[matmat]

helene_t, on Oct 14 2008, 08:34 AM, said:

Maybe it's bigotry, too, to oppose polygamy, or interspecies marriage, or adult/child marriage (or human/gulfclub marriage). That is a separate issue. I think that a case can be made that all those four cases deserve a different legal status, so even if it's bigotry to oppose people in polygamic relations calling themselves married, it is not necessarily bigotry to insist that their legal status is different from monogamic relations

But it cannot be argued on a non-bigoted basis that gay married couples deserve a different legal status than straight couples, anymore than it can be argued that special rules should apply to interracial marriages.

I don't really see that big of a problem with polygamy or polyandry, so long as all of the parties involved are well informed of the situation.

"interspecies" marriage and adult/child marriage are different issues. One of the two parties involved does not have the capacity to consent (either never will or not yet) and as such could very much lead to that party being exploited and abused by the other.

[ASkolnick]

Interesting topic.

I don't think I am in favor of gay marriage, but I do believe that a gay couple should have the same protection and rights as any married couple (civil union). I think you may want to keep the distinction. The government has been known to be wishy-washy when it comes to separation of church and state. As I like to point out, it talks about separation of church and state, but on every bill the US government prints it says "In God We Trust". When you go to court, you swear on a bible, etc. So, as much as there is some separation, there is still some puritan law behind the basis.

As for the teaching in schools, there was a controversial book in NYC about 5 years back called "Heather has two mommies." While I do believe tolerance of all types of people should be taught, I am not sure that should be part of the curriculum, any more than ebonics should be taught as a language. As in the case of the one person's daughter, you need to make sure that you aren't stepping on one person's right by infringing on another.

[kenberg]

I pretty much agree about the schools. Unless schools are different from when I grew up they are virtually never willing to introduce truly open debate. The message of Heather has Two Mommies, I would guess, is that this is fine and dandy (excuse the expression). Unless the school is prepared to let those who disagree have their say on this, I think it is better for them to stay out of it.


I started high school in 1952. In one of my classrooms the teacher had set on a shelf some books designed to help us thirteen year olds learn about the changes we were experiencing. I learned that nocturnal emissions, as they were then called, were a normal part of puberty. This I knew. But I did learn something from the book that hadn't occurred to me. Apparently, according to the book, their were unscrupulous phony doctors who would tell boys that such emissions could be cured by having relations with a girl and for a price the doctor would provide the girl. Well now! Despite some effort, I was unable to locate such a doctor. Probably just as well. I doubt that my earnings setting pins at the bowling alley would have covered the tariff.

Anyway, I think that unless schools are prepared for a no holds barred discussion they might want to stay away from sexual indoctrination, no matter the pov.

[TimG]

kenberg, on Oct 14 2008, 08:07 AM, said:

Exactly what should be given the social and legal status of marriage is a fair question for debate.

I think you are half right. The social status of marriage is up for debate, or for personal opinion if you choose. But, the legal status of marriage should not be up for debate. Call it equal protection or anti-discrimination or what have you, but gay couples and heterosexual couples who choose to have their union sanctioned by the state should have equal standing under the laws of the nation (or state).

I really don't care whether you call this a marriage or a civil union, but the state sanctioned form ought to be called the same thing for all couples and mean the same thing for all couples. If any couple wants to have their union sanctioned by a house of religion, too, that is a matter for them to take up with their chosen house of religion.

[mike777]

"For example, I believe in most (all?) countries, if one spouse assumes a financial liability, it automatically extends to the partner (yeah, this is a simplification). This does not hold for unmarried couples. One could have a system in which no such solidaric liability existed (but solidaric liability is a practical thing for couples who share economy and the (financial) responsibility for children), or one could imagine the courts on a case-by-case basis decided if a couple was considered to share a particular liability (but that would create a lot of uncertainty, and legal expenses). "


This is not true in the USA and I would expect this to not be true in many other countries.

If one spouse assumes a financial liability it does NOT automatically extend to the other partner. For example buying a house or a car or stocks or bonds, etc.......

As for children....the financial responsibility is there whether you are married or not! In fact many if not yet most children are born out of wedlock. In fact the children may be born out of a rented womb.

So I still see no huge reason why governments should be involved in whether a marriage is legal or not. If you want some legal contract, see a lawyer! IF people come to some meeting of minds, fair enough they have formed a civil contract, that can fall under civil contract law. I still do not understand why taxpayers need to be involved in weddings or marriages. Let the private sector handle it!

OTOH for those that view marriage as a holy sacrement I can understand religions that may very well have rules for what a legal or illegal marriage is.


OTOH if you want to define what a marriage is so you can give them tax breaks....and discriminate against those who are not married, ok.
I can only see the government getting involved in what a legal marriage is if they want to discriminate!

If businesses are going to discriminate against those who are not married, sue!

[mike777]

TimG, on Oct 14 2008, 01:05 PM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 14 2008, 08:07 AM, said:

Exactly what should be given the social and legal status of marriage is a fair question for debate.

I think you are half right. The social status of marriage is up for debate, or for personal opinion if you choose. But, the legal status of marriage should not be up for debate. Call it equal protection or anti-discrimination or what have you, but gay couples and heterosexual couples who choose to have their union sanctioned by the state should have equal standing under the laws of the nation (or state).

I really don't care whether you call this a marriage or a civil union, but the state sanctioned form ought to be called the same thing for all couples and mean the same thing for all couples. If any couple wants to have their union sanctioned by a house of religion, too, that is a matter for them to take up with their chosen house of religion.

But this is not a convincing argument why the state should sanction any marriage, unless the state is going to discriminate! Once the state is going to give benefits soley on the basis of whatever the state wants to call "legal marriage" fairness goes out the window! It now becomes a political issue and matter of political power, which today means getting the "correct" judges elected.

[mike777]

"Anyway, I think that unless schools are prepared for a no holds barred discussion they might want to stay away from sexual indoctrination, no matter the pov."


If you are going to have public schools teach morality in some version, and values that the country feel are important then I think the issues of gay rights will become a common subject of public school education over the next few decades.
I think this will follow a similiar curve to the teaching of the rights or lackthere of for blacks or women over the decades.

[luke warm]

TimG, on Oct 14 2008, 07:54 AM, said:

Codo, on Oct 14 2008, 06:12 AM, said:

So your decision is: Gay marriage is fine.
But there is simply no reason why your decision should be true for anybody else.

So your decision is: women should have the right to vote.

But, there is simply no reason why your decision should be true for anybody else.

which is why society makes decisions that affect society... the question to me is, should it be a states' issue or the fed gov't's?

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Oct 14 2008, 05:10 PM, said:

the question to me is, should it be a states' issue or the fed gov't's?

And do you have an opinion on which?

[helene_t]

mike777, on Oct 14 2008, 09:37 PM, said:

If you want some legal contract, see a lawyer! IF people come to some meeting of minds, fair enough they have formed a civil contract, that can fall under civil contract law. I still do not understand why taxpayers need to be involved in weddings or marriages. Let the private sector handle it!

Thinking more about it I have come to agree with you on this if I understand you correctly. Standard terms for tenancy agreements (for example) are often written by lawyers' societies or some other professional society, but people can still get tailored contracts if they are willing to spend some time or pay a lawyer for it. It may be better if marriage (or civil union, what's in a name) is dealt with in a similar way.

As it is, however, foreign authorities will sometimes ask for marital status (for example when one applies for residence permit in another country) in which case it is practical if there is such a thing as a government-sanctioned marriage certificate. Of course if a big country like the U.S. decided to get rid of official marriage certificate and U.S. citizens got all kind of tailored contracts instead, the rest of the World would have to get used to it.

[mike777]

"if a big country like the U.S. decided to get rid of official marriage certificate and U.S. citizens got all kind of tailored contracts instead, the rest of the World would have to get used to it."



I will even grant this process may take longer, be more complicated, and cost alot more but then IMO that would be a good thing. It would also create private economy jobs and produce revenue that can be taxed!

[helene_t]

mike777, on Oct 15 2008, 12:09 AM, said:

I will even grant this process may take longer, be more complicated, and cost alot more but then IMO that would be a good thing. It would also create private economy jobs and produce revenue that can be taxed!

Hmmmm .... not sure if an even larger lawyer mafia is what you Americans need the most. OTOH the prospect of more taxes always appeals to me, as you know

[kenberg]

I guess I am in the minority. I like the idea of society deciding what constitutes marriage and backing the collective decision with law I simply advocate including homosexual unions within it.

Here is a for instance. As of late we often hear of males appearing somewhat out of the blue, insisting that they are the biological father of the child, and demanding parental rights. My view is this: If a guy wants parental rights he marries the girl. No marriage, no parental rights. Not the current concept I guess, but I'll stick with it. Exceptions can be made in exceptional circumstances.

So I favor marriage, I favor giving it special status, I would like homosexuals to be included.

I am aware, and I easily accept, that views differ. I won't be changing my mind on this.

[mike777]

kenberg, on Oct 14 2008, 10:30 PM, said:

I guess I am in the minority. I like the idea of society deciding what constitutes marriage and backing the collective decision with law I simply advocate including homosexual unions within it.

Here is a for instance. As of late we often hear of males appearing somewhat out of the blue, insisting that they are the biological father of the child, and demanding parental rights. My view is this: If a guy wants parental rights he marries the girl. No marriage, no parental rights. Not the current concept I guess, but I'll stick with it. Exceptions can be made in exceptional circumstances.

So I favor marriage, I favor giving it special status, I would like homosexuals to be included.

I am aware, and I easily accept, that views differ. I won't be changing my mind on this.

This may get even more confusing if the baby is not born in the "mothers" womb or from the "mothers" egg. Now add marriage to this pot!

This is really on my mind today since I went to lunch and a movie today with a surrogate "mother".

If you want to give marriage a special, discriminate status, marriage by some state sponsored definition, ok........but why?

I am guessing that this special status will be some sort of tax cut?
I am guessing the reason is the children are better off in a state sponsored marriage than other option?

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on Oct 14 2008, 11:30 PM, said:

My view is this: If a guy wants parental rights he marries the girl. No marriage, no parental rights.

Suppose she doesn't want to marry him?

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Oct 14 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 14 2008, 05:10 PM, said:

the question to me is, should it be a states' issue or the fed gov't's?

And do you have an opinion on which?

yeah, if there have to be laws on this, the states individually can handle it

[TimG]

kenberg, on Oct 14 2008, 10:30 PM, said:

If a guy wants parental rights he marries the girl. No marriage, no parental rights.

What if the girl doesn't want to marry the guy?

[kenberg]

TimG, on Oct 15 2008, 07:29 AM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 14 2008, 10:30 PM, said:

If a guy wants parental rights he marries the girl. No marriage, no parental rights.

What if the girl doesn't want to marry the guy?

Then she doesn't, of course. Lacking some serious evidence of unfit motherhood, my view is that her rights still trump the guy's rights. He may well feel abused by this, but that's what happens when you father a child and you are not married to the mother.

[Apollo81]

Clearly the government should not discriminate against people because of their sex, race, sexual orientation, eye color, or favorite band.

Having said that, I think the solution is for the government to redefine what are currently being called "marriage certificates" as "civil unions" and allow such unions to be issued to any 2 consenting adults. Marriages could still be performed in religious institutions, but they would have no legal weight. Thus same-sex couples cannot "marry" in the traditional sense at traditional religious institutions, but they will have ALL of the same rights as heterosexual couples. In my view this is the only way to appease the members of the population who are adamantly against gay marriage.

[DrTodd13]

Apollo81, on Oct 15 2008, 07:10 AM, said:

Clearly the government should not discriminate against people because of their sex, race, sexual orientation, eye color, or favorite band.

Having said that, I think the solution is for the government to redefine what are currently being called "marriage certificates" as "civil unions" and allow such unions to be issued to any 2 consenting adults. Marriages could still be performed in religious institutions, but they would have no legal weight. Thus same-sex couples cannot "marry" in the traditional sense at traditional religious institutions, but they will have ALL of the same rights as heterosexual couples. In my view this is the only way to appease the members of the population who are adamantly against gay marriage.

Why just 2? You're a polygamy bigot!!! The one good thing is that you don't seem to have a problem with incest.