 |
| |
|
|
Omni Rex Draconis
|
|
I couple of recent threads have me thinking. I know this forum leans too far left for a good debate, but perhaps some liberals would be willing to play the advocatus diaboli.
One of the discussions involved what being married orginally meant, but it far easier to see what is actually does mean in today's legal and social terms:
- custody and support rights for children, adoption
- community property rights, mutual responsibility for debts
- right to claim a partner's body after death
- make medical/legal decisions when one partner is incapicitated
- joint tax returns
- immigration expediency for foreign partners
- business discounts (health/golf/car insurance/etc)
(Not a comprehensive list, obviously)
Now that gender is slowly becoming rendered moot in deciding who can be married, are we saying that any two people can decide to form a partnership? After all, no one can prove that you are having sex.
The obligations seem to be minimal (ie. debt), as long as you trust the person enough with the other rights (medical/legal decisions especially). The partners gain a number of other advantages, although the business discounts may fade if this idea takes off in popularity.
The obvious limitation is that you can only be married to one person. Is that right? You can always divorce your partner of convenience once you find someone who is willing to go further (children, lifelong commitment).
Yes? No? Maybe?
Personally, I am too damn asocial to enjoy these benefits, but at least I would no longer have cause to complain about the numerous advantages given to those who do weigh in with another trusted soul.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
snoopy369
|
 |
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:37
|
|
Well, you could always keep it the same way it is now, in that anyone married in a church, assuming that minister has registered with the state appropriately (or his church has done so), is considered "partnered" - but simply say they're two proceses happinging concurrently. That would certainly be required to get any law of that nature passed in this country.
However, I'd agree with it (being the conservative psycho that I am  ) ... honestly I'm sort of put out that my girlfriend, who I've been dating for over 6 years now and living with for 4, doesn't qualify at my current employer as a "domestic partner" even though she would if she were male - meets all the qualificiations of sharing money, living together, time period, etc. ... which for my company requires no fancy ceremony; but we would have to get legally married (which in theory we could do in court, but that has obvious meanings to others i.e. parents, above and beyond our status as life partners) to get those benefits.
I've considered (only when really tired like now  ) filing sexual preference discrimination suit but I doubt it would hold up as heterosexual is not a protected class
Anywho, I think that creating a legal definition that has no meaning to the religious slash culturally minded folks but simply allows any two people the legal rights that now correspond to "marriage" would be fine. It might even be something that could sneak by the religious right (of which I am NOT a part, regardless of my other political leanings ) in a decade or so. Far too late to help me of course (we'll probably be married per current laws in a few years ) but still 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Omni Rex Draconis
|
|
quote:
che:
My best friend got married |
Yes, that is the other thread that got me thinking.
Unfortunately, we are still waiting for the other side of the dabate to show up. Where are the religious objections, the social conservatives, the homophobes?
Has anyone ever tried to measure the political climate around here?
I quick dig found me this political test.
My results were as I expected:
Economic Left/Right: 1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18
I am a strong social lefty, but my fiscal policies take a hard right.
Which is probably why I don't post here much. I know bupkus about economics, and I would rather debate than talk at length with someone who agrees with me on the social issues.
Hell, I invite the Jehovah Witness boys in for a chat!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Omni Rex Draconis
|
|
"Heterosexual people abuse it right now" was rather funny.
Sorry Wittlich, but as my philosophy should have expressed: while the legal contractions are binding, the depth of commitment and the willingness to honour it can never be enforced by society.
quote:
Polygamy and the rarer polyandry are another issue that needs to be addressed seperately. |
Could you outline the basic exceptions people have with multi-partnered unions? Many cultures have used them and I never noted them as being particularly corrupt or unhealthy in some way.
Are there valid reasons not to allow polygamy/polyandry?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Omni Rex Draconis
|
|
Children born, or adopted, by two parents are placed under their joined guardianship. Those entering a union of more than two are placed under the care of that collective.
It would mean that all women are equally reponsible for the children of the union, regardless of who actually gave birth. While highly relevant to us all personally, the fact of who donated the child's DNA is irrelevant to society at large.
Inheritance should follow from a like argument. If legal responsibilities can logically be assigned to two people, it can be assigned to a number of people greater than two.
No, even the best public policy is going to screw with somebody - even if it is only the rapists and murderers.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2005 08:51
|