California Proposition 8

[chipmunk stew]

Have you ever experienced [a divorce] (parents/self?)

Yes (parents).

Why should they have to though? Why should they be discriminated against because they don't want to be married?

This doesn't make any sense. Either a couple wishes to take on the privileges and responsibilities of holding a state-issued marriage license, or they don't. I fail to see the discrimination. Unless you're saying that unwed couples should enjoy the privileges the state offers married couples without the responsibilities that come with those privileges.

And yet you support the discrimination against unwed couples

No.

unless they conform to what everyone thinks is normal to show they have a commited and stable relationship.

A marriage license is not proof of a committed and stable relationship. It's an enticement towards one.

 

[Meadmaker]

I do. I believe that encouraging any class of people to separate from the larger community undermines that goal.

Interesting line of argument, and potentially quite powerful. If I may put words into your mouth, it seems that you are saying that marriage is an important social institution. By denying gays the possibility of participating in that institution, we are creating division within the community, which leads to instability of that community. Put another way, every person born into a community should be able to participate fully as a member of that community, if they choose to do so. By denying marriage to some people who are born into the community, we are effectively rejecting our own.

It seems a reasonable argument. Needs a bit of work, but has possibilities.

More to come.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Exactly. The "incentives" to marriage are, in my humble opinion, highly overrated. At least, the state provided incentives are. Meanwhile, the responsibilities are, in fact, fairly extreme. The state has to make divorce at least moderately difficult in order to get people to remain in the marriage.

That's true. A marriage license is really a carrot and a stick. It's as much a disincentive to leave a relationship as it is an incentive to stay in one.

Thought for the day: The state prohibits people other than gays and lesbians from getting married. There is a class of people who are in love, and would very much like to spend their lives with a partner of their choice, but the state prohibits them. I believe their number is far greater than the number of gays and lesbians who would prefer marriage. It's a bit of a trick question, but a little thought will allow most people to get it. Still, I'll put the answer in a spoiler, so as not to reveal it too quickly. Why does the state prohibit these would be lovers from marrying?

They are already married to someone else.

Marriage restricts peoples behavior in the most personal ways.

It's a good brain-teaser, but it's not completely accurate. The state does not prohibit these people from obtaining a marriage license, it just places a prerequisite on doing so. And the state obviously doesn't prohibit this class from holding a state-issued marriage license.

There is no prerequisite that a same-sex couple can fulfill in order to obtain a marriage license in states where marriage is restricted to one man/one woman. They are truly prohibited.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Interesting line of argument, and potentially quite powerful. If I may put words into your mouth, it seems that you are saying that marriage is an important social institution. By denying gays the possibility of participating in that institution, we are creating division within the community, which leads to instability of that community. Put another way, every person born into a community should be able to participate fully as a member of that community, if they choose to do so. By denying marriage to some people who are born into the community, we are effectively rejecting our own.

It seems a reasonable argument. Needs a bit of work, but has possibilities.

More to come.

That's a pretty good sketch of where I'm coming from. Marginalizing people undermines the stability of the community, in part by creating a vacuum of acceptance that is sometimes filled by much less stable social groupings. I'm thinking specifically of the so-called "gay culture" that a lot of people think of when they think of gay people at all, which has accelerated the spread of STDs and drug addiction.

 

[ponderingturtle]

They have also denied single people that special status.

The status is for couples not individuals. So it is not denied to single people it is not something that makes sense in such a situation.

So, the question is what purpose is served by granting marriage rights to gays and lesbians? Making them feel special? Personally, I don't think that's enough.

So we need to evaluate which of the thousand+ effects that marriage has and none of them make sense for homosexual couples?

Do you support the State Deparments decision to give help to someone to relocate their spouce, children and pets when transfered to a foriegn country but never anything for a homosexual partner, to the extent that they make sure than the underware the state department employee packed included none of his partners clothes?

Having a pet is something goverment needs to support, but never a homosexual relationship.

 

[Meadmaker]

It's a good brain-teaser, but it's not completely accurate.

Of course. The point of the brain teaser was that a marriage license wasn't just some ticket to a bag of goodies. There were strings attached. To hear a lot of people talk, marriage is some sort of ticket to a government handout.

And when does the government send me my goodie bag, anyway? I was pretty wealthy back when I was single.

 

[Meadmaker]

That's a pretty good sketch of where I'm coming from. Marginalizing people undermines the stability of the community, in part by creating a vacuum of acceptance that is sometimes filled by much less stable social groupings. I'm thinking specifically of the so-called "gay culture" that a lot of people think of when they think of gay people at all, which has accelerated the spread of STDs and drug addiction.

The reason I like this argument is that it doesn't rest on some sort of individual rights argument. It's an argument for the good of society. It doesn't even depend on some sort of assertion that a heterosexual relationship is somehow "equal" to a homosexual relationship, and therefore should be treated equally.

My participation in this thread began with a discussion about whether or not the sex of participants in a marriage was some sort of "arbitrary" line. I stand by my position that it is anything but arbitrary. However, your line of argument doesn't depend on some sort of equivalence between men and women, or heterosexuals and homosexuals. It simply notes that by marginalizing homosexuals, a problem is created.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Of course. The point of the brain teaser was that a marriage license wasn't just some ticket to a bag of goodies. There were strings attached. To hear a lot of people talk, marriage is some sort of ticket to a government handout.

It is, but the hand out is rights not material possession. Think of how much stronger your cases is if your wife dies and her relatives try to take your kids because you married her.

 

[Meadmaker]

It is, but the hand out is rights not material possession. Think of how much stronger your cases is if your wife dies and her relatives try to take your kids because you married her.

The fact that I happen to be their father might also play a role.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It is, but the hand out is rights not material possession. Think of how much stronger your cases is if your wife dies and her relatives try to take your kids because you married her.

Of course giving same sex partners the right to adopt a partner's children assuming either a) the other biological parent is deceased or b) gives their permission for such adoption, is the far better idea here. Of course even for step-parents who are married to the child's birth parent, they can face the exact same situation where they raise a child who is not theirs biologically, and on the death of their spouse they can lose all rights and custody to the child's biological family too.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The fact that I happen to be their father might also play a role.

An interesting thing many states have specific organizations to make it easier for women wanting to put their child up for adoption to do so with out the fathers consent.

 

[Meadmaker]

An interesting thing many states have specific organizations to make it easier for women wanting to put their child up for adoption to do so with out the fathers consent.

There are a couple of different cases here. We might have a case where the father will not marry the woman he impregnated. In that case, he's a no good scoundrel and would probably make a lousy father anyway.

If there is a case of a "hook-up", and the father is willing to marry the woman but the woman does not wish to marry, I have a hard time saying that the father should have no rights. It seems to me that if the woman puts the kid up for adoption, dad should have first choice in the matter, unless there is some cause to believe the child will be abused or neglected.

It's hard to see exactly how to apply that to same sex marriages, though. It's almost as if there is something fundamentally different between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There are a couple of different cases here. We might have a case where the father will not marry the woman he impregnated. In that case, he's a no good scoundrel and would probably make a lousy father anyway.

So if the parents do not get married the father shouldn't have any rights?

The case here is that the mother wants to give up the child and the father does not, legaly once the child exists they have equal rights, and both need to aggree to put a child up for adoption

It's hard to see exactly how to apply that to same sex marriages, though. It's almost as if there is something fundamentally different between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

Or just reproductive matches and non reproductive matches. This is why we need to ban old people marrying.

You do seem to be in favor of reintroducing sex as a factor in laws in a broad basis.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yes (parents).

Me too. I have to come to the conclusion that Divorce in NZ and divorce in the US are two different beasts.

This doesn't make any sense. Either a couple wishes to take on the privileges and responsibilities of holding a state-issued marriage license, or they don't. I fail to see the discrimination. Unless you're saying that unwed couples should enjoy the privileges the state offers married couples without the responsibilities that come with those privileges.

Well it's be interesting to know what responsibilities there are that come with the licence, about the only one I can think of is that they are treated as a single entity for certain financial things thus if one incurs a debt, the other can be held liable for it. What responsiblities are there to the state?

No.

But that's exactly what you are doing.

A marriage license is not proof of a committed and stable relationship. It's an enticement towards one.

So why do people who are already in a committed and stable relationship have to have one? It doesn't make logical sense, why should they have to pay for an enticement of something they already have just to get something that should be a right anyway.

"We're giving free lounge suite cleaning!"
"Oh we have a lounge suite."
"Well you just have to buy this coupon to buy a lounge suite and you'll get your free cleaning"
"But we already have a lounge suite, why do we need a coupon?"
"Because the coupon is an enticement to buy a lounge suite!"

 

[Meadmaker]

So if the parents do not get married the father shouldn't have any rights?

As is so often the case, you have leapt to an unfounded conclusion.

You do seem to be in favor of reintroducing sex as a factor in laws in a broad basis.

But once in a while, you get it right.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Why is the notion of people staying in long term relationships so important?

And perhaps the reason there are more divorces now is more of an indicator that people aren't as afraid of the social outlook of being divorced now, whereas in the past they might be more inclined to stay unhappily married rather than happily divorced?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Why is the notion of people staying in long term relationships so important?

And perhaps the reason there are more divorces now is more of an indicator that people aren't as afraid of the social outlook of being divorced now, whereas in the past they might be more inclined to stay unhappily married rather than happily divorced?

There are plenty of studies showing that long term relationship are the best place to bring up well adjusted children.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Me too. I have to come to the conclusion that Divorce in NZ and divorce in the US are two different beasts.

Well it's be interesting to know what responsibilities there are that come with the licence, about the only one I can think of is that they are treated as a single entity for certain financial things thus if one incurs a debt, the other can be held liable for it. What responsiblities are there to the state?

Here's a partial list of federal rights and responsibilities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_benefits_of_marriage_in_the_United_States

There are others that vary state by state.

So why do people who are already in a committed and stable relationship have to have one? It doesn't make logical sense, why should they have to pay for an enticement of something they already have just to get something that should be a right anyway.

As I wrote above, a marriage license is both a carrot and a stick. It's an enticement to stay together, not to get together. A couple may not want to take on the responsibilities of marriage. That's fine. But why should the state give them the benefits, then?

"We're giving free lounge suite cleaning!"
"Oh we have a lounge suite."
"Well you just have to buy this coupon to buy a lounge suite and you'll get your free cleaning"
"But we already have a lounge suite, why do we need a coupon?"
"Because the coupon is an enticement to buy a lounge suite!"

"To accept this free cleaning, you also have to sign a contract to pay a monthly fee for regular cleanings, for as long as you own the suite." That's as close as I can stretch this analogy to what a marriage license really means.

 

[ponderingturtle]

But once in a while, you get it right.

It is good to see people wanting to bring back legal sexual discrimination.

 

[Meadmaker]

Here's a partial list of federal rights and responsibilities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_benefits_of_marriage_in_the_United_States

What did we do before wikipedia?

It's a pretty good list. Hits the highlights pretty well. I think that, when contemplating why someone might have voted for proposal 8, it might make sense to look at this list, and imagine why each of these rights and responsibilities exist in the first place, and whether it would make sense to extend them to homosexual couples.

In my opinion, a some of them don't make much sense for heterosexuals anymore, either, but they once did.