Marriage Debate

[Meadmaker]

uh-huh. I wonder if 40-50 years ago the older generation thought the twenty somethings would think differently about the civil rights movement when they got older?

Time will tell if the best analogy will be the civil rights movement, or the Equal Rights Ammendment.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Religion is a belief, and it is already well and specifically addressed in the very 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as most (if not all) state constitutions.

But there are religons that do not support your beliefs about gay marriage....

So? What does that have to do with "discriminating religions" as you asked before?

Is it that you just wish to advocate discrimination of religions that don't toe your line?

If a church wishes to perform gay marriages, and you come out and say they cannot because of your religous beliefs, that means you are forcing your religon upon them.

Correct. And I have not done so.

The First Amendment states that you can't do this (which is why it is technically a blasphemy in many religons), so in any serious discussion of US foreign or domestic policy, you can't base your position purely on religon.

I most certainly can. The United States Government cannot.

You have to have something more solid than invisible sky pixies or vague semantic arguments, and I just haven't seen that from you.

I"ll base my opinions on God's law, invisible sky pixies, little voices, or whatever I damned well please.

You'll do the same.

So will everyone else.

Then we'll vote.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well it seem unlikely anyone will come up with the right answer to my question, so now that everyone's had time to think about it, I'll just give the answer:

The thing the lesbians lack, in addition to privileges and recognitions, are the legal obligations of marriage.

If one of them decides to see how the other half lives and ends up pregnant as a result, she has some explaining to do and might have moral consequences, but she isn't going to face any legal issues. Meanwhile, our friend who has chosen the non-monogamous lifestyle and impregnated his girlfriend has a different problem. As a husband, he's obligated to share his wealth with his wife. As a father, he's obligated to his children. If his wife happened to be the mother of his chilld, there wouldn't be much conflict, but in his case there is.

Fortunately for the adulterer, most judges think adultery is a personal issue these days, and even the matter of creating new children is just something to work out "fairly", as opposed to, say, holding someone at fault just because he happens to have a couple of different sex partners, one of which happened to wear some white dress one day while they swore in front of some invisible sky pixies and the State of Ohio that they weren't going to do what that fellow went and did.

But, oh wait. The definition and obligations of marriage don't have anything to do with same sex marriage, so it's entirely irrelevant to this discussion anyway. Carry on. WE DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS!

 

[Upchurch]

Now, can you give us some details of "to continue the government promotion of one set of religions and the discrimination against other sets of religions?"

Sure. Some religions define marriage as being between two people, irregardless of the sex of each individual. Other religions define marriage as being being between only one man and one woman. Through legal and financial means, the US and state governments only promotes those marriages that conform to the requirements of the latter religions, to the exclusion of the former.

 

[Random]

I"ll base my opinions on God's law, invisible sky pixies, little voices, or whatever I damned well please.

You'll do the same.

So will everyone else.

Then we'll vote.

You seem to be of the opinion that individual rights can be voted away. I get very tired, very quickly of this entire “the people have a right to decide” nonsense coming from the anti-gay marriage crowd. Let’s face facts, the anti-SSM groups don’t care about what the majority thinks. If the majority supported gay marriage, you can rest assured that other than dropping the “democracy” argument they would not change their views in the slightest. Indeed, one of the reasons they are pushing so hard for a marriage amendment now is that they want to make it as difficult for voters in the future to allow it.

But maybe you’re right. Maybe the decision of who can or cannot get married should not be left up to the potential spouses, but rather to the voters. I propose a massive national website where any and all engaged couples must register all of their personal information and be subject to a nationwide poll on whether or not they should be married. Since voters seem to care so much about what sorts of jiggly bits people have, all potential spouses must submit nude photographs of themselves for national evaluation.

 

[Upchurch]

So? What does that have to do with "discriminating religions" as you asked before?

Is it that you just wish to advocate discrimination of religions that don't toe your line?

What are you talking about? Allowing legal SSM does not prevent those religions tht don't believe in SSM from prohibiting them within their faiths.

Correct. And I have not done so.

And yet, you support a law that prevents the free exercise of religion.

The United States Government cannot.

And should the US Government base a law preventing SSM on, in your opinion?

I"ll base my opinions on God's law, invisible sky pixies, little voices, or whatever I damned well please.

You'll do the same.

So will everyone else.

Then we'll vote.

This is called the tyranny of the majority and it is why we have a checks and balances system in our government. What some have called "judicial activism", I call "judges doing their jobs".

 

[Upchurch]

Well it seem unlikely anyone will come up with the right answer to my question, so now that everyone's had time to think about it, I'll just give the answer:

The thing the lesbians lack, in addition to privileges and recognitions, are the legal obligations of marriage.

If one of them decides to see how the other half lives and ends up pregnant as a result, she has some explaining to do and might have moral consequences, but she isn't going to face any legal issues. Meanwhile, our friend who has chosen the non-monogamous lifestyle and impregnated his girlfriend has a different problem. As a husband, he's obligated to share his wealth with his wife. As a father, he's obligated to his children. If his wife happened to be the mother of his chilld, there wouldn't be much conflict, but in his case there is.

Fortunately for the adulterer, most judges think adultery is a personal issue these days, and even the matter of creating new children is just something to work out "fairly", as opposed to, say, holding someone at fault just because he happens to have a couple of different sex partners, one of which happened to wear some white dress one day while they swore in front of some invisible sky pixies and the State of Ohio that they weren't going to do what that fellow went and did.

This argument makes absolutely no sense.

1) You're saying that a woman (lesbian or otherwise) who gets pregnant (out of wedlock or not) has no legal obligations?!? Assuming she carries the child to term, she isn't just as obligated for the care of that child as the father is?

2) Were a lesbian couple legally married, they would also be obligated to share their wealth with each other.

3) Were a lesbian the non-legal guardian of the child, she would also be obligated to share her wealth with the child.

What legal obligations, exactly, would a lesbian not have that a straight woman would have in terms of child responsibility? What legal obligations, exactly, would a gay man not have that a straight man would have in terms of child responsibility?

I'm calling "baloney" on this argument. Your conclusion does not logically follow from your premise.

 

[Meadmaker]

This argument makes absolutely no sense.

1) You're saying that a woman (lesbian or otherwise) who gets pregnant (out of wedlock or not) has no legal obligations?!? Assuming she carries the child to term, she isn't just as obligated for the care of that child as the father is?

The pregnant lesbian has no legal obligation to her partner because their relationship is not recognized by the state. As far as the law is concerned, her partner is a roommate. Were they married, that would be different.

Unbelievable.

 

[pgwenthold]

You seem to be of the opinion that individual rights can be voted away. I get very tired, very quickly of this entire “the people have a right to decide” nonsense coming from the anti-gay marriage crowd. Let’s face facts, the anti-SSM groups don’t care about what the majority thinks. If the majority supported gay marriage, you can rest assured that other than dropping the “democracy” argument they would not change their views in the slightest. Indeed, one of the reasons they are pushing so hard for a marriage amendment now is that they want to make it as difficult for voters in the future to allow it.

Always a point worth making. The reason there is such a push now for this is because those opposing SSM know full well that in 20 years they are going to be a pretty small minority, as the generation that grew up with Ellen, Will&Grace, and Queer Eye come into relevant age. As homosexuality becomes accepted in the mainstream, anti-homosexual bigotry is going to be less popular.

When I wrote my congressman about gay marriage last time, the argument I gave was to not rush into this. Gay marriage has been around for, what, 5 years now? (it was less then). Already, we are seeing opposition to it drop (dropped something like 10% in the past two years). If 20 years from now, gay marriage is such a big problem that it is still an issue, then sure, it might be worth addressing it. But amending the constitution should not be used in a knee-jerk response.

Of course, the reason I gave this argument is because in 20 years, most people won't care about gay marriage. I know that, and the current lawmakers know that. That's why they have to do this NOW.

 

[Upchurch]

The pregnant lesbian has no legal obligation to her partner because their relationship is not recognized by the state. As far as the law is concerned, her partner is a roommate. Were they married, that would be different.

Unbelievable.

Oh, that's a brilliant circular argument: Non-legally married couples do not have the legal obligations of marriage. Why? Because they are not legally married.

Thank you for that dumbfounding obvious statement.

Unfortunately, that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument you just stated which was focused solely on the obligation of parent to child and not spouse to spouse.

Now it's my turn to express my disbelief that you could possibly (a) be serious in this position or (b) have any rationally coherent reason to hold this position.

 

[Meadmaker]

Thank you for that dumbfounding obvious statement.

You seem to have missed it the first time around.

Unfortunately, that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument you just stated which was focused solely on the obligation of parent to child and not spouse to spouse.

I'm afraid you must have missed something, like the part where I said

As a husband, he's obligated to share his wealth with his wife. As a father, he's obligated to his children. If his wife happened to be the mother of his chilld, there wouldn't be much conflict, but in his case there is.

There was one part of my message that was unclear, and that was where I said

If one of them decides to see how the other half lives and ends up pregnant as a result, she has some explaining to do and might have moral consequences, but she isn't going to face any legal issues.

When I said "legal issues", I was referring to a conflicting legal interest. An "issue" that had to be resolved. She of course has a legal obligation to her child, but that doesn't create any legal difficulty for her, because it conflicts with no other legal obligations. She hasn't broken any (legally binding) promises. She has no other (legally binding) issues to deal with. She just had a kid while she wasn't married. Legally, she has no problems.

Had she been married, that would be different, because she would have legal commitments to her spouse, and legal commitments to her child, and it would be impossible to satisfy both legal commitments simultaneously. A judge is going to have to step in and do the best he can to divide the adulterer's assets among the competing claims, but the adulterer himself is last in line getting anything at all.


This all got started when you didn't catch on to the legal issue that required government involvement when a married person had a child with someone other than his/her spouse.

Are you sufficiently educated yet? Do you see that government involvement is in fact required to sort out this problem?

 

[Upchurch]

I'm afraid you must have missed something, like the part where I said

As a husband, he's obligated to share his wealth with his wife.

Ah, yes. One line that is completely inaccurate. How could I have missed that?

I know couples who have completely seperate finances. What law are they breaking by not abiding by their "legal obligation to share their wealth" with one another?

Had she been married, that would be different, because she would have legal commitments to her spouse, and legal commitments to her child, and it would be impossible to satisfy both legal commitments simultaneously. A judge is going to have to step in and do the best he can to divide the adulterer's assets among the competing claims, but the adulterer himself is last in line getting anything at all.

One, this again falls under the blindingly stupid circular argument that: non-legally married couples are not legally married. This isn't an argument to not allow SSM. If the government would stop discriminating against same-sex couples and the religions that support them, they would be just as legally married as straight couples and just as legally obligated.

Two, when a judge steps in to reward assets as you describe, it is for the benefit of the child, not the other member of the coupling. That's why it's called "palimony" and not "alimony". it can be rewarded even if the the parents of the child have never been legally married.

Alimony is a different beast all together and has to do with the financial inequity between a couple at the end of a legal marriage. It has nothing to do with children (save for the additinal money paid as palimony to the primary legal guardian).

Could you either get your facts straight or at least stop beating this irrelevant dead horse?

This all got started when you didn't catch on to the legal issue that required government involvement when a married person had a child with someone other than his/her spouse.

The problem is that you don't seem to understand that the government involvement when a person has a child with someone else has absolutely nothing to do with the marital status of either person. For that matter, it isn't even a required government involvement. Awards of palimony are a civil matter, not criminal prosecution. The decision to pursue palimony lies with the child's legal guardian, not the state.

The only required government involvement is when the palimony isn't being paid, and even then, it is my understanding that it is up to the child's legal guardian whether or not to pursue the matter further.

Are you sufficiently educated yet? Do you see that government involvement is in fact required to sort out this problem?

Pride, thy log-in name is "Meadmaker".

When you have a logically coherent and factually based argument, let me know.

 

[Meadmaker]

Sadly, there is more truth to your words than I would like to admit. The courts have indeed pretty much ignored obligations of husband to wife, and vice versa. It's a pity, but there it is.

In a decent, respectable, world, a wife would be able to assume that a husband would spend the rest of his life trying to provide materially for his family, which consists of his wife and her children. Those children, not by coincidence, would be his as well. A wife would never have to fear that someday she might have to share the wealth with her husband's love child with a different woman.

And of course, such things have always happened, but in a decent, respectable, world, the courts would do their best to sort out the mess, but there would be no doubt that the man who caused the problem was the at fault party instead of just someone who was seeking happiness in a new way.

Likewise, husbands would not fear the same from wives.

That's what marriage is, or at least should be.

 

[Upchurch]

Sadly, there is more truth to your words than I would like to admit. The courts have indeed pretty much ignored obligations of husband to wife, and vice versa. It's a pity, but there it is.

Yes, it is a pity, but that is not the role of the courts nor should it be, imho.

In a decent, respectable, world, a wife would be able to assume that a husband would spend the rest of his life trying to provide materially for his family, which consists of his wife and her children. Those children, not by coincidence, would be his as well. A wife would never have to fear that someday she might have to share the wealth with her husband's love child with a different woman.

And of course, such things have always happened, but in a decent, respectable, world, the courts would do their best to sort out the mess, but there would be no doubt that the man who caused the problem was the at fault party instead of just someone who was seeking happiness in a new way.

Likewise, husbands would not fear the same from wives.

That's what marriage is, or at least should be.

And what of that, if anything, is inapplicable to a same-sex couple, if you allow for gender variation in the husband/wife roles?

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

They need to do a better job. We have precious few of them around here that are paved.

I realized that might have been an irrelevant point just after I posted .

Alaska is a virtual military outpost. I'm a longstanding member of the defense community. It might surprise you to know that, until fairly recently, the defense strategy here was atomic demolition after a hasty retreat if our air superiority failed.

Yikes. What about those bears then?

Take that up with the insurance industry...

I do, but it is an issue for any state agency as well. As a part of the armed services, you may have used such insurance, but here we have stay-at-home and part time working mothers with their partners sent off to war and they can’t get separate health insurance for themselves or sometimes their kids, aside from the greatly inefficient welfare programs, and if their partner gets killed, they are greatly out of luck. They can’t get it because they are female, otherwise, no problem.

Again, race is not a behavior. Homosexual activity is.

Drinking at a particular water fountain is a behavior. Voting is a behavior. Getting married to a white woman is a behavior. I could claim I’m not discriminating against blacks by disallowing them all that, and could say I just don’t like it when they do the same behaviors whites do. I just wouldn’t agree with their behaviors, not their innate qualities. But I’d still have a problem.

You are doing this with anatomy. An anatomical woman can’t get health insurance or claim to her homemaker’s SS, because she’s a she, not because she didn’t or can't make babies with her partner, or anything else. It’s not because of her behaviors of partnering up, solidifying her union in their church, and raising kids, because, if a person with a different anatomy did what she did, it’d be promoted instead. She wants to have the same behaviors as her fellow male citizen and treated the same when she does them, like the example of race above, but it’s the anatomy involved in the behaviors, not the behaviors themselves, that’s the problem.

And again, you say if Terry stopped having sex then he’d not be doing homosexual behavior. “Homosexuality is a behavior.” With this idea of yours it means I wasn’t homosexual until around 3 years after I came out, if ever (depending on your definitions), and I haven’t been for quite some time (man, I hate to keep touting a dull sex life, but it’s been made an issue ).

Also, it may surprise you to learn some of the couples, living together, in love, having raised kids, and wanting SSM, stopped having any sort of sex years ago. Yet, you’d not call them homosexuals?

To me, everything a homosexual does is, by definition, homosexual behavior. You call a woman who only experiences a sexual attraction to men a “heterosexual”, right? Even if she’s never had sex or never will? What do you call a woman who only experiences a sexual attraction to women? Is there no word for it?

That instinct is not a behavior; it is a quality of the person, whether they pick a particular behavior for it or not. And as much evidence has shown, the attraction to women and aversion to sexual interaction with men for most men can be just as innate and impossibly recalcitrant for a minority of women. Actually, I believe the RCC calls homosexuality a deep-seated inclination, and clearly distinguishes it from associated sexual behavior. I’ll find it if you’re interested

Maybe I’m overreacting, but to be defined by some imagined sex act strikes me as dangerous.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

It’s nice to switch waltzing partners for a while.

You having fun over there, Upchurch, Dave?

 

[Upchurch]

It’s nice to switch waltzing partners for a while.

You having fun over there, Upchurch, Dave?

Funny, I thought it was a mosh pit.

I'm more that willing to dance some more with Huntster. I'm sure he's working hard on an rationale that justifies the anti-American promotion of one set of religions over others.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes, it is a pity, but that is not the role of the courts nor should it be, imho.


And what of that, if anything, is inapplicable to a same-sex couple, if you allow for gender variation in the husband/wife roles?

If it isn't the role of the courts, then none of it is applicable to same sex couples, or opposite sex couples, or any couples or triples or n-tuples. If the courts can't enforce it, then it's meaningless.

And that's the problem. You want gays to be married. Fine. What does that mean? (Yes. That's a serious question, and one that not many like to thing about, apparently.)

 

[Upchurch]

If it isn't the role of the courts, then none of it is applicable to same sex couples, or opposite sex couples, or any couples or triples or n-tuples. If the courts can't enforce it, then it's meaningless.

It amazes me that you claim to value marriage so much, but that you cannot differentiate marriage from legalization of it. (Which, by the way, does not mean that SSM is currently illegal. SSM just doesn't have government recognition of it.) Do you honestly feel that two people cannot be married until that marriage is enforced through an act of law?

Look again at what you just wrote: "If the courts can't enforce [marriage], then its meaningless."

If the legal enforcement of marriage is the only value you find within marriage itself, then I would have to agree that marriage is meaningless for you, with or without government legalization of it.

And that's the problem. You want gays to be married. Fine. What does that mean? (Yes. That's a serious question, and one that not many like to thing about, apparently.)

Legally, it means being included in financial matters like health care insurance or 401k's. It means not having wills contested by other family members who don't approve (or at least not as easily and/or successfully contested). It means inheritance rights in the case of an unforseen death. It means spouses being able to visit each other in the hospital and to make medical decisions for one another. It means not having to testify against one's spouse in a court of law. It means more opportunities for the posibility of adoption.

I suppose I could go on with a little research, if you like. Legal marriage for married homosexual couples would afford these couples with the same legal rights as legally married heterosexual couples.

 

[Meadmaker]

Legally, it means being included in financial matters like health care insurance or 401k's. It means not having wills contested by other family members who don't approve (or at least not as easily and/or successfully contested). It means inheritance rights in the case of an unforseen death. It means spouses being able to visit each other in the hospital and to make medical decisions for one another. It means not having to testify against one's spouse in a court of law. It means more opportunities for the posibility of adoption.

I suppose I could go on with a little research, if you like. Legal marriage for married homosexual couples would afford these couples with the same legal rights as legally married heterosexual couples.

I noticed that nowhere in your list is there any obligation imposed upon a married person. Is that correct?