Marriage and equality.

[clax]

I almost hijacked another thread with this issue but I decided I will start another thread for it.

Equal status of same sex couples tends to be a nasty debate. It really seems to be about weather or not heterosexual couples are equal to homosexual couples.

I see no reason to promote the notion that heterosexual couples are supreme. By denying equal marriage rights to homosexual couples that is what is occurring.

Aside from the Bible, and people simply not liking it where is a pro hetero supreme arguement? I can't see any.

Your thoughts please

 

[Cerise]

Marriage is a visible statement of a persons commitment to another. All couples who wish to spend a lifetime together, with all that that involves, should be treated equally regardless of gender.

 

[tecoyah]

Marriage is a visible statement of a persons commitment to another. All couples who wish to spend a lifetime together, with all that that involves, should be treated equally regardless of gender.

And....there it is....

 

[Iolo]

There are two separate issues - first, whether couples want to stay together for life and, second, whether they are prepared to commit themselves to children for life. Obviously marriage is fine without children - just a nice decoration to a relationship. What shocks me is that any people should be so casually allowed to take responsibility for vulnerable children and then walk away. It is this latter issue that matters, and it is far, far, far to easy for people to enter selfishly into such a commitment. Who cares about all this posturing about gender? What I care about is kids.

 

[myp]

There are two separate issues - first, whether couples want to stay together for life and, second, whether they are prepared to commit themselves to children for life. Obviously marriage is fine without children - just a nice decoration to a relationship. What shocks me is that any people should be so casually allowed to take responsibility for vulnerable children and then walk away. It is this latter issue that matters, and it is far, far, far to easy for people to enter selfishly into such a commitment. Who cares about all this posturing about gender? What I care about is kids.

What do you mean by walk away? I would guess that the median gay parent is better than the median straight parent considering all the hoops and things they have to go through to get children (at least in the US).

 

[Iolo]

What do you mean by walk away? I would guess that the median gay parent is better than the median straight parent considering all the hoops and things they have to go through to get children (at least in the US).

I mean that if a couple have children they are committed to bring those children up together, whatever gender of partner they prefer, about which who cares?

 

[myp]

I mean that if a couple have children they are committed to bring those children up together, whatever gender of partner they prefer, about which who cares?

Oh I see. Yea, that's a tough issue. I don't see how you can stop people from getting divorced, etc. though. If we are looking to maximize utility, sometimes a split-up is the best thing- possibly even for the kid if the parents always just fight when they are together or something.

 

[=Zoomer=]

Ugh.....are we asking the right question? Is (or should) marriage be a legal issue? or a religious one? In my mind, the domain of marriage falls under religion, not government. Unfortunately, the government got involved at all.

The legal issues surrounding civil union is the domain of the government. Marriage should be optional, and at the discretion of a religion and it's followers. In other words, there should be no legal "status" involved in marriage at all. And there should be no religious status involved in a civil union.

Again, it comes down to "freedom FROM religion", not "OF religion". m2c...

 

[myp]

=Zoomer=, my optimal situation is that government does not recognize any marriage at all because I think marriage is more a personal issue than a public one. But so long as the tax code and policies treat people differently based on marriage (which is defined by a legal document), I am for equal legal marriage for gay and straight people.

 

[=Zoomer=]

=Zoomer=, my optimal situation is that government does not recognize any marriage at all because I think marriage is more a personal issue than a public one. But so long as the tax code and policies treat people differently based on marriage (which is defined by a legal document), I am for equal legal marriage for gay and straight people.

Absolutely agree. I think I was trying to say the same thing with different wording. Government should have nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. I think it's the domain of religion (that's where it started). So even those heterosexual "marriages" should not be called "Marriages", but "civil unions". Nobody should be "married", except by an ordained representative of a church.

And on the other side of the argument, religion should have no say at all in "civil unions", whether hetero, or gay.

It's highly unlikely that our view is going to become reality anytime soon obviously, since they're so screwed up and entangled. Still, worth throwing our 2 cents in right?

 

[myp]

It's highly unlikely that our view is going to become reality anytime soon obviously, since they're so screwed up and entangled. Still, worth throwing our 2 cents in right?

Exactly. Most of what I want isn't on the table, so I'm used to it

I don't even know if we need civil unions, but it's more arguable. It is just that I don't know of any policy area where treating couples differently than individuals is really necessary. (on taxes, I want a progressive consumption tax to replace income, corporate, capital gains, etc. so that covers that)

 

[Wendy]

Ugh.....are we asking the right question? Is (or should) marriage be a legal issue? or a religious one? In my mind, the domain of marriage falls under religion, not government. Unfortunately, the government got involved at all.

The legal issues surrounding civil union is the domain of the government. Marriage should be optional, and at the discretion of a religion and it's followers. In other words, there should be no legal "status" involved in marriage at all. And there should be no religious status involved in a civil union.

Again, it comes down to "freedom FROM religion", not "OF religion". m2c...

Hallejuah & amen!!:twins:

 

[tecoyah]

Ugh.....are we asking the right question? Is (or should) marriage be a legal issue? or a religious one? In my mind, the domain of marriage falls under religion, not government. Unfortunately, the government got involved at all.

The legal issues surrounding civil union is the domain of the government. Marriage should be optional, and at the discretion of a religion and it's followers. In other words, there should be no legal "status" involved in marriage at all. And there should be no religious status involved in a civil union.

Again, it comes down to "freedom FROM religion", not "OF religion". m2c...

Until I can be treated as Married by Gov't and Society I must use marriage in my life with my wife. Thus, regardless of my religious stance...I am married.

 

[Iolo]

Oh I see. Yea, that's a tough issue. I don't see how you can stop people from getting divorced, etc. though. If we are looking to maximize utility, sometimes a split-up is the best thing- possibly even for the kid if the parents always just fight when they are together or something.

I'd look for a very strong commitment to try to make up, and very strong rules against the totally immature having children at all, though I'd guess we'd all be deafened by the screams of those who believe they have an absolute right to balls up young lives, probably guaranteed in the Constitution, the Pantateuch or whatever.

 

[myp]

I'd look for a very strong commitment to try to make up, and very strong rules against the totally immature having children at all, though I'd guess we'd all be deafened by the screams of those who believe they have an absolute right to balls up young lives, probably guaranteed in the Constitution, the Pantateuch or whatever.

Telling people who can and cannot have children is not going to have the best consequences. There are a lot of moral and ethical issues at hand and historically it has been a very bad idea.

 

[Cerise]

I'd look for a very strong commitment to try to make up, and very strong rules against the totally immature having children at all, though I'd guess we'd all be deafened by the screams of those who believe they have an absolute right to balls up young lives, probably guaranteed in the Constitution, the Pantateuch or whatever.

Its not unknown for 'mature' people to mess up childrens lives.

 

[Hammer]

Heterosexual marriage is superior. Heterosexual relationships are on the only ones that produce children. And, for the sake of the children, the government has an interest in promoting a stable home environment.

The purpose of homosexual "marriage" is to force others to accept this lifestyle, which offers no benefit to society.

 

[myp]

Heterosexual marriage is superior. Heterosexual relationships are on the only ones that produce children. And, for the sake of the children, the government has an interest in promoting a stable home environment.

The purpose of homosexual "marriage" is to force others to accept this lifestyle, which offers no benefit to society.

Of course it benefits society. If you care about utility of course. Also, there are plenty of heterosexual marriages that can't produce children too.

 

[=Zoomer=]

The purpose of homosexual "marriage" is to force others to accept this lifestyle, which offers no benefit to society.

I think it offers much to society. Just as the civil rights movement did in the 50's and 60's. Unless you're a racist (which I personally don't think offers any benefit to society), then society "learned" to accept those of other races (more so, not trying to insinuate that racism no longer exists). In the same way, society is on a path to learning to accept those of all sexual orientations.

 

[Hammer]

Of course it benefits society. If you care about utility of course. Also, there are plenty of heterosexual marriages that can't produce children too.

What utility is there in the state recognizing same-sex relationships?

I think it's too intrusive if the government required fertility tests for all valid marriages, especially given that most fertility problems can be treated.