Marriage Debate

[Darat]

Marriage is a Catholic sacrament.

...snip...

Are you aware it wasn't for well over half the Roman Catholic Church's existence?

 

[Meadmaker]

Okay, educate me. What are the legal issues related to legal marriage associated with a man having children by a woman other than his wife?

Im my mind, the injustice here basically boils down to two legal issues: government sponsorship of certain religions over others and sexual descrimination (because one member of the couple is/is not female).

I did absolutely no such thing. Whther or not gays are allowed to marry should be only an issue of legality in terms of government involvement.

To which I called "baloney" and explained why. You seem to be under the misunderstanding that the obligations of marriage are solely legal.

So, do you want to talk law, or would you prefer to talk about personal, religious, or social relationships? Make up your mind.

 

[Upchurch]

So, do you want to talk law, or would you prefer to talk about personal, religious, or social relationships? Make up your mind.

You misunderstand. Nothing you quoted above is inconsistent with one another. I had to make the distinction between legal and social/religious marriage because you appear to confuse one for the other and I wanted to be more specific.

That social/religious SSM exists is the issue at hand. If you want to argue that it doesn't, then you're just denying reality. The issue, as I either directly state or indirectly imply in three out of the four quotes above, is government promotion/acknowledgement of some social/religious marriages over others and whether or not there is a constitutionally sound reason for the government to do so.

The fourth quote was one of my attempts to help you understand the what the aspects of marriage are, since you, as I said, you don't seem to understand the distinction

 

[Meadmaker]

I assure you I understand the distinction.

The religious aspects aren't very interesting to me, and the government shouldn't care either, IMHO.

Marriage of course involves personal relationships, between husband and wife, between husband and mother-in-law, between mothers and children, between friends and lovers. All sorts of personal relationships. That's personal business.

"Social" is harder to describe, especially as distinct from legal. I'll let Miss Manners describe the proper behavior. I like Miss Manners. In the end, the social aspects are large scale personal reactions, especially to people you don't know personally. Like personal relationships, it's really up to the individual how to deal with the social aspects.

And then there's law. We all share the law, so it's not personal. Also, the law tends to shape personal and social attitudes, whether or not it "should". My discussions are with the legal aspects, but keeping in mind the social aspects.

You asked about, "government promotion/acknowledgement of some social/religious marriages over others and whether or not there is a constitutionally sound reason for the government to do so". There is no constitutionally sound reason, because it never occurred to the founders to make one.

However, there are good reasons, constitution or no constitution, to promote certain kinds of marriages. Children raised in stable homes with constant parents tend to kill themselves and others less often. I think that's a good reason to promote one sort of marriage, specifically the stable monogamous sort, over the other kinds.

 

[Meadmaker]

I realized why Upchurch thinks I'm confused. I keep talking as if that "love, honor, cherish...forsaking all others...til death do us part" stuff was part of the legal aspect of marriage.

Indeed, that is the way I talk, and I will continue to do so.

 

[Upchurch]

Marriage of course involves personal relationships, between husband and wife, between husband and mother-in-law, between mothers and children, between friends and lovers. All sorts of personal relationships. That's personal business.

I consider that the social aspects of marriage. Part of it, anyway.

You asked about, "government promotion/acknowledgement of some social/religious marriages over others and whether or not there is a constitutionally sound reason for the government to do so". There is no constitutionally sound reason, because it never occurred to the founders to make one.

I disagree. They may not have written anything about homosexuality in consideration of the Constitution, but they wrote tons about the freedom of conscience, religion, and self-determination. Having read a great deal from that time period, I have very little doubt that they would not have been in favor of this kind of government control over social and religious institutions.

However, there are good reasons, constitution or no constitution, to promote certain kinds of marriages. Children raised in stable homes with constant parents tend to kill themselves and others less often. I think that's a good reason to promote one sort of marriage, specifically the stable monogamous sort, over the other kinds.

And, of course, you are including SSM in those marriages that should be promoted for creating stable homes, right?

 

[Upchurch]

I realized why Upchurch thinks I'm confused. I keep talking as if that "love, honor, cherish...forsaking all others...til death do us part" stuff was part of the legal aspect of marriage.

Indeed, that is the way I talk, and I will continue to do so.

But you understand that "love, honor, cherish...forsaking all others...til death do us part" is not part of the legal aspect of marriage?

 

[HeavyAaron]

But you understand that "love, honor, cherish...forsaking all others...til death do us part" is not part of the legal aspect of marriage?

I thought he's been pretty clear that he knows it isn't but would like it to be.

Aaron

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I realized why Upchurch thinks I'm confused. I keep talking as if that "love, honor, cherish...forsaking all others...til death do us part" stuff was part of the legal aspect of marriage.

Indeed, that is the way I talk, and I will continue to do so.

You take pride in deliberately confounding seperate issues and make no effort to make yourself understood?

 

[Upchurch]

I thought he's been pretty clear that he knows it isn't but would like it to be.

All I've seen are detailed descriptions of a kind of social/religious marriage that were stripped away to pretty much describe the current state of legal marriage.

The only thing about it this exchange that is clear to me is that Meadmaker is slowing going through the process of showing why legal marriage cannot be used to define, dictate, or force the social and religious aspects of marriage.

 

[Meadmaker]

Let me ask this, Upchurch. I want marriage vows to be treated as legally binding. By "legally binding", I mean that the violation of those vows should be treated as a civil violation, for which compensation can be sought. (Translation for the slow witted: If your wife catches you with your girlfriend, your wife gets the house, the car, and maybe some alimony on top of it.)

That's a bit too extreme for modern sensibilities, actually asking people to swear such an oath that means something more than a piece of theater, when all they really want is some new china and to add someone to their health insurance, so I won't demand that sort of oath from everyone who wants to get "married", whatever that means.

But, for those people who want such an oath, should it be possible to swear such an oath, and have it be considered a legally binding contract? Is it possible to do that today? How?

 

[Meadmaker]

I disagree. They may not have written anything about homosexuality in consideration of the Constitution,

They didn't write anything about "marriage" in the constitution. I think they considered it important, anyway, and had some sort of clue what it was, and how government was involved. I'll bet that they even considered marriage vows legally binding.

And, of course, you are including SSM in those marriages that should be promoted for creating stable homes, right?

Insufficient data at this time, but I'm liberal. As a consequence, I think the assumption should be to assume that such an environment will be beneficial, until shown otherwise.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Let me ask this, Upchurch. I want marriage vows to be treated as legally binding. By "legally binding", I mean that the violation of those vows should be treated as a civil violation, for which compensation can be sought. (Translation for the slow witted: If your wife catches you with your girlfriend, your wife gets the house, the car, and maybe some alimony on top of it.)

That's a bit too extreme for modern sensibilities, actually asking people to swear such an oath that means something more than a piece of theater, when all they really want is some new china and to add someone to their health insurance, so I won't demand that sort of oath from everyone who wants to get "married", whatever that means.

But, for those people who want such an oath, should it be possible to swear such an oath, and have it be considered a legally binding contract? Is it possible to do that today? How?

I've said it before, and it seems I need to say it again. If you need to use the power of law to FORCE your wife to be faithful to you, you are a petty and jealous man.

You're creating a false dichotomy. This isn't a choice between meaningless marriages and traditional, legally enforced religious vows. There's a whole spectrum of different levels of voluntary commitments people make, and your dogmatic view can only rule the day if you outline clearly and concisely what logical reasons you have for supporting them.

 

[Meadmaker]

I've said it before, and it seems I need to say it again. If you need to use the power of law to FORCE your wife to be faithful to you, you are a petty and jealous man.

Between me and my wife, what makes you think my wife is the one that needs coercion?

But I noticed you didn't answer the question. There are plenty of petty and jealous people of both sexes in America. Should they be able to sign the sort of contract I've described?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Between me and my wife, what makes you think my wife is the one that needs coercion?

But I noticed you didn't answer the question. There are plenty of petty and jealous people of both sexes in America. Should they be able to sign the sort of contract I've described?

If they chose that sort of marriage, yes. However, that should not the only option avilable for those who want to marry. Some of us don't believe in using the police to control the genitals of the people we love.

As I said, you present a false dichotomy.

 

[Upchurch]

They didn't write anything about "marriage" in the constitution. I think they considered it important, anyway, and had some sort of clue what it was, and how government was involved. I'll bet that they even considered marriage vows legally binding.

You might want to review a little bit about Thomas Jefferson's life. Or Benjamin Franklin's.

However, given that they thought the seperation of church and state was critical to the formation of the US government and that most of the legal benefits didn't come along until later (with the exclusion of inheretence, and I'm not sure if that was a state or federal level law), I think it is safe to say that the founding fathers thought the federal government had absolutely no business regulating marriage.

Insufficient data at this time, but I'm liberal. As a consequence, I think the assumption should be to assume that such an environment will be beneficial, until shown otherwise.

Just checking.

 

[Meadmaker]

Can't help but notice that you didn't answer my question. If two people desire a legally binding marriage contract, based on the traditional vows of marriage

1) Should they be allowed to enter into such a contract?
2) Can they today?
3) How?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Can't help but notice that you didn't answer my question. If two people desire a legally binding marriage contract, based on the traditional vows of marriage

1) Should they be allowed to enter into such a contract?
2) Can they today?
3) How?

1: Yes

2: Yes

3: Form a contract stipulating those terms you outlined. It's called a pre-nup.

 

[Meadmaker]

Some of us don't believe in using the police to control the genitals of the people we love.

Patterns are always interesting. ImaginalDisc constantly looks at this as trying to control other peoples' genitals. I think of it as trying to control one's own.


If you are confused, ID, I'm sure Huntster could explain. Oh, wait. He already has. Several times.

And for what it's worth, I don't want to control the genitals of married people, including myself and my wife. I want to control their whole darned bodies.


ETA: I didn't mean to imply that you (ID) hadn't answered my question the second time. As of this writing, Upchurch hasn't weighed in on the subject, and I am curious to see if he agrees with you.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

And for what it's worth, I don't want to control the genitals of married people, including myself and my wife. I want to control their whole darned bodies.

That's a quotable little paragraph revealing what a controling, jealous man you are to view women as purchaseable property.