 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:34
|
|
Well Ben, we don't seem to be horribly underpopulated here in the states, though I can't speak for Canada. And AIDS and other STDs are no longer just a gay plague. From a societal standpoint, it would seem that the only relevant concern is whether the people involved are willing to make good on their promises of loyalty and mutual support. The Clinton years showed us all how stupid things can get if government is held up as a model of moral behavior.
Gay unions do not appear to have any effect on the population that straight marriages do not, other than the fact that they weird some of us out-which is true of all changes, and so IMO moot as an argument.
What I'm proposing is just killing a question that doesn't need to be asked in the first place. The government doesn't rule by "sanctity," matrimonial or otherwise. It rules by inflicting very blunt physical repercussions if certain individuals refuse to play nice. We are all entitled to our own opinions as to the greater meaning, or lack thereof, beyond playing nice, but marriage as it is contested right now is a social contract, not a sacrament.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Don't you know? The world revolves around where you want to stick your cheney. |
also its an implicitly moral issue mostly. so u can go round and round lots easier.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
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... |
Elok, the Lee Marvin case established the principle of "protection" even when people just live together. California law, as always a leader in the world, ALREADY protects domestic partners.
I no longer see any reason for marriage licenses or certificate or ceremonies conducted by the state. There is no reason for them at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
From a societal standpoint, it would seem that the only relevant concern is whether the people involved are willing to make good on their promises of loyalty and mutual support.
|
Again, do you believe that there are benefits that society derives from marraige? All of your arguments say that maybe it is not so bad to recognise homosexual partnerships, as we cannot see a negative effect, but it does not address my question.
To me, it is relevant that society encourages marriage. What I am trying to get at is why does society do this?
quote:
The Clinton years showed us all how stupid things can get if government is held up as a model of moral behavior.
|
Interesting. I used to debate that the government always has a moral responsibility, and thus, must apply the highest standards of morality to their conduct, in order to encourage the same standards to apply to their citizens. Just because Bill Clinton had a low standard, does not mean that the government should be removed from all areas of influence.
quote:
Gay unions do not appear to have any effect on the population that straight marriages do not, other than the fact that they weird some of us out-which is true of all changes, and so IMO moot as an argument.
|
Again, just because we do not know the effects of an action, does not justify the action. One would anticipate that a good reason should be put forth to do the action in the first place.
quote:
It rules by inflicting very blunt physical repercussions if certain individuals refuse to play nice.
|
So how would the apparatus of the state be applied to this situation in such a blunt fashion? Would the state hunt down any gay people in relationships to make sure they do not marry?
No. All I can see, as a negative consequence, of not recognising these partnerships is to be called a 'bigot' and against the forces of progressivism.
There is no segregation, no bus riots, no hardship for gay people in society today.
quote:
We are all entitled to our own opinions as to the greater meaning, or lack thereof, beyond playing nice, but marriage as it is contested right now is a social contract, not a sacrament.
|
Agreed. 
And it is as a social contract, that I ask why does society encourage marriage?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:34
|
|
Society "encourages" marriage, if it still does at all, for the reasons I mentioned to Ned: to encourage loyalty within a family unit. Like it or not, gays are now forming family structures of their own. It's not a matter of allowing homosexuality itself (good luck trying to stop them from doing that), but of allowing people who want to live more closely to do so, regardless of what body part they like to penetrate. At least, that's the gist of the argument. I think. Somebody tell me if I'm way off-base here. As I said, I've seen no reason to believe that gay relationships are a danger society, and civic policy in the U.S. traditionally errs on the side of liberty: if there is no apparent harm done, let it go.
The Clinton scandal was embarrassing not just because Slick Willy himself was a mimbo, but because we were trying to judge a man unfit for duty because of unrelated aspects of his personal life. It's not the government's duty to tell people right and wrong. That's for the church by my reckoning (to save Sava the effort, I will now insert the  smiley). Government exists to keep our bad judgment from hurting innocent bystanders. Free will should be given free reign provided you act knowingly and only screw up your own life.
I wasn't addressing the last paragraph directly at you; sorry for being vague. By blunt physical repercussions I meant that there is nothing sacramental about law. If you cheat on your spouse, God will be angry, yes, but where the law is concerned it's more important that the divorce proceedings are going to totally maul your wallet. I only meant that our legal system is hardly metaphysical, and "sanctity of marriage" is not a primary concern.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Again, just because we do not know the effects of an action, does not justify the action. One would anticipate that a good reason should be put forth to do the action in the first place. |
So, BK, your view is that before "society" allows any individual freedoms, it must be proven that said freedom has a positive impact on "society"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Not true at all. Ever hear of "Spousal priviledge" in legal proceedings? Only married people currently can get it, and there's no contractual remedy. |
Boris, I have evolved on this issue. I have a hard time understanding what marriage licenses are for if people can just live together, form contracts or obtain rights by operation of law (Lee Marvin). I now think that people simply need to claim to be "married" or its equivalent by filing a marriage certificate, contract or evidence of long term cohabitation in order to obtain any benefit traditionally reserved for married couples.
Under such a system, any couple who claim to be such (and provide adequate proof, see above) can get spousal status.
We still have the formalities in order to be "married" in Kalifornia. However, long term cohabitors have the same rights as those formally married.
How people conduct their sexual and romantic lives should be none of the governments business. If they choose to marry or the defacto equivalent, regardless of sex, the state should recognize the "facts on the ground," so to speak when the couple make the claim.
The matter of children and subsidies for keeping families together should be a separate topic.
|
|
| |
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 02:18
|