 |
| |
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:34
|
|
This idea was partly inspired by...MrFun, I think. Well, somebody on this board said that gay relationships are not all about sex, but are complex, multifaceted things just like straight ones. I can't recall who it was exactly. I guess I was just a little too stunned by the news that straight relationships *aren't* just about sex. 
Anyway, the gay marriage brouhaha is primarily not about the right of certain persons to stick certain body parts in certain other body parts of certain other persons. All the op-ed pieces I've read by members of the gay community have been most distressed by the fact that, if their partners get sick/die/whatever, they can't get hospital visitation rights, inherit, make decisions in their absense, take care of the kid, file taxes jointly, and so on.
So, rather than asking, "should there be nothing like gay marriage, gay marriage, or gay civil unions," why don't we all switch over to civil unions? With Civil Union, or some equivalent term, defined to mean a state of legally defined codependency between two adults, regardless of whether or not they are porking each other. Two close, straight male roommates could have a civil union if they wanted, just so neither gets treated as an outsider to the other's family by the law. "Divorce" laws could still apply under a different name, because a split in a previously interdependent group of people is always worthy of regulation, to make sure one doesn't get left high and dry. The SCOTUS ruling on the sodomy law seemed to set precedent for an age wherein the government really doesn't care what its constituents willingly do for fun anyway.
The idea of "marriage" as it most upsets conservatives is so upsetting because marriage is associated with sacramental life in the common mind. I don't think that needs to be preserved. If people want to be united in the eyes of God, they can go to a church. Moral certification from the Federal government-a group of people famous for screwing secretaries and interns-is a dubious honor at best.
Questions? Comments? Flames?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
I think that adultery should be a crime and divorce should involve a 5 year waiting period.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theben
Argh, read question wrong, but still see no need for it. For the xth time, there is no compelling reason not to allow gays to marry. |
pretty sure u have that backwards. change requires a reason.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I don't want any sanctity in my mariage. We're both atheists. |
well we certainly are both atheists. tho I prefer to simply think of god as unnecessary.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Nor do I think people should be trapped in bad mariages for five years, especially if your hubby is a psycho stalker freak. |
I don't recommend marrying psycho stalker freaks. but of course there is legal separation before a divorce. and psycho stalker freaking is a crime.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:34
|
|
Uh, Che? I'm a "religionist," remember? And you call people homophobes for a reason. People who oppose homosexuality don't do it as part of some vast conspiracy. They don't get together on moonless nights to decide how best to abuse and denigrate gays just for kicks. There's a genuine component of fear, rational or not, that their own way of life is being threatened, and they fight back for their perceived survival. Your antagonism isn't going to make them go away or change their minds. My proposal is to eliminate the cause for phobia at all.
I'd actually prefer that legal "unions" be as legalistic and unromantic as possible, Spiffor. I think a great deal of the divorce rate in this country has at least a little to do with the glamorization of marriage as a magical paradise that makes all troubles go away. People need to be more aware-viscerally aware, not just "sure, whatever"-that they are signing up for a tremendous act of self-sacrifice. Put it there, on paper, in clear terms, to be signed. No "love." Why should the government care who you love? It's a declaration of commitment to each other's best interests that you're signing up for. If there will be any love exchanged, it will not be because of your guarantee. Love will enter only as a cause or consequence of your commitment, and should be thought of as it relates to the sacrifice you are making.
I think regulation is still necessary just to avoid people getting treated like family and then dumped, unsupported, when the partner/spouse gets fed up. The government ought to be concerned with the ways its constituents try to hurt each other, I think. It's the metaphysical nature of their commitment that's not Uncle Sam's business. So Ned, I think I'm just talking about a different kind of "contract or deed" to streamline it. Stuff about being "off the market" for dating, as FlameFlash mentioned, could be integrated as a stipulation of the contract itself if desired. Like a prenup. Yes, it makes things more complicated than our current J.P, five minutes and two witnesses deal, but I say, the more aware people are of the significance of the contract they're entering, the better. Divorce lawyers could take up the slack as Union lawyers, and as an added bonus they'd stop looking like the epitome of social parasitism...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Giancarlo
|
 |
Los Angeles
Apr 2000
time: 02:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
GC: You're a reincarnated Fez, right? Just checking. What I'm saying is that ANY spiritual significance of marriage is moot as far as the government is concerned. Oh, wait, you're talking to Ned. |
Yeah all I was saying if you want a religious marriage you can have it. The government will just see it as a marriage. And nothing more than that.
quote:
Even if you don't think gays have the same level or type of bond as straights (and I'm not touching that issue) |
Well this is a little food for thought:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...MNG1H59R5Q1.DTL
Just as stable...
"But Bill Maier, vice president of the conservative evangelical organization Focus on the Family, said "the research seems to indicate that (long-term relationships) are very rare and that promiscuity is still very common. ... Men tend to be less into commitment."
Not so fast, said Darren Spedale, a law and business student at Stanford University, who studied divorce rates in Denmark in 1996-97, seven years after same-sex registered partnerships were legalized. He found that 17 percent of gay partnerships ended in divorce compared with 46 percent of the straight relationships."
I'm not discrediting straight relationships as unstable. I am just saying these striking statistics won't cause us gay folk to somehow destroy the santity of marriage.
quote:
it's pretty hard to deny that they really care about their partners on some level, and want to be fully integrated into each other's lives. If such feelings were purely platonic, they would still be worthy of honor by the law. Which is all I'm saying. |
Yeah I totally see what you are saying.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-03-2004 00:24
.
|