[quote]Sloth wrote:
And, you never did answer my question. I’m trying very hard to understand why you even support state recognized and regulated (benefits and risks) marriages? If you truly are cool with extending state recognized marriage and it’s benefits to any and all arrangements, regardless of intimacy, the sexes involved, and the number of people invovled, why bother?
Why aren’t you on here supporting Lift’s position? Which, unless I’ve misunderstood him, is that the state shouldn’t discriminate in relationships. No marriages recognized, reward, or enforced by the state. If marriage exists, it only does sothrough private institutions. Whatever benefits might be gained, would be achieved the same way two single people would set up medical, property, etc., arrangements. Lawyers and contracts.
Right now, your position seems to be that state recognized marriage is an avenue for claiming benefits that would otherwise go unclaimed. Benefits that seemingly only exist to give to those who marry, if they judge those benefits greater than the risks. [/quote]
I am not sure how many different ways this point can be made and a response requested. I think it’s time for an answer.
Because I do think there are benefits to marriage. I think people should be rewarded for committing to each other. Two people together can create a much more productive unit than can lone citizens. That should be rewarded.
No matter how many alternatives are thrown at the wall to see what sticks, the overwhelmingly vast majority of marriages are, and will be, opposite-sex marriages. Nothing about alternative marriages degrades the strength of the marriage community, so there is zero reason to abolish all public marriage principles.
I find it closed minded to assume that either one is for keeping the status quo, or one is for abolishing all marriages. Just because I am not for your idea of marriage, does not mean I am against marriage.
Lift specifically stated that he shouldn’t have to recognize a contract between any two people. I think that is ridiculous. I’m going to speak hypothetically here, but I think it will highlight why there needs to be a state recognition. Let’s pretend state marriage does not exist, and let us also pretend Lift is my doctor. If I am in a car wreck and I end up on life support but in a vegetative state, and I’ve given my wife the power to speak for me, it doesn’t mean shit unless I have a higher authority backing up that agreement. Dr. Lift may say “That’s their agreement, not mine, and I don’t think ol’ Borrek is going to make it” and then he yanks the plug.
Let’s pretend I “privately marry” a crack whore and have a child with her. I divorce her and get with another woman who I’m with for 15 years, who helps me raise my daughter. If I die, my last wife then has zero claim to my child, even though she was effectively the mother for this child’s entire life.
Both of these scenarios just are not right, and a higher authority needs to step in and prevent both from occurring.
First off, benefits don’t go “unclaimed” there isn’t a pile of tax breaks getting dusty anywhere.
My position is that marriage is great, and I want other people to experience how great it can be. Marriage is a validation of a relationship, and gay people deserve that validation by simple virtue of the fact that they want it.
My position is that it is wrong to deny homosexuals the right to marry the person they love. If I can do it, they should be able to also. There is no compelling evidence that makes me think for even a fraction of a second that any two loving adults should not be able to marry each other. I think the claims of “protecting the sanctity of marriage” are misguided, miserly, and foolish. I think to be anti-gay marriage, is to be anti-gay, is to be bigoted, and I would oddly have a lot more respect for someone who had the balls to say “I hate gay people” rather than one who tries to pretend it isn’t about where people are putting their penis at night.
Sorry I would have answered earlier, but my wife was in the hospital having a c-section.[/quote]
I hope all is well. If so, congratulations are in order.
Since a number of things stand out to me in your post, I’d like to respond at length. However, it could take some time as I have finals coming up fast. So, my PWI posting “study breaks” will have to suffer. I’m sorry folks, but this is the way it has to be. I’m sure one could cut the disappointment here with a knife.
My position is that marriage is great, and I want other people to experience how great it can be. Marriage is a validation of a relationship, and gay people deserve that validation by simple virtue of the fact that they want it.[/quote]
Did you get married to file taxes jointly? Did you get married so you could visit your SO in the hospital? Did you get married so that your SO could (illegally) immigrate?
You’ve got the cart before the horse. Marriage is in no way a validation of a relationship. I didn’t get married for any of the above reasons and don’t need the state to validate my marriage and make me feel good about myself/it. A good relationship is a prerequisite to a good marriage and a marriage based solely on external validation is a poor one. Even if marriage were a validation, what is it validating outside of ‘one’, ‘man’, and ‘woman’? There’s virtually zero prerequisite, you don’t even have to know the other person. When you consider trivial things like driving and owning a firearm, in comparison, marriage is a paltry validation. It’s almost harder to validate your commitment to decongestants at the pharmacy.
On top of that, and wants can multiplied innumerably. With little substance to validation and potentially unlimited want, I’m loath to expanding gov’t power on those precepts.
My position is that marriage is great, and I want other people to experience how great it can be. Marriage is a validation of a relationship, and gay people deserve that validation by simple virtue of the fact that they want it.
Did you get married to file taxes jointly? Did you get married so you could visit your SO in the hospital? Did you get married so that your SO could (illegally) immigrate?
You’ve got the cart before the horse. Marriage is in no way a validation of a relationship. I didn’t get married for any of the above reasons and don’t need the state to validate my marriage and make me feel good about myself/it. A good relationship is a prerequisite to a good marriage and a marriage based solely on external validation is a poor one. Even if marriage were a validation, what is it validating outside of ‘one’, ‘man’, and ‘woman’? There’s virtually zero prerequisite, you don’t even have to know the other person. When you consider trivial things like driving and owning a firearm, in comparison, marriage is a paltry validation. It’s almost harder to validate your commitment to decongestants at the pharmacy.
On top of that, and wants can multiplied innumerably. With little substance to validation and potentially unlimited want, I’m loath to expanding gov’t power on those precepts.[/quote]
validation is an odd word to choose. i see it as the state rewarding two people for creating a stable environment around them and forming a solid relationship with another person (or at least attempting to lol).
[quote]borrek wrote:
Because I do think there are benefits to marriage. I think people should be rewarded for committing to each other. Two people together can create a much more productive unit than can lone citizens. That should be rewarded.
[/quote]
What about three people, or four, or five?
What rewards should they get that others should not?
Peple can get married all they want. I fail to see what forcing other to recognize your personal commitment to another person, or persons. Do what you want, just don’t involve me. I don’t need your approval or forced acceptance either.
Well, it doesn’t really matter that there are more options. What matters is most logical and fair to all.
You are looking at this all wrong. The state will uphold any legal contract you enter in to. Nobody is proposing that this change. What is being proposed is that we quit using “marriage” as short hand for various legal commitments. The state doesn’t have to give you a license to enter into a contract with someone else, and we simply recognize it for what it is. Everybody wins. The gays can get married and tell people they are married and those that don’t like it can refuse to acknowledge it will no ill effect.
We don’t need marriage to prevent anything. Common law and marriage can stand on their own.
If a benefit is not claimed then it must be unclaimed unless there is some cap of the number of marriage benefits gov’t is willing to recognize. I am not aware of any cap on the number of marriages that are legal in any giving year.
absolutly 100% correct. others may deserve it as well. Instead of allowing the state to dictate personal relationships and commitments, why not get them out of the process all together? Why selectively allow gays and no one else to be added?
Again 100% agree. But I don’t see any logical reason why anyone else needs to validate or acknowledge this bond. It is a private bond and the state has no business regulating it.
why just two?
Then let each individual actively perserve the sanctity of marriage is there own mind with no ill effect to anyone else. Completely deregulate marriage. What ill effect will this have?
I don’t understand the anti-gay marriage arguement either. As much as I don’t understand the anti-polygamy or anti-cousin marriage arguement. I wouldn’t participate any of the tree but if others want to, go for it. I just don’t see the reasoning behind forcing others to recognize a personal commitment between 2 or 3 or 20 adults.
I certainly don’t hate gays. I think they’re fucking high-larious. Any dude that acts more feminine than a chick is just plain good entertainment. Any chick that acts more like a guy is certainly easier to hang out with than girly girls. How much fun would it be to hang out with only people that are exactly like you. Not very fun in my book.
I will admit that I still get a little weirded out when two guys kiss. It’s like finger nails on a chalk board to me. Cross dressing is a little weird as well, straight or gay.
Just deregulate marriage, let everyone do what they want, and all the gay bashers can hate the fact that they are married all they want and not do anything about it. They don’t even have to acknowledge the marriage, who cares.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
borrek wrote:
Because I do think there are benefits to marriage. I think people should be rewarded for committing to each other. Two people together can create a much more productive unit than can lone citizens. That should be rewarded.
What about three people, or four, or five?
What rewards should they get that others should not?
[/quote]
society is built around two person relationships. why would we change that?
also marriage rewards are built around a two person relationship.
giving 3 people power of attorney is a shit storm. i imagine many people would die in hospitals as they sit around arguing amongst themselves on what should be done.
Connecticut has now approved gay marriage, making it the second state in as many weeks to do so through the legislative process. So much for all the complaining about “activist judges legislating from the bench”.
[quote]Gov. Jodi Rell Makes It Official: CT Has Gay Marriage
Just four years ago this week, Connecticut’s Gov. Jodi Rell signed a bill legalizing civil unions for same-sex couples, notes the Hartford Courant. Now, she’s struck them down. Signing Senate Bill 889, Rell officially updates the state’s marriage laws to eliminate civil unions throughout the state ? and automatically update any existing ones to full marriage by October 2010.[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
Connecticut has now approved gay marriage, making it the second state in as many weeks to do so through the legislative process. So much for all the complaining about “activist judges legislating from the bench”.
[/quote]
What the fuck does this have to do with activist judges legislating from the bench? Congrats on Connecticut.
There still is one small problem. Whether or not other state have to recognize marriages in Connecticuit. Constitutionaly, they do not. I do beleive there have been some supreme courts cases where activists judges set precidence on this. Been awhile since I read “The nine” and “Men in Black”, so can’t recall specifics.
It demonstrates that two states in the past month have historically approved gay marriage through the legislative process. The complaint from conservatives up to this point has been that other states have allowed gay marriage as a result of “activist judges”, rather than reflecting the true will of the people.
Connecticut originally approved civil unions due to a ruling by the Supreme Court. The legislature has since take that one step further, and legalized gay marriage entirely through the democratic process. Connecticut, along with Vermont, prove that the gay rights movement is not restricted to the judiciary, and reflects a larger shift in public opinion toward favoring equal rights for gays.