homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Here We Go Again (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Here We Go Again
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sheep:
Honestly, I think the word "marriage" is the irritating factor, at least in the US. The biggest objections to what is now referred to as "gay marriage" is the word "marriage". It is very often assumed that if the state allows same sex couples a marriage liscense that a church will be forced to marry those couples. There are also arguments made that in allowing "them" to marry, it somehow undermines or denigrates the marriages of Christian men and women.

That assumption is made because people are either ignorant or arguing in bad faith. Anyone paying attention to U.S. marital law already knows that religions are free to restrict marriage in any way they want within their own denomination. The most well known example, of course, is the Roman Catholic Church's refusal to marry anyone previously divorced. Since very few actually advance the argument that the U.S. should outlaw divorce so as not to "interfere" with Roman Catholic tradition, they are involved in either special pleading or rank hypocrisy.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timothy the Obscure

Mostly Friendly
# 292

 - Posted      Profile for Timothy the Obscure   Email Timothy the Obscure   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've tried really hard to figure out why some people say that gay marriage will undermine "traditional" marriage, and the only thing I've been able to come up with is the headship argument. If you take as a postulate that marriage is a relationship in which the husband is the "head" and the wife subordinate in some sense, then same-sex marriage is a problem, because if both partners are the same gender, how can you tell which is the head? Of course, this is really a dead horse, since for at least a generation the prevailing assumption in Western cultures has been that marriage is a partnership between equals (honored more in the breach than the observance, but still...)

--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
  - C. P. Snow

Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
Apprentice
# 14693

 - Posted      Profile for sheep   Email sheep   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I just laugh about that. My husband and I have lesbian friends from our church who married last year and we got into this "don't stand too close to us you'll threaten our marriage" joke with them.

The whole argument makes no sense whatsoever. This same couple have a family and are both active in church ministry and in their children's school and in community groups. They are just the kinds of folks you want forming families. Their marriage (civil marriage) is not currently considered a marriage by the church, however.

--------------------
"...leave them alone and they will come home,
wagging their tails behind them."
Bo-Peep 1:4-5

Posts: 39 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The only thing I can come with that might explain that "threatening straight marriages" thing is if they seriously think there's a lot of closeted gays married to straights, who are gong to desert them and marry people of the same sex instead if they can. Makes me wonder if they're worried about their own marriages. Or their own sexuality.

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458

 - Posted      Profile for marsupial.     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I've tried really hard to figure out why some people say that gay marriage will undermine "traditional" marriage,

I think that to the extent this objection makes sense, it has to be along the lines that as the eligibility criteria for marriage widen, then necessarily the concept of what it means to be married loses some of its content, so that what it means to be married in the eyes of society *has* changed for everyone. And I can imagine that some people who thought it was an essential normative feature of marriage that it be an opposite-sex complementarian* relationship might be upset by this (as though they had done something to earn** some distinction and then found out that the distinction was now being provided to others who hadn't done whatever they had to do). Of course, on the other hand, those of us who aren't really invested in the complementarianism as an essential feature of marriage aren't going to be particularly bothered if this falls by the wayside.

[* I'm not sure "complementarian" necessarily implies headship.

**Done what? I'm not sure, other than being heterosexual. Presumably this is part of the problem for this position.]

When Canada was debating same-sex marriage back in the early 2000s the Law Commission of Canada produced a report which suggested that for secular purposes the law should focus on registered "close personal relationships" as opposed to conjugality as the basis for providing benefits etc. that are now largely provided on the basis of conjugality. The wider question which strikes me as being of interest is what exactly do we mean by marriage and how does it differ (assuming that it does differ) from other freely chosen close personal relationships.

Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And now there are rumblings out of New York. I guess they didn't like being shown up by those maple ranchers on their border.

quote:
Gov. David A. Paterson on Thursday will announce plans to introduce legislation to legalize same-sex marriage, according to people with knowledge of the governor’s plans.

Mr. Paterson’s move, which he first signaled last week after Vermont became the fourth state to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed, reflects the governor’s desire to press the issue with lawmakers in Albany as other states move ahead with efforts to grant more civil rights to homosexuals.

<snip>

The fact that Mr. Paterson is introducing a bill does not, however, mean that action in the Legislature is imminent. It could take months — even longer — before the bill makes its way through the appropriate committees and onto the floor of the Senate and the Assembly.

“This is not a guarantee of anything,” said Assemblyman Micah Z. Kellner, a Democrat from the Upper East Side who noted that it took two months for legislation legalizing same-sex marriage to get through the Assembly in 2007 before it ultimately stalled. The Senate never acted on the bill.

The legislation is likely to have an especially bumpy ride in the Senate, where more lawmakers oppose same-sex marriage than support it. Gay rights advocates are now actively seeking more senators, both Democrats and Republicans, to vote for the bill.

So there may be an announcement in two days that something may happen in several months. It's not exactly progress, but at least they feel obligated to go through the motions.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks for posting that, Cro. I look forward to lobbying my legislators for it.

BTW, I also sent it in to Two Men for Marriage

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
saysay

Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645

 - Posted      Profile for saysay   Email saysay   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I've tried really hard to figure out why some people say that gay marriage will undermine "traditional" marriage, and the only thing I've been able to come up with is the headship argument. If you take as a postulate that marriage is a relationship in which the husband is the "head" and the wife subordinate in some sense, then same-sex marriage is a problem, because if both partners are the same gender, how can you tell which is the head? Of course, this is really a dead horse, since for at least a generation the prevailing assumption in Western cultures has been that marriage is a partnership between equals (honored more in the breach than the observance, but still...)

Your life is blissfully free of Mark Driscoll, isn’t it?

My guess is that - by and large - the generation raised without headship are not the ones objecting to gay marriage. I don’t think it’s just about not being able to figure out who would be the head, although that’s part of it...

And it isn’t - I don’t think - that people think that the existence of gay marriage will threaten existing straight marriages, but that they fear it will threaten the institution of marriage. I think marsupial. is right, and at its root it’s about complementarianism.

Also, Scandinavia an out-of-wedlock birth rate that’s already at forty percent, hook-up culture, Bristol Palin...

Given how tied together so many of these issues are, I can kind-of understand the fear that gay marriage marks the decline and fall of civilization. It’s still the right thing to do, but there are going to be consequences (the highest approval levels for gay marriage come from the under-30 set, and we're already starting to see some of the consequences play out).

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
The only thing I can come with that might explain that "threatening straight marriages" thing is if they seriously think there's a lot of closeted gays married to straights, who are gong to desert them and marry people of the same sex instead if they can. Makes me wonder if they're worried about their own marriages. Or their own sexuality.

Well, when you have trend stories like this being promoted by America's spiritual director...

(I'm kind-of having a moment of... adjustment... trying to process the information that large numbers of same-sex marriage advocates really and truly don't understand what people are afraid of.)

--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."

Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
(I'm kind-of having a moment of... adjustment... trying to process the information that large numbers of same-sex marriage advocates really and truly don't understand what people are afraid of.)

It's not that we don't understand it, we just think it's stupid and we don't understand how people can fall for it.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
From the "separate-but-equal" world of domestic partnerships, Nevada is now considering a bill to grant certain rights to same-sex couples. The governor is threatening a veto, though.

quote:
CARSON CITY -- Gov. Jim Gibbons said Tuesday that he will veto the domestic partnership bill giving same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples if it passes both houses of the Legislature.

"I just don't believe in it," Gibbons said after a meeting of the state Board of Examiners.

Gibbons is obviously a big believer in the sanctity of marriage and has great inherent respect for all people. Now we know that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, but does that also apply to Reno?

Standard disclaimer: All allegations pending disposition in court.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
It's not that we don't understand it, we just think it's stupid and we don't understand how people can fall for it.

No, actually, Cro, in my case it _is_ that I just really don't understand it. [Confused] Seriously. I Do.Not.Get why anyone cares who the hell someone else wants to marry.

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
saysay

Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645

 - Posted      Profile for saysay   Email saysay   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Officially decoupling marriage and reproduction is going to have some wide-ranging consequences that are going to affect more than just gay couples (in much the same way that the widespread availability of reliable contraception separated sex and reproduction in a way that had consequences far beyond allowing married couples to choose how many children to have).

Some people think dealing with those consequences will be worth it if it means we stop discriminating against gay people, some people don't, but there will be consequences - as I said, you can already see them starting, especially with the under-30 set and their attitudes towards marriage and parenthood and the relationship between the two.

--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."

Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:


And it isn’t - I don’t think - that people think that the existence of gay marriage will threaten existing straight marriages, but that they fear it will threaten the institution of marriage. I think marsupial. is right, and at its root it’s about complementarianism.

Also, Scandinavia an out-of-wedlock birth rate that’s already at forty percent, hook-up culture, Bristol Palin...

Given how tied together so many of these issues are, I can kind-of understand the fear that gay marriage marks the decline and fall of civilization. It’s still the right thing to do, but there are going to be consequences (the highest approval levels for gay marriage come from the under-30 set, and we're already starting to see some of the consequences play out).

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
The only thing I can come with that might explain that "threatening straight marriages" thing is if they seriously think there's a lot of closeted gays married to straights, who are gong to desert them and marry people of the same sex instead if they can. Makes me wonder if they're worried about their own marriages. Or their own sexuality.

Well, when you have trend stories like this being promoted by America's spiritual director...

(I'm kind-of having a moment of... adjustment... trying to process the information that large numbers of same-sex marriage advocates really and truly don't understand what people are afraid of.)

Well, yes indeed, but given that in reality, most of the scary mayhem is driven by heterosexuals who don't want to stay together, to insist upon targeting gay people who want to live together monogamously and responsibly, as a way to 'defend marriage' is still a species of magical-thinking and scapegoating.

It's like thinking old-fashioned witch-hunting is going to make your community a safer and more godly place. Yes it will make you feel safer and very zealous for godly values, when you've hunted down and eliminated the disturbing individual who's the fly in your village ointment, but in fact you haven't made anything safer, because witchcraft isn't the real mechanism which makes the crops fail, the boat sink, the cow stop giving milk etc.

It's not gay people who want to marry who are the cause of whacky irresponsible heterosexual mating habits, and making a big fuss about Biblical authority doesn't do any good either - as the sort of people who do that, have a higher divorce rate (from US studies) than their more liberal compatriots anyway. Waving the Bible and legislation backed by it, at gay people wont, in fact, work magic on the straight divorce/single parenting/promiscuity rate, but people do like magical pretend-solutions. Historically they like them a lot.

It's possible to understand what people get out of targeting gay marriage, as it will make them feel they are 'doing something' and 'doing something godly' to boot about social problems, but it doesn't alter the fact that to paraphrase the joke in someone's sig, that it's the heterosexuals who probably do need more supervision, because we're producing the vast majority of the children who are getting neglected or messed up by our relationship habits. Magical thinking about protecting the 'institution' of marriage by stopping any possibility of gay people getting married, wont in fact change this, no more than passing a new tranche of anti-witchcraft statutes would prevent crop failures and increase milk yield in dairy cattle.

L.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
saysay

Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645

 - Posted      Profile for saysay   Email saysay   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
It's not gay people who want to marry who are the cause of whacky irresponsible heterosexual mating habits, and making a big fuss about Biblical authority doesn't do any good either - as the sort of people who do that, have a higher divorce rate (from US studies) than their more liberal compatriots anyway. Waving the Bible and legislation backed by it, at gay people wont, in fact, work magic on the straight divorce/single parenting/promiscuity rate, but people do like magical pretend-solutions. Historically they like them a lot.

It's possible to understand what people get out of targeting gay marriage, as it will make them feel they are 'doing something' and 'doing something godly' to boot about social problems, but it doesn't alter the fact that to paraphrase the joke in someone's sig, that it's the heterosexuals who probably do need more supervision, because we're producing the vast majority of the children who are getting neglected or messed up by our relationship habits. Magical thinking about protecting the 'institution' of marriage by stopping any possibility of gay people getting married, wont in fact change this, no more than passing a new tranche of anti-witchcraft statutes would prevent crop failures and increase milk yield in dairy cattle.

L.

True. However, most of the people I know who are trying to do something about whacky irresponsible heterosexual mating habits* tend to try to argue people into responsibility from either a) extra-marital sex is sinful and/or b) complementarianism. Changing their position enough that they can accept gay marriage threatens both of those arguments - I don't think they believe they're going to fix those problems by preventing gay marriage, just that they need to do what they can to keep them from getting any worse. And yes, fairly obviously, it is people who live in communities with already high divorce rates, high out-of-wedlock birth rates, and few social services for the poor and especially poor children who are the most vulnerable to familial and social upheaval who are the most afraid of anything making those problems worse.

*Who also, for the most part, don't "target" gay marriage in the sense that they don't actively work against it, they just don't approve of it; I don't think some of them - especially the black people who got blamed for Proposition 8 - will ever change their minds.

--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."

Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timothy the Obscure

Mostly Friendly
# 292

 - Posted      Profile for Timothy the Obscure   Email Timothy the Obscure   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Officially decoupling marriage and reproduction is going to have some wide-ranging consequences that are going to affect more than just gay couples (in much the same way that the widespread availability of reliable contraception separated sex and reproduction in a way that had consequences far beyond allowing married couples to choose how many children to have).

Some people think dealing with those consequences will be worth it if it means we stop discriminating against gay people, some people don't, but there will be consequences - as I said, you can already see them starting, especially with the under-30 set and their attitudes towards marriage and parenthood and the relationship between the two.

Yeah, but the decoupling happened with the invention of the Pill 50 years ago. It's heterosexuals who have done this--made marriage into a symmetrical partnership of equals, with children optional. Same sex marriage only became imaginable because heterosexuals had already redefined marriage in practice.

--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
  - C. P. Snow

Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
True. However, most of the people I know who are trying to do something about whacky irresponsible heterosexual mating habits tend to try to argue people into responsibility from either a) extra-marital sex is sinful and/or b) complementarianism. Changing their position enough that they can accept gay marriage threatens both of those arguments . . .

Maybe it's just me, but isn't preventing people from getting married going to lead to more extra-marital sex? I mean, if marriage is supposed to solve that problem, how does making sure there's less of it help?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
saysay

Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645

 - Posted      Profile for saysay   Email saysay   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Yeah, but the decoupling happened with the invention of the Pill 50 years ago. It's heterosexuals who have done this--made marriage into a symmetrical partnership of equals, with children optional. Same sex marriage only became imaginable because heterosexuals had already redefined marriage in practice.

But that's part of the whole argument about how and why legalizing gay marriage will likely have a whole bunch of unintended consequences for traditional marriage (contraception eventually leads to gay marriage - who knew?).

Heterosexuals may have redefined marriage (in practice) as a symmetrical partnership of equals, with children optional, but heterosexual unions don't exclude the possibility of (natural) procreation the way homosexual unions do. And there's a definite correlation between having a majority who have made that flip/ jump and having a large number of people who question the use and validity of marriage even when their heterosexual partnership involves children.

This is why, I suspect, Mass. and the Catholic coast (East Coast from about MD. on up) can probably legalize gay marriage without dire consequences - between all the Catholics (who officially never took that first contraception step) and the UUs and Quakers (many of whom have gotten to the other side of the whole relativistic all-family-structures-are-equally-valid phase), there are probably enough people to hold things relatively steady. I seriously doubt that's the case someplace like North Carolina or elsewhere in Evangelical Protestant Land.

Although, given the serious generational divide on this issue, that cat may already be out of the bag. But that's part of why I wish the government would get out of the marriage business altogether and grant civil unions to everyone; I think churches would be able to handle the transition more smoothly.

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos:
Maybe it's just me, but isn't preventing people from getting married going to lead to more extra-marital sex? I mean, if marriage is supposed to solve that problem, how does making sure there's less of it help?

No, preventing gay people from getting married doesn't lead to more extramarital sex - it leads to the same amount. (Yes, I understand what you're getting at - that allowing gay marriage would lead to a reduction in the amount of extramarital sex among gay people).

The arguments are based on a particular way of reading scripture; changing the reading such that homosexual sex is no longer forbidden also allows for reading extramarital heterosexual sex as no longer sinful. If you assume that very few people are homosexuals who are tempted by homosexual sex, and think the knock-off effect on heterosexuals is going to be large enough, then throwing the homosexuals under the bus for the benefit of the heterosexuals (or, more to the point, for the benefit of the helpless children that frequently accidently result from heterosexual sex) makes a certain kind of sense.

--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."

Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Heterosexuals may have redefined marriage (in practice) as a symmetrical partnership of equals, with children optional, but heterosexual unions don't exclude the possibility of (natural) procreation the way homosexual unions do. And there's a definite correlation between having a majority who have made that flip/ jump and having a large number of people who question the use and validity of marriage even when their heterosexual partnership involves children.

OK, this really makes no sense to me. Gay couples can and do have children in all the same ways that straight couples that have fertility issues do. For instance, a straight couple where the woman was infertile might either adopt, or chose to have a child via the husband's sperm and a doner egg and surrogate mother, in the same way that two men might either adopt or have a child by doner egg and surrogate womb. A straight couple where the man was infertile again might chose to adopt, or have a sperm donation, in the same way that a lesbian couple might chose to adopt or have sperm donation. I see no way in which a homoosexual marriage is excluding the possibility of children.

Medical procedures aren't even neccessarry as long as the homosexual person is at least capable of performing with someone of the opposite sex, and finds someone willing to do it with.

And in any case, so what? There have been childless marriages throughout history. Look at some of the threads on the ship, I personally am shocked by the dislike and contempt shown by some straight people (some married, some single) here towards children and those who chose to have children.

Yet there are gay couples who _want_ to marry, _want_ to have children and start families. And people want to stop them? Um, why?

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
saysay

Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645

 - Posted      Profile for saysay   Email saysay   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Linguistics?

Words don't mean, words mean what people mean when people use words; which is to say, words themselves don't have some inherent transcendent meaning that we're referencing when we use them, but are only useful for communication if we agree on what the word is meant to communicate.

Most of the people who I've talked to who object to legalizing gay marriage are (at this point) fine with granting civil unions; most don't even care if the couple has a wedding down at the UU church and says that they're married. They object to changing the official definition of marriage because if it's true that most people* define marriage as the lifelong union of a man and woman for the purposes of raising children in a stable social unit,** then changing that definition so that marriage simply means a legal partnership between two people means that a minority has successfully forced its definition on the majority; this is both annoying (think W and his numerous attempts to define black as white) and means that the majority, in order to communicate about this thing formerly known as marriage, have to find another way to communicate it. And that just isn't the way that language works; words mean what the majority of people mean when they use words.

* of course, one of the things that the gay marriage debates have shown is that there may not actually be a definition of marriage that the majority agree on; or if it is, the majority definition seems to involve one man and one woman with or without children
** with the understanding that this is the ideal and many people fall short of it

--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."

Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ahem.

There are plenty of heterosexual couplings that DO exclude the possibility of procreation.

My uncle found out quite some years ago that he had the early stages of testicular cancer. Consequently, he lost his ability to have children. Are you going to tell me that his marriage a few years later was invalid because he went into it knowing that the sex he had with his wife couldn't possibly lead to children?

I mean, he didn't WANT children anyway, but now we seem to be focusing on whether it's possible for sex to lead to babies being an important criterion.

[ 17. April 2009, 02:54: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Timothy the Obscure

Mostly Friendly
# 292

 - Posted      Profile for Timothy the Obscure   Email Timothy the Obscure   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Yeah, but the decoupling happened with the invention of the Pill 50 years ago. It's heterosexuals who have done this--made marriage into a symmetrical partnership of equals, with children optional. Same sex marriage only became imaginable because heterosexuals had already redefined marriage in practice.

But that's part of the whole argument about how and why legalizing gay marriage will likely have a whole bunch of unintended consequences for traditional marriage (contraception eventually leads to gay marriage - who knew?).
No--it's just acknowledging the irreversible unintended consequences that have already happened. The anti-gay marriage movement is a desperate rear guard action trying to fight a battle that is already lost. The acceptance of gay marriage is just the lowering of the flag after the castle has been taken (which it pretty much has).

--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
  - C. P. Snow

Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
saysay

Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645

 - Posted      Profile for saysay   Email saysay   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I keep saying that if I could just have permission to smite all the Baby Boomers, I could get a lot more done. But nooooo (apparently smiting people just because they irritate you is against the rules or something).

--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."

Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ahem.

There are plenty of heterosexual couplings that DO exclude the possibility of procreation.

My uncle found out quite some years ago that he had the early stages of testicular cancer. Consequently, he lost his ability to have children. Are you going to tell me that his marriage a few years later was invalid because he went into it knowing that the sex he had with his wife couldn't possibly lead to children?

I mean, he didn't WANT children anyway, but now we seem to be focusing on whether it's possible for sex to lead to babies being an important criterion.

I suppose the argument could be made that in every heterosexual couple, there is at least the potential for procreation. Abraham and Sarah did in fact have a child well past childbearing age.

But I suppose if Our Lord could in fact cause a 90 year old menopausal woman to bear a child, He could easily cause two lesbians to bring forth a child, or two gay men to do so. Oh yes he did. It's called artificial insemination.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
sheep
Apprentice
# 14693

 - Posted      Profile for sheep   Email sheep   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Officially decoupling marriage and reproduction is going to have some wide-ranging consequences that are going to affect more than just gay couples (in much the same way that the widespread availability of reliable contraception separated sex and reproduction in a way that had consequences far beyond allowing married couples to choose how many children to have).

I have to agree here. What really made the difference for my mindset was when it became clear that we could not have biological children. Historically, that would have been grounds for divorce.

Then, when we adopted our children, I became active in the local adoptive families group which was about half gay parents. I saw that those people were just as good parents as we were (several were better parents and became role models for us).

--------------------
"...leave them alone and they will come home,
wagging their tails behind them."
Bo-Peep 1:4-5

Posts: 39 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Most of the people who I've talked to who object to legalizing gay marriage are (at this point) fine with granting civil unions; most don't even care if the couple has a wedding down at the UU church and says that they're married. They object to changing the official definition of marriage because if it's true that most people define marriage as the lifelong union of a man and woman for the purposes of raising children in a stable social unit, then changing that definition so that marriage simply means a legal partnership between two people means that a minority has successfully forced its definition on the majority; this is both annoying (think W and his numerous attempts to define black as white) and means that the majority, in order to communicate about this thing formerly known as marriage, have to find another way to communicate it. And that just isn't the way that language works; words mean what the majority of people mean when they use words.

Actually, the "official" definition (i.e. the definition used for official purposes) of marriage is as a civil contract, or as you put it "a legal partnership between two people". What you're describing isn't so much "changing that definition" as it is "accurately describing American practices for the past century". This definition has already been established by the majority, through their majority-elected government representatives.

What's really got some people's knickers in a twist is that a widely disliked minority is trying to put itself forward as legally equal to "normal" people. That's the appeal of the "let gay people get married, but make them use some sort of Orwellian doublespeak to describe it" position. Saysay is clearly worried that the "majority" is losing its ability to dictate to gay couples how they will describe themselves and this ability to separate gay couples ("civilly unionized") from "real" couples ("married") is clearly more important to him than his professed belief that they should have the same legal rights.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Saysay is clearly worried that the "majority" is losing its ability to dictate to gay couples how they will describe themselves and this ability to separate gay couples ("civilly unionized") from "real" couples ("married") is clearly more important to him than his professed belief that they should have the same legal rights.

I don't read him like that at all. It looks to me that he is attempting a serious and empathetic answer to the "why do people care?" question that has been asked on this thread, not setting out his own justifications.

And I think it is a pretty good answer. It is certainly better than looking for the worst motives and attributing them to one's opponents.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
saysay

Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645

 - Posted      Profile for saysay   Email saysay   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you, Eliab.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What's really got some people's knickers in a twist is that a widely disliked minority is trying to put itself forward as legally equal to "normal" people. That's the appeal of the "let gay people get married, but make them use some sort of Orwellian doublespeak to describe it" position. Saysay is clearly worried that the "majority" is losing its ability to dictate to gay couples how they will describe themselves and this ability to separate gay couples ("civilly unionized") from "real" couples ("married") is clearly more important to him than his professed belief that they should have the same legal rights.

1) I'm a girl. I mention this because it's a continual source of amusement to me that generally speaking the people who complain the most loudly about sexism and heteronormativity always seem to assume I'm a straight man. In real life, where it's obvious that I'm a girl, they sometimes ask me why I'm a boy. It's bizarre and tiresome.

2) I think I was ten before I realized that gay people did not, in fact, have the right to legally marry - because, you know, I went to their weddings. In fact, the couple from my first lesbian wedding named their child after me because my mother was one of the only people who supported them through their wedding and the slightly extra-legal home birth of their child after almost the entire gay community ostracized them for... what did they call it again? "Capitulating to patriarchical norms" or somesuch... because they got married and had a child. (I can't be the only person who remembers that particular phase of the gay marriage struggle, can I? You know, the part when gay marriage was controversial within the gay community?) I'm not even going to mention my mother's lesbian phase because, frankly, I still like to pretend it didn't exist and we didn't actually have to have those conversations.

3) The game is over. Gay people are going to get married. In every state of the union. It's just a matter of when that's going to happen. I used to think we were going to have to wait for the Baby Boomers to die. But we've actually succeeded in bringing a lot of those people over. Do you know what I find helps to bring people over to our side? Actually listening to them and their concerns and trying to address those concerns instead of calling them homophobic assholes obsessed with what's going on in other people's bedrooms.

4) I am truly sorry that you live in a world where homosexuals are a "widely disliked minority" and therefore you think that their claim to be equal human beings is what's getting people's knickers in a twist. Almost all of my social contact is with younger people who don't make anti-gay statements (or, at any rate, they don't make them around me more than once); that's been true around these parts since the early nineties when we took the it's-ok-to-be-gay sticker brigade on the offensive.

But please feel free to tell me what my motivations are and what is and is not important to me.

You do at least see the irony in telling me that I'm worried "that the "majority" is losing its ability to dictate to gay couples how they will describe themselves" while simultaneously not allowing me to describe myself, no?

--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."

Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Most of the people who I've talked to who object to legalizing gay marriage are (at this point) fine with granting civil unions; most don't even care if the couple has a wedding down at the UU church and says that they're married. They object to changing the official definition of marriage because if it's true that most people define marriage as the lifelong union of a man and woman for the purposes of raising children in a stable social unit, then changing that definition so that marriage simply means a legal partnership between two people means that a minority has successfully forced its definition on the majority; this is both annoying (think W and his numerous attempts to define black as white) and means that the majority, in order to communicate about this thing formerly known as marriage, have to find another way to communicate it. And that just isn't the way that language works; words mean what the majority of people mean when they use words.

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
But please feel free to tell me what my motivations are and what is and is not important to me.

You do at least see the irony in telling me that I'm worried "that the "majority" is losing its ability to dictate to gay couples how they will describe themselves" while simultaneously not allowing me to describe myself, no?

Who's preventing you from describing yourself? You did a perfectly good job in your first post of explaining why you feel it's exceedingly important that straights get to keep the word "marriage" for themselves because they outnumber gays. You even used the term "majority" twice! It seems dishonest to use that as the basis of your argument and then trying to point out the "irony" of me actually engaging the argument you've constructed. Your premise was that it was important to maintain the use of a specialized term to denote opposite-sex marriage, decrying the hardship that "in order to communicate about this thing formerly known as marriage, have to find another way to communicate it". I question both the importance of distinguishing same-sex marriages from opposite-sex ones and the desirability of enshrining such a distinction in the law (the context of the thread).

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
saysay

Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645

 - Posted      Profile for saysay   Email saysay   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Who's preventing you from describing yourself?

Oh, you're right. I can describe myself fine. I just can't seem to get you to listen to what I'm saying.

quote:
You did a perfectly good job in your first post of explaining why you feel it's exceedingly important that straights get to keep the word "marriage" for themselves because they outnumber gays.
That's fascinating, since I don't feel that it's exceedingly important that straights get to keep the word "marriage" for themselves. I've stated that I think the state should get out of the marriage business and provide civil unions to both gay and straight couples, and that churches and other religious groups should handle marriage because I think they are more able to handle the inevitable consequences of the meaning shift (although at this point we're probably going to have to deal with the consequences anyway).

But please, continue to tell me what I think and how I feel.

quote:
You even used the term "majority" twice!
So? Did the word "majority" undergo some meaning shift that I'm unaware of?

quote:
It seems dishonest to use that as the basis of your argument and then trying to point out the "irony" of me actually engaging the argument you've constructed.
I haven't constructed an argument (I've just been trying to answer the question that was asked about why straight people would care about gay marriage at all). And you haven't engaged with anything I've said - you've just tried to tell me that I've said things I haven't said.

quote:
Your premise was that it was important to maintain the use of a specialized term to denote opposite-sex marriage, decrying the hardship that "in order to communicate about this thing formerly known as marriage, have to find another way to communicate it".
No, my premise was not that it's important to maintain the use of a specialized term to denote opposite-sex marriage.

You, however, have just provided a wonderful illustration of why a lot of the people who are opposed to gay marriage hate same-sex marriage activists.

--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."

Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Medical procedures aren't even necessarry as long as the homosexual person is at least capable of performing with someone of the opposite sex, and finds someone willing to do it with.

[Ultra confused] Are you seriously suggesting that it is no big deal for a woman to give birth to a baby and then either give the child up to another couple or for the father to walk away and have no further parental involvement in the child's life?

I suppose that millions of years of evolution might mean that sometimes fathers could do that but it certainly means that women would find it hard to do without getting screwed up in the process.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915

 - Posted      Profile for Presleyterian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
saysay wrote: I've stated that I think the state should get out of the marriage business and provide civil unions to both gay and straight couples, and that churches and other religious groups should handle marriage because I think they are more able to handle the inevitable consequences of the meaning shift (although at this point we're probably going to have to deal with the consequences. (emphasis added)
I absolutely agree with you on the state getting out of the marriage business, but I've read this entire thread and for the life of me, I'm still not clear on what those "consequences of the meaning shift" are. Dictionaries might need to be revised. But other than that, what "inevitable consequences" -- provable, measurable empirical shifts -- are we really talking about here?

quote:
Johnny S wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that it is no big deal for a woman to give birth to a baby and then either give the child up to another couple or for the father to walk away and have no further parental involvement in the child's life?
Thousands of people every year make the personal decision to place a baby for adoption, serve as a surrogate, or donate sperm. Are you suggesting that they're somehow unable to understand the ramifications of their choice and thus need the force of law to protect them from their decision? Furthermore, it's not as if people would be coerced into adoption, surrogacy, or sperm donation against their will.

I don't question that it's a "big deal" to many people. But I certainly question your right to make their decision a "big deal" to you.

Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
quote:
saysay wrote: I've stated that I think the state should get out of the marriage business and provide civil unions to both gay and straight couples, and that churches and other religious groups should handle marriage because I think they are more able to handle the inevitable consequences of the meaning shift (although at this point we're probably going to have to deal with the consequences. (emphasis added)
I absolutely agree with you on the state getting out of the marriage business, but I've read this entire thread and for the life of me, I'm still not clear on what those "consequences of the meaning shift" are. Dictionaries might need to be revised. But other than that, what "inevitable consequences" -- provable, measurable empirical shifts -- are we really talking about here?
As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, marriage is currently considered a civil contract under U.S. law. By saying that you want the government "out of the marriage business", does that mean you want to void all current marriages, or does the qualifier "and provide civil unions to both gay and straight couples" mean you're advocating a system essentially identical to the current one but relabeled with an unappealing monicker in order to satisfy saysay's majority, who object to certain others calling themselves 'married' without their permission? That seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to just to exclude same-sex couples from the use of a word. Consider all the effort that would be required to rewrite fifty state codes, the U.S. Code, and the laws of the District of Columbia and various other U.S. possessions. Sure, it's mostly a cut & paste job, just putting 'civil union' wherever the word 'marriage' appears, but there are debatable points, such as what is the equivalent to 'married'? 'Civilly unionized'? And if the word 'marriage' gets cut out of the law books, does that mean 'divorce' has to be replaced as well? You know, in order to preserve its meaning for those denominations that recognize divorce. (We wouldn't want the Anglicans getting confused and thinking Henry VIII wanted out of his marriage to Carl of Aragon.) What's the civil union equivalent of divorce? 'Civil disunion'? 'Civilly disunited'? If the solution to this controversy hinges, as you both suggest, on just jiggering around the semantics a bit then these are critical questions.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915

 - Posted      Profile for Presleyterian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Geez, Crœsos, I'd like to see how you would have responded had I disagreed with you.

I ultimately want the government out of the marriage business because I don't think it should have the right to hand out societal goodies -- tax breaks, pension benefits, survivorship rights, etc. -- based on its approval of how I choose to live my private life. I understand and support the short-term goals of those who seek civil partnerships and/or marriage for gay couples. But in the long run, it just creates yet another second-tier class of citizenship for adults -- straight and gay -- who have no desire to pair up publicly for life.

Yes, it's wrong that a gay federal employee can't include a life partner on his or her health insurance. But it's equally wrong that a single federal employee can't include a parent, a disabled sibling, or a long-time companion. And the only way to correct those inequities is to end the preferential place marriage has in our society.

Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Thousands of people every year make the personal decision to place a baby for adoption, serve as a surrogate, or donate sperm. Are you suggesting that they're somehow unable to understand the ramifications of their choice and thus need the force of law to protect them from their decision? Furthermore, it's not as if people would be coerced into adoption, surrogacy, or sperm donation against their will.

I don't question that it's a "big deal" to many people. But I certainly question your right to make their decision a "big deal" to you.

As you say, whether or not it is a "big deal" to me is entirely irrelevant. The question is whether or not such behaviour disadvantages the children and those involved. (BTW I wasn't making any comment on how this should be reflected in the law.)

My question concerns evidence about the impact on the children over such decisions. AFAIK studies suggest that this is not the ideal way to bring up children - NB I'm talking about adoption / surrogacy etc. not the sexuality of those adopting.

I'm slightly surprised that you are not able to distinguish between adoption which is a great thing to do in response to an already non-ideal situation and other options where they are deliberately creating that non-ideal situation in the first place. Am I missing something here?

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915

 - Posted      Profile for Presleyterian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If people are as concerned as they claim about "the impact on the children" of being raised in "not the ideal" circumstance, they ought to be in the trenches seeking a legislative ban on heterosexual divorce, not homosexual marriage.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
If people are as concerned as they claim about "the impact on the children" of being raised in "not the ideal" circumstance, they ought to be in the trenches seeking a legislative ban on heterosexual divorce, not homosexual marriage.

1. As I said, I'm not sure 'banning' things is always the most productive way forward.

2. I didn't join this thread to flog the dead horse just to comment on the extremely 'biological' view on reproduction being put forward.

If my tangent has been a distraction then please resume inflicting injury upon said noble steed.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Geez, Crœsos, I'd like to see how you would have responded had I disagreed with you.

I ultimately want the government out of the marriage business because I don't think it should have the right to hand out societal goodies -- tax breaks, pension benefits, survivorship rights, etc. -- based on its approval of how I choose to live my private life. I understand and support the short-term goals of those who seek civil partnerships and/or marriage for gay couples. But in the long run, it just creates yet another second-tier class of citizenship for adults -- straight and gay -- who have no desire to pair up publicly for life.

Having a neutral arbiter of these things is why we have a government in the first place, though if you disagree with the government being able to establish tax policy maybe you're just opposed to the whole idea of government at all. Likewise pensions (and all other situations where payment is made for an intangible or deferred service) require strict government regulation to prevent fraud. And a uniform system of inheritance law would seem much preferable to a patchwork quilt of systems established by the "churches and other religious groups" saysay suggests handle marriage. I'm not clear whether you're arguing that government shouldn't be involved in these things at all or if your just arguing that government should be involved in some way but unable to answer what will certainly be the most common questions and controversies arising therefrom.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Then you would have the problem of what to do if two persons (of whatever gender) wanted to become united, but they are of two different religions. Most religious groups really dislike cross-boundary marriages.

Or what about the fairly large (16% of the US, this year) group of people who have "no religion". A religious basis leaves this group out in the cold. Presumably godless heathens don't need marital status, since they aren't really people.

Or does your government enforce a strict legal code that insists you be identifiably religious? Doesn't sound like the US to me.

Seems to me that it would make more sense to get religion out of the picture for this purpose. Let the individual churches add a formal statement of their own, but get them out of the government's business.

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Geez, Crœsos, I'd like to see how you would have responded had I disagreed with you.

I ultimately want the government out of the marriage business because I don't think it should have the right to hand out societal goodies -- tax breaks, pension benefits, survivorship rights, etc. -- based on its approval of how I choose to live my private life. I understand and support the short-term goals of those who seek civil partnerships and/or marriage for gay couples. But in the long run, it just creates yet another second-tier class of citizenship for adults -- straight and gay -- who have no desire to pair up publicly for life.

Having a neutral arbiter of these things is why we have a government in the first place, though if you disagree with the government being able to establish tax policy maybe you're just opposed to the whole idea of government at all. Likewise pensions (and all other situations where payment is made for an intangible or deferred service) require strict government regulation to prevent fraud. And a uniform system of inheritance law would seem much preferable to a patchwork quilt of systems established by the "churches and other religious groups" saysay suggests handle marriage. I'm not clear whether you're arguing that government shouldn't be involved in these things at all or if your just arguing that government should be involved in some way but unable to answer what will certainly be the most common questions and controversies arising therefrom.
I suspect what presleyterian is arguing for is the State not recognising couple relationships in any form at all.

Although, if you think gay marriage makes the feathers fly, imagine what would happen if you try to float THAT one.

For starters, governments rather like being able to offer pensions and benefits at a 'couple' rate because it's rather cheaper than two 'single' rates. Although, there could be a lot of savings in administrative costs when it comes to investigating whether or not someone's in a couple and not telling.

But society in general isn't going to go for no legal recognition of couple relationships. You want to talk about paradigm shifts... that's a WHOPPER.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For starters, governments have a stake in questions about next of kin, survivorship rights, decision-making-for-the-incapacitated, and so on. These are more justification for the state meddling in the marriage biz than couples rates for anything. You could have everybody who wants these kind of relationships to fill out form after form after form, or you could just combine them all into one form: the marriage license. It's cheaper and easier by far for the state to do the latter.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915

 - Posted      Profile for Presleyterian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Orfeo has indeed articulated the whopper of an unpopular paradigm shift that I propose. My primary point is that I don't think it's the government's role to make the value judgment that paired-off, presumptively till-death-us-do-part relationships is The Right And Proper Way.

"Having a neutral arbiter of these things" sounds great, but the arbiter never really is neutral, is it? That's how we wound up in the terribly inequitable situation we're in now. The tyranny of the majority pretty much guarantees that people who don't conform to the prevailing paradigm are going to get a raw deal. Years ago, in the Loving v. Virginia days, the disfavored outcasts were couples of different races. Right now, the disfavored outcasts are gay couples who are denied the right to marry. But a generation from now -- when married gay couples are given the same legal protections and perqs as married heterosexual couples -- I think it'll be clearer that all we've done is shift the "disfavored outcast" label from gay couples to gay and straight singles.

My Modest Proposal would allow every adult to elect a Social Security beneficiary or a person to cover under, say, an employer health plan without the goverment setting up irrebutable presumptions about who that person has to be. Person A might choose a spouse. Person B might choose an aging parent. Person C might choose a disabled sibling. But the choice should be the individual's, not the government's.

Of course, if people take on the voluntary responsibility of parenthood, I do see a compelling government interest in ensuring that they support their kids. I just don't see any compelling interest in the government according preferential treatment to one form of adult personal relationship over others.

And when I say that I think it's fine to leave marriage to churches, that's because I don't think church marriages should carry any civil weight either.

I'm not holding my breath....

Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915

 - Posted      Profile for Presleyterian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Mousethief wrote: It's cheaper and easier by far for the state to do the latter.
Throughout modern history, the "cheaper and easier" argument has been used to justify all manner of unfair government policies. Expediency may be one factor, but rarely should it be the deciding factor.

Widower Tom has a minimum wage job and has two kids in their early 20s who are struggling financially, too. He marries independently wealthy Susan. Tom dies in an accident. His benefits go to Susan.

Cheap and easy? Sure.
Fair? Tom might not think so. And there was nothing he could have done to ensure that his survivorship benefits went to his adult children, rather than his rich widow. That's the problem with irrebuttable presumptions.

[ 22. April 2009, 03:41: Message edited by: Presleyterian ]

Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I call bullshit on the "nothing he could have done." There are prenuptual agreements, for one thing.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688

 - Posted      Profile for la vie en rouge     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Fair? Tom might not think so. And there was nothing he could have done to ensure that his survivorship benefits went to his adult children, rather than his rich widow. That's the problem with irrebuttable presumptions.

Nonsense. He could have written a will specifying his wishes.
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915

 - Posted      Profile for Presleyterian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mousethief and lady in red: I was referring to his Social Security benefits, which is all most minimum wage workers have. Even the most airtight prenup or will can't change the fact that the federal government mandates that that money goes to the new Mrs. Widow, and not his kids. Period.

Of course, if you know how to draft a testamentary instrument that can get around that, please let me know. I've been trying unsuccessfully for close to thirty years.

Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Mousethief and lady in red: I was referring to his Social Security benefits, which is all most minimum wage workers have. Even the most airtight prenup or will can't change the fact that the federal government mandates that that money goes to the new Mrs. Widow, and not his kids. Period.

Of course, if you know how to draft a testamentary instrument that can get around that, please let me know. I've been trying unsuccessfully for close to thirty years.

Or you could just look a the Social Security Administration's website on the subject and notice that minor children are actually qualified for Social Security survivor's benefits in addition to whatever may be paid to a surviving spouse. Adult children without disabilities wouldn't qualify for a Social Security payout regardless of whether Tom was married or not. Social Security isn't designed to be a transferrable inter-generational perpetuity, and the fact that it isn't has more to do with the financial structure of the system rather than any presumptions about the personal relationships involved.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In other words, the gov't follows its rules about the money it spends, and you can set up the rules for your own money, IF you take the trouble to write a proper will.

Or you can leave it to the gov't to operate according to the fall-back rules if you don't plan ahead.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Mousethief and lady in red: I was referring to his Social Security benefits, which is all most minimum wage workers have. Even the most airtight prenup or will can't change the fact that the federal government mandates that that money goes to the new Mrs. Widow, and not his kids. Period.

Of course, if you know how to draft a testamentary instrument that can get around that, please let me know. I've been trying unsuccessfully for close to thirty years.

Okay, so that needs to be changed. Hardly cause to throw out the whole institution of marriage.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Mousethief and lady in red: I was referring to his Social Security benefits, which is all most minimum wage workers have. Even the most airtight prenup or will can't change the fact that the federal government mandates that that money goes to the new Mrs. Widow, and not his kids. Period.

Of course, if you know how to draft a testamentary instrument that can get around that, please let me know. I've been trying unsuccessfully for close to thirty years.

Okay, so that needs to be changed. Hardly cause to throw out the whole institution of marriage.
I disagree. Despite the fact that it pays out survivor benefits, the U.S. Social Security System is not an inheritance, it's a social insurance program. As far as survivor benefits go, they're meant to minimize the societal impact of your untimely death. Thus, payments are made to those who would be depending on your income: spouse, minor children, and adult offspring with disabilities. The fact that it's not meant to make payouts to able-bodied adults is a feature, not a bug. Able-bodied adults are supposed to be paying in to the system, not taking money out of it. It's not supposed to be some "Dead Daddy Prize".

At any rate, the advantages and drawbacks of the U.S. Social Security System are peripheral to this debate, though they could probably sustain a thread of their own.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Maine Legalizes Same-sex marriage

[Yipee]

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools