like her, and they oppose gay marriage. They say it undermines the institution of marriage, while their actions do not. After all, they have God's direction to go and be happy, right?

 

[Meadmaker]

As to gay marriage: Terry's already married. So's Scot Trypal. Whether we choose to give our seal of approval is ultimately irrelevant. The relationships exist. They're not so much asking for us to approve, but to at least provide legal recognition so that they might at least be able to provide for their spouses should the unthinkable happen, or at least have their wishes respected should it happen to them.

Well then you really need to be taking this up with heavyaaron, because he wants to make that impossible. Or did you miss that?

I, on the other hand support gay marriage. But it has to be a real marriage, not some anything goes sort of arrangement that could be formed between a mother and daughter, or that could be dissolved whenever one, count 'em one, partner decides it isn't his or her cup of tea anymore.

 

[ZirconBlue]

But it has to be a real marriage, not some anything goes sort of arrangement that could be formed between a mother and daughter, or that could be dissolved whenever one, count 'em one, partner decides it isn't his or her cup of tea anymore.

I don't understand how this only applies to gay marriage. Any current existing heterosexual marriage can be dissolved when only one partner wants it to be. How much legal hassle they have to go through depends on how hard their spouse wants to fight it, but in the end, if one person wants a divorce, they're going to have it. And, for that matter, why should one person have to stay in a bad marriage just because the other one doesn't want to divorce?

 

[Roadtoad]

Well then you really need to be taking this up with heavyaaron, because he wants to make that impossible. Or did you miss that?

I, on the other hand support gay marriage. But it has to be a real marriage, not some anything goes sort of arrangement that could be formed between a mother and daughter, or that could be dissolved whenever one, count 'em one, partner decides it isn't his or her cup of tea anymore.

I didn't think I was only speaking to you. Seems, MM, there's others reading this thread.

 

[Meadmaker]

I didn't think I was only speaking to you. Seems, MM, there's others reading this thread.

You quoted me, so I thought you were responding to me. Looking at your post, it seems that perhaps only the first part may have been directed at me.

ETA: But aside from the size 12 letters, the rest of my post still has the same point. I'm guessing that you weren't directing your comments to heavyaaron, despite the fact that he wants to make impossible that which you think is necessary. You think that Scot needs some legal protection, and so do I. However, an awful lot of people agree with heavyaaron that the government shouldn't recognize any marriage including Scot's.

Where's the criticism, folks? If marriage is so important that we have to extend it to people currently not covered, where is the criticism when people say that no one needs it at all?

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't understand how this only applies to gay marriage.

It doesn't. In my opinion, it's too easy to break marriage vows without consequence today. I'm not against divorce, but I am against no-faullt divorce that can be initiated by one party without penalty, and I am against no fault divorce when there is fault. If someone commits adultery, they broke the contract, and the aggrieved party (the spouse) should be able to seek and receive compensation. Likewise with abandonment, abuse, or other traditional "faults" that were once considered grounds for divorce.

 

[ZirconBlue]

It doesn't. In my opinion, it's too easy to break marriage vows without consequence today. I'm not against divorce, but I am against no-faullt divorce that can be initiated by one party without penalty, and I am against no fault divorce when there is fault. If someone commits adultery, they broke the contract, and the aggrieved party (the spouse) should be able to seek and receive compensation. Likewise with abandonment, abuse, or other traditional "faults" that were once considered grounds for divorce.

Ah, I understand now. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Random]

You quoted me, so I thought you were responding to me. Looking at your post, it seems that perhaps only the first part may have been directed at me.

ETA: But aside from the size 12 letters, the rest of my post still has the same point. I'm guessing that you weren't directing your comments to heavyaaron, despite the fact that he wants to make impossible that which you think is necessary. You think that Scot needs some legal protection, and so do I. However, an awful lot of people agree with heavyaaron that the government shouldn't recognize any marriage including Scot's.

Where's the criticism, folks? If marriage is so important that we have to extend it to people currently not covered, where is the criticism when people say that no one needs it at all?

I don’t feel that the legal institution of marriage is so important that it must be extended to gays. I feel that homosexual couples should be treated the same as heterosexual couples. If this means marriage for all then I want marriage for all. If this means marriage for none, then we should have marriage for none. If they are to be treated differently, then the government needs to have a really good reason for doing so, and I just haven’t heard one yet.

I really haven’t given much thought to the abolition of marriage itself. I can see all kinds of issues that would arise from something like that, and I’m not sure it would be for the best. Looking at the current political climate however, I think that extending the franchise to include homosexual couples would be a lot easier than eliminating it completely.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

It doesn't. In my opinion, it's too easy to break marriage vows without consequence today. I'm not against divorce, but I am against no-faullt divorce that can be initiated by one party without penalty, and I am against no fault divorce when there is fault. If someone commits adultery, they broke the contract, and the aggrieved party (the spouse) should be able to seek and receive compensation. Likewise with abandonment, abuse, or other traditional "faults" that were once considered grounds for divorce.

Why are you equating adultery with abuse and abandonment? Adultery is grounds for divorce, but it is not a crime (except as a misdeanour in several states, but even then it does not nullify a marriage). By making adultery tantamount to abuse, you are attempting to use legal means to enforce fidelity. That's completely unjust.

 

[wastepanel]

I don’t feel that the legal institution of marriage is so important that it must be extended to gays. I feel that homosexual couples should be treated the same as heterosexual couples. .

This was a very good post. However, I'm confused about the first two statements.

Has ANYBODY listed any rational objections to SSM besides morals?

 

[Cleon]

This was a very good post. However, I'm confused about the first two statements.

Has ANYBODY listed any rational objections to SSM besides morals?

Nope. Ziggy tried posting some bit about how the State has an investment in marriage because of children, and repeated this assertion numerous times despite people pointing out that children are not a requirement for marriage, or even a consideration, really. That's pretty much it.

 

[HeavyAaron]

Why are you equating adultery with abuse and abandonment? Adultery is grounds for divorce, but it is not a crime (except as a misdeanour in several states, but even then it does not nullify a marriage). By making adultery tantamount to abuse, you are attempting to use legal means to enforce fidelity. That's completely unjust.

Not to speak for him, but I think he's considering it a breach of contract. Thus it wouldn't be a CRIME, but a contract violation, subject to civil compensation in court. I'm wondering if this couldn't be written into a pre-nup?

If we consider legal marriage nothing more than a contract, then pre-nups + optional covenant marriage (i.e. no no-fault divorce marriages) makes perfect sense to me. And, as strange as it sounds, I think it's compatable with my "no government recognition of marriage" request. It's not a marriage; it's a contract, with all of the legal enforcement powers. Of course, if that's all it is, it's open to any people groups (not just couples, and certainly not restricted to opposite sex couples without blood relation.)

Aaron

 

[Upchurch]

Nope. Ziggy tried posting some bit about how the State has an investment in marriage because of children, and repeated this assertion numerous times despite people pointing out that children are not a requirement for marriage, or even a consideration, really. That's pretty much it.

Even then, it's been acknowledged that there is nothing inherent about a homosexual couple prevents them from being capable of handling 96% of the total minimum required time needed to raise a child. (The remaining 4% being the nine months of pregnancy.)

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Not to speak for him, but I think he's considering it a breach of contract. Thus it wouldn't be a CRIME, but a contract violation, subject to civil compensation in court. I'm wondering if this couldn't be written into a pre-nup?

Fidelity is often included in pre-nupital agreements, but not always. Unless it is, then adultery violates nothing but one's trust. While cheating on and lying to one's spoude isn't laudable, I personnaly think that controlling your spouses' sex life with a contract demonstrates a profound lack of trust.

 

[Random]

This was a very good post. However, I'm confused about the first two statements.

It could have been phrased better, but I was basically responding to Meadmaker’s post. He was stating that people who thought that it was important to extend marriage rights to gays did not seem to be complaining about those that wanted to get rid of civil marriage entirely. I just wanted to get my thoughts on the subject out there.

 

[Meadmaker]

If we consider legal marriage nothing more than a contract, then pre-nups + optional covenant marriage (i.e. no no-fault divorce marriages) makes perfect sense to me. And, as strange as it sounds, I think it's compatable with my "no government recognition of marriage" request.

Thanks for clarifying. That makes sense to me as well. It seems like your concept of "no government recognition of marriage" is more like a "no government definition of marriage".

ETA: By which I mean it seems that you would like people to be able to tailor their marriage agreement to their own needs/desires, instead of having the government dictate the only possible legal agreement that one can enter into.


It doesn't bother me that some people don't want what was once called "marriage", with all its legal obligations and standard definitions. I think "one size fits all" marriages just don't seem to be realistic in this day and age. But for those people who want the old fashioned sort, complete with the ability to take your soon to be ex spouse to the cleaners because he started dallying with the intern, I think it ought to be available.

 

[Meadmaker]

I personnaly think that controlling your spouses' sex life with a contract demonstrates a profound lack of trust.

And a certain degree of realism.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Thanks for clarifying. That makes sense to me as well. It seems like your concept of "no government recognition of marriage" is more like a "no government definition of marriage".


It doesn't bother me that some people don't want what was once called "marriage", with all its legal obligations and standard definitions. I think "one size fits all" marriages just don't seem to be realistic in this day and age. But for those people who want the old fashioned sort, complete with the ability to take your soon to be ex spouse to the cleaners because he started dallying with the intern, I think it ought to be available.

Why should you be able to sieze your partner's assests if they grab someone else's, err, assests?