Gay Marriage

[NeoRicen]

No, I don't see why a third party (government) should grant rights to individuals simply because they have entered into a contract with each other which the government is not a party to.

In a Democracy Government = People (perhaps less that it should in most places).

Now that that's out of the way. Many of the benefits of marriage are received through interaction with other entities (hospitals, prisons for visitation, home loans etc.) many of which are publicly controlled (through elected government) so Marriage is a way of informing the public of your status so they can give you the benefits they agree on (through voting and legislation) for mutual benefit (I'll give you X so I can have X too).

Seeing as Gay couples have the same relationship with others of the same sex that straight couples do with the opposite sex, it seems reasonable and fair the Public (through government) grants the same benefits to these couples.

Some people are (IMO) selfish on this matter and don't want to extend the benefits to these couples. That's how I see it, not the government being party to a contract, but people granting benefits to each other so that they may receive the same benefits so everyone lives happier overall.

Something I forgot to mention is the adoption factor. I personally don't think gay couples would be any less able to raise a child, and they aren't going to make the gay or anything (even if they do, so what?). Only problem is discrimination against the child for having 2 dads or something. Many frame their arguments this way but I feel it's dishonest and an attempt to prey on people's emotions to advance an entirely different agenda on the issue (most likely religious).

 

[drkitten]

What rights does the government grant corporations?

What rights doesn't the government grant corporations? Corporations are legally people, and as such have more or less all the rights that other people have (albeit non-citizens; corporations can't vote). They can open bank accounts, own property, enter into contracts, sue and be sued, hold licences, yadda yadda yadda.

Perhaps more importantly, corporations can exercise all of these rights independently of the people who actually comprise the corporation. If you and I decide to get together and buy a beach house,... well, we own it. If it turns out that someone sues us (we let a tree fall on the neighbor's fence), we are liable for the damages. If you and I decide to incorporate, the corporation owns the house and the corporation is liable for the damages; if the corporation doesn't have enough assets to cover the judgement, you and I are still protected (so I'm not going to lose my year-round home to cover the judgement against the beach house).

Similarly, if I die when we own the house jointly, there's a huge mess in probate to determine who "inherits" my half of the house. If the corporation owns it, there's no problem; the corporation owned it before my death, the corporation owns it after my death, and the ownership of the house remains unchanged.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

What rights doesn't the government grant corporations? Corporations are legally people, and as such have more or less all the rights that other people have (albeit non-citizens; corporations can't vote). They can open bank accounts, own property, enter into contracts, sue and be sued, hold licences, yadda yadda yadda.

Perhaps more importantly, corporations can exercise all of these rights independently of the people who actually comprise the corporation. If you and I decide to get together and buy a beach house,... well, we own it. If it turns out that someone sues us (we let a tree fall on the neighbor's fence), we are liable for the damages. If you and I decide to incorporate, the corporation owns the house and the corporation is liable for the damages; if the corporation doesn't have enough assets to cover the judgement, you and I are still protected (so I'm not going to lose my year-round home to cover the judgement against the beach house).

Similarly, if I die when we own the house jointly, there's a huge mess in probate to determine who "inherits" my half of the house. If the corporation owns it, there's no problem; the corporation owned it before my death, the corporation owns it after my death, and the ownership of the house remains unchanged.

I know all of this. I see no way of comparing it to marriage.

 

[NeoRicen]

I know all of this. I see no way of comparing it to marriage.

The government (ie the People) grants benefits to corporations so they can run and we benefit, the government gives benefits to married couples so they can function well and we get those same benefits too if we choose to marry (or incorporate).

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

In a Democracy Government = People (perhaps less that it should in most places).

Now that that's out of the way. Many of the benefits of marriage are received through interaction with other entities (hospitals, prisons for visitation, home loans etc.) many of which are publicly controlled (through elected government) so Marriage is a way of informing the public of your status so they can give you the benefits they agree on (through voting and legislation) for mutual benefit (I'll give you X so I can have X too).

If it was simply a shortcut for informing public bodies of the relationship between two people, it would be fine, but in fact it is the ONLY way that public bodies will recognise that there IS a relationship between two people. All the evidence may be perfectly clear that there is a relationship, you could have 100 witnesses to testify that you have lived together as a couple for 60 years, but if you don't have a bit of paper then the government ignores that relationship entirely. Why? What harm comes from extending rights to those relationships?

 

[NeoRicen]

A marriage helps make the connection more public, not everyone will know about your relationship, if your wife is in a coma in Hospital or something how will the people working there know about your relationship? You could get 100 people to testify but then when documentation passes onto other people for legal reasons something will look wrong. Marriage just simplifies things, those people living together should just get married, you don't need a ceremony.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The government (ie the People) grants benefits to corporations so they can run and we benefit, the government gives benefits to married couples so they can function well and we get those same benefits too if we choose to marry (or incorporate).

If we are allowed to marry. And of course incorporation is open to single people, couples, gays any anybody else, marriage is not. Why?

For example two elderly women who have lived together their entire life. If we simply extend marriage to include gay marriage, then some of them will be able to marry. Some however will not (for example sisters). What possible benefit is there to society in forcing the surviving person to sell the home they lived in together, because she shared it with her sister not her husband or her same sex partner?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

A marriage helps make the connection more public, not everyone will know about your relationship, if your wife is in a coma in Hospital or something how will the people working there know about your relationship? You could get 100 people to testify but then when documentation passes onto other people for legal reasons something will look wrong. Marriage just simplifies things, those people living together should just get married, you don't need a ceremony.

Do you think they demand marriage certificates before they let husbands visit their wives?

Thanks for telling me what I should do - I value your opinion as much as you would value my opinion if I were to to tell you how you should run your life.

 

[drkitten]

I know all of this. I see no way of comparing it to marriage.

A corporation is a voluntary association of people to which the government grants certain rights regarding the ability to act as a unit and to take actions regarding each others' interests.

A marriage is a voluntary association of people to which the government grants certain rights regarding the ability to act as a unit and to take actions regarding each others' interests.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

A corporation is a voluntary association of people to which the government grants certain rights regarding the ability to act as a unit and to take actions regarding each others' interests.

A marriage is a voluntary association of people to which the government grants certain rights regarding the ability to act as a unit and to take actions regarding each others' interests.

The government does not grant the shareholders in a corporation any rights in relation to the conduct of their fellow shareholders affairs or any benefits by virtue of being a common shareholder with any other person. Equally you cannot file a joint tax return (at least in the UK) between a person and a corporate or (apart from some very limited circumstances) are their tax benefits on transfers between shareholders and corporates. All of these benefits and many, many others ARE available in a marriage

 

[ponderingturtle]

If it was simply a shortcut for informing public bodies of the relationship between two people, it would be fine, but in fact it is the ONLY way that public bodies will recognise that there IS a relationship between two people.

Not true, adoption is a different way and blood relations are recognised.

 

[Freethinker]

If it was simply a shortcut for informing public bodies of the relationship between two people, it would be fine, but in fact it is the ONLY way that public bodies will recognise that there IS a relationship between two people. All the evidence may be perfectly clear that there is a relationship, you could have 100 witnesses to testify that you have lived together as a couple for 60 years, but if you don't have a bit of paper then the government ignores that relationship entirely. Why? What harm comes from extending rights to those relationships?

How would you prove such a relationship if one spouse dies? Somebody could just troll the obituaries for somebody close to their age and show up with a claim that they are entitled to an inheritance and survivor's benefits. While a non-paper relationship could be established in most cases, the license is irrefutable proof that both parties agreed to the deal.

 

[drkitten]

The government does not grant the shareholders in a corporation any rights in relation to the conduct of their fellow shareholders affairs or any benefits by virtue of being a common shareholder with any other person.

Wrong. As a shareholder, for example, I'm entitled to access the books of the corporation, and there are various other rights regarding fiduciary responsibility to the (other) shareholders that I am both required to follow and that I can legally enforce upon my fellow shareholders.

All of these benefits and many, many others ARE available in a marriage

So you're suggesting that marriage and incorporation are not identical? How.... obvious. The simple fact that the number and type of similarities vastly outweighs the the number and type of differences will presumably have little effect on your opinion, then.

Is it still true that you "see no way of comparing" the two?

 

[ponderingturtle]

So Jaggy if two people who lived together for say 15 years separate, they should be forced to divorce eath other? Why wouldn't the end of such a relationship involve such a court regulated distribution of assets?

 

[Dumbledore]

I have had some problems with Gays but that's just due to their desire to be Communists.

So all gay people are communist!!? Do you actually know any gay people or are your extensive experiences at the Rocky Horror picture show your only "gay" experience?

 

[tsg]

What harm comes from extending rights to those relationships?

What if those people don't want to share in the rights and responsibilities of marriage?

 

[IMST]

So all gay people are communist!!? Do you actually know any gay people or are your extensive experiences at the Rocky Horror picture show your only "gay" experience?

Well I'm gay and I'm a socialist, so since socialism is the same as communism and I represent all gays, we're all communists.

Also, all gays live near Seattle and work in marketing. The analogy breaks down a little bit there. Also, my house isn't big enough for all of us.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Wrong. As a shareholder, for example, I'm entitled to access the books of the corporation, and there are various other rights regarding fiduciary responsibility to the (other) shareholders that I am both required to follow and that I can legally enforce upon my fellow shareholders.

What access to the books of the corporation do you believe you are entitled to as a shareholder?

What rights do you have over the conduct of the SHAREHOLDERS, not the CORPORATION?

So you're suggesting that marriage and incorporation are not identical? How.... obvious. The simple fact that the number and type of similarities vastly outweighs the the number and type of differences will presumably have little effect on your opinion, then.

It is not a fact, it is your unsupported assertion so you are right that it has little effect.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

So Jaggy if two people who lived together for say 15 years separate, they should be forced to divorce eath other? Why wouldn't the end of such a relationship involve such a court regulated distribution of assets?

Fair question. I would say that society has exactly the same right to take an interest in this situation as it does if they had lived together with a piece of paper (ie been married) for 15 years. i.e. the courts involvement should be based on the facts, not the presence or absence of a piece of paper. After all in a divorce the argument is that both parties have contributed to their joint assets which applies equally here.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Not true, adoption is a different way and blood relations are recognised.

Please spell out the circumstances in which adoption or being a blood relation allow you to be treated as spouses/partners in the eyes of the government, which is the subject under discussion.