Even Marriage isn't equal when it occurs by AnthonyT

America loves a winner!

Perhaps the solution is to become a legal citizen first, and then think about sharing your life with a partner.

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 9:29 AM

HERO

Probably an unintended consequence of the Defense of Marriage Act.

I do think that she has a legitimate beef, but it's one created by changes in state law. While it could be argued as a civil rights issue that she is being treated unfairly, one could also argue that the state law allowing gay marriage conflicts with the DOMA and thus is itself unconstitutional. The line of federal supremacy cases stretches all the way back to...McCulloch vs Maryland.

This is a very complicated legal issue, one that could easily be both won and loss should the woman choose to challenge it. By proving her civil rights violation, the Court could very well take the next step and remedy this by further holding her marriage, and all gay marriages, void.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 9:31 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Perhaps the solution is to make all such unions equal. All ignored or all recognized equally. All with benefits or all without. At the moment we don't just suffer under the undignified 'separate but equal' rule of the past. We have 'separate and unequal.'

I do not advocate cherry picking liberties and handing them out on the basis of personal preference. It's all or none. If heterosexual people can use the system to remain, then homosexuals should be able to as well. If it's barred for one, it should be barred for the other.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 9:33 AM

HERO

I note for the record that the traditional ban on gay marriage was never discrimination. The bar against same sex couples marrying is the same for both heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals. You can only argue discrimination if one side gets to commit the same act that is barred to the other. Likewise gay people are free to marry persons of the opposite sex, so no discrimination.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 9:39 AM

America loves a winner!

The logic of 'all or none ' begins to falter when you consider multiple unions, or unions between siblings, cats and dogs.... Pretty clear to see that one does not always equate to t'other.

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 9:54 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I note for the record that the traditional ban on gay marriage was never discrimination. The bar against same sex couples marrying is the same for both heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals. You can only argue discrimination if one side gets to commit the same act that is barred to the other. Likewise gay people are free to marry persons of the opposite sex, so no discrimination.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

Hello,

I believe if you shift your focus to the actual matter of import, you will see the breakdown of this logic.

Heterosexuals are free to marry a consenting adult of their choosing.

Homosexuals are not.

Homosexuals are only free to marry a consenting adult of our choosing, and we have deselected half the species for them.

It is akin to saying that people are free to worship Vishnu, and only Vishnu.

Most people would see this as a form of discrimination.

The Vishnu adherents would argue that it is not discrimination. We are all free to worship Vishnu. If everyone is free to do something, how can it be discriminatory?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 10:28 AM

HERO

Heterosexual persons are not free to marry a consenting adult of their choosing unless that person is of the opposite sex. The ban is identical regardless of sexual orientation, race, or gender.

Speaking solely to the legal issues, your argument is most similar to now defunct bans on interracial marriage, and current bans on multiparty unions, age limitatios, etc. By making gay marriage bans race and gender neutral states remove your ost powerful civil rights argument. That relegates you to the land of polygamy and age limitations, in other words it's near the limit of the Supreme Court's ten foot pole of legal reasoning.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 10:50 AM

Is the Defense of Marriage Act a constitutional amendment? It does not appear to be. If it is not a constitutional amendment, it can theoretically be ruled unconstitutional in a court of law, right? (If it's a constitutional amendment, I think it specifically has to be repealed)

Also, there are certain provisions of the act about federal benefits of marriage not applying to homosexual couples (which I think this case falls under) having been ruled unconstitutional, so there might be grounds on which to dispute this and legal precedence. However, those decisions were from courts in Massachusetts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 10:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The logic of 'all or none ' begins to falter when you consider multiple unions,

How about we suspend logic and admit to cherry picking groups who have rights. Right now, we want gay individuals to be added to the cherry picked group with legal marital benefits. Just them. No polygamies or incestuous marriages or cats or dogs. Just gays. THEN we close the door on the hordes of immoral fiends who want to abuse legal marriage.

Would that be ok then?

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 10:56 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Heterosexual persons are not free to marry a consenting adult of their choosing unless that person is of the opposite sex. The ban is identical regardless of sexual orientation, race, or gender."

Hello,

Such a law has a disparate impact. Heterosexuals, by definition, prefer mates of the opposite gender. They are not impacted by the limitation. Homosexuals prefer to marry mates of their same gender. They suffer a disparate impact by the law. The law impacts citizens disproportionately based on sexual orientation.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 10:56 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The logic of 'all or none ' begins to falter when you consider multiple unions,
How about we suspend logic and admit to cherry picking groups who have rights. Right now, we want gay individuals to be added to the cherry picked group with legal marital benefits. Just them. No polygamies or incestuous marriages or cats or dogs. Just gays. THEN we close the door on the hordes of immoral fiends who want to abuse legal marriage.

Would that be ok then?

Sure. Until 20 or so years down the road, when polygamists or NAMBLA types start yapping about THEIR equal rights. Oh, who'll listen to THEM, huh? Their #'s are so few, and there'll never be the political backing needed, like the gays enjoy, to effectively get any legislation passed, right ?

Right ?

After 10,000 years of man + woman marriage, we have to go redefining the institution..why ?

It's not 'cherry picking' anything. It's how nature works, is all. It's the template for the continuation of the species, not just of humans, or of mammals, but of pretty much most higher life on Earth.

I don't see the crime in simply recognizing that fact.

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 11:04 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Some info on Disparate Impact from Wikipedia.

"In US employment law, the doctrine of disparate impact holds that employment practices may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on members of a minority group. Under the doctrine, a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may be proven by showing that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of the protected class as compared with non-members of the protected class.[1]

The doctrine entails that "A facially neutral employment practice is one that does not appear to be discriminatory on its face; rather it is one that is discriminatory in its application or effect."[2] Where a disparate impact is shown, the plaintiff can prevail without the necessity of showing intentional discrimination unless the defendant employer demonstrates that the practice or policy in question has a demonstrable relationship to the requirements of the job in question.[3] This is the so-called "business necessity" defense.[1]

Disparate impact contrasts with disparate treatment. A disparate impact is unintentional, whereas a disparate treatment is an intentional decision to treat people differently based on their race or other protected characteristics."

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 11:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sure. Until 20 or so years down....

You had me at "sure."

Thanks. "Sure" is all we want.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 11:11 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

The logic of 'all or none ' begins to falter when you consider multiple unions...

Not sure why all the hate for multiple unions, as long as they're between consenting adults.

The "Dogs, cats, livestock, cars, trees, and children" also sort'a falls apart if you apply the "between consenting adults" test.

Of course now Frem'll chime in with "How do we determine "adult"?."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 11:15 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I applaud you for defending polyamory and polygamy. People tend to automatically link such words to illicit activity in their minds, when this is not inherently the case. Polygamy should also be free under the law.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 11:17 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sure. Until 20 or so years down....
You had me at "sure."

Thanks. "Sure" is all we want.

Be on the look out for sarcasm. It's all the rage, and will be coming to your town or village soon. Once you figure it out, you'll have loads of fun!

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 11:21 AM

Quote:
Not sure why all the hate for multiple unions, as long as they're between consenting adults.

My crazy Utahan polygamist ancestry agrees with you. Personally, I might add "informed" in front of consent there, just to avoid certain abuses or exploitation that can be found in, say, certain fundamentalist religious groups and how they raise their children.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WifeHusbandry

As a side note, this also works for animals, because animals can't consent, and also for people within the age range of concern (not worldly or experienced enough to have "informed consent").

And since we're not about to decriminalize rape (an issue of informed consent), this probably would be sufficient to meet all concerns without opening the door to some sort of slippery slope of horrific abuse and exploitation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Be on the look out for sarcasm.

Oh no. I want the sarcasm-free "Sure" please. Thank you.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 12:06 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Be on the look out for sarcasm.
Oh no. I want the sarcasm-free "Sure" please. Thank you.

See there? Sarcasm ! Ha! I love it.

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 12:25 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I think Raptor and I will stand on the top of the hill in the dry spot so we avoid the slidy ice on the slope thereof.

No one said people can't same sex rut and no one said Frem can't sleep with as many women as he pleases, as long as they all know it and are okay with it of course. Its just not something legally recognizable as ordinary certifiable marriage. Some states try but it still looks funny on paper next to normal marriages.

Ain't changin my mind on this one.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 12:30 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

" Ain't changin my mind on this one."

Hello,

Can you explain why you believe this form of marriage is the correct way to limit people, in terms of logic or morality?

Or is this more of an inherent feeling in the fiber of your being that you simply accept as being correct?

Or is it something else?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 12:36 PM

Not to change your mind, but I do want to point out some of the practical considerations that come up.

Frem's not about to have any kids, he's said outright that he doesn't want to. But say it weren't that way, and he had a bunch of kids with a bunch of polyamory girls. How do you figure taxes for the household, can you claim one of his families as dependents but not another, what about insurance and legal rights in a medical care capacity?

Do any of those things really have to require a paper proclaiming a legal marriage, or, are affirmed commitments between consenting adults and, for the kids, biological relatedness - in other words being a family - sufficient enough to be recognized as such with all the legal obligations and responsibilities that come with that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 1:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Ain't changin my mind on this one.

You don't have to.

But I am curious how you feel about stories like these.

https://www.glad.org/work/cases/kerrigan-carol-janet/

Quote:
One of the many reasons Janet and Carol want the protection of marriage is to ensure access to each other in the hospital. Janet has undergone three surgeries over the last nine years. When Janet had major surgery to remove life-threatening, benign tumors from her liver, she withstood a long and painful recuperation. Carol was at the hospital day and night and lovingly cared for Janet at home until she regained her mobility and independence. Nonetheless, after waiting in the hospital through the eight long hours of surgery, Carol was initially not allowed to visit Janet in intensive care because she was not immediate family. When Carol identified herself as Janet’s partner, the attending nurse said she did not know what that meant.

At yet another point in Janet’s many hospitalizations, she was not permitted to designate Carol as next of kin. “I’m not a stranger,” said Carol, “I’m the one who is responsible for Janet’s welfare and I’m the one who knows her wishes if something were to go wrong. I believe only marriage will provide us with the basic security every couple needs as they face health issues and other crises. Powers of attorney and other legal forms, which we have, don’t always work and are not enough.”

Additionally, the couple has faced basic financial impediments because of their unmarried status. For example, when planning to sell their first home and build a new one seven years ago, they were denied a joint home construction loan because their combined income as a couple was not recognized. For the fifteen years they were both self-employed, they paid for two individual health insurance policies and were unable to purchase the two person policy available on their existing plan because of their single status. This added an additional annual expense of $2100, which totals $31,500 over their fifteen year period of self-employment. While Carol was able to add Janet to her health insurance policy as her domestic partner once she went to work for the state of Connecticut, they still cannot purchase other types of insurance on the same terms available to married couples.

Legal marriage provides a lot of financial benefits and legal hospital rights that two shacked up people don't have. How do you feel about these two women, despite being married to each other, not being able to have the same legal benefits as women who are married to men? Having to fight to be able to visit each other in the hospital, while women married to men can simply announce they're the wives and walk straight in. Not being eligible for loans when women who are married to men can simply check the "married" box and get approved.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 1:35 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I think Raptor and I will stand on the top of the hill in the dry spot so we avoid the slidy ice on the slope thereof.

Ooh! Ooh! I like this spot. I think I'll stand right here.

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 2:10 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Of course now Frem'll chime in with "How do we determine "adult"?."

Of course, while pointing out we really do so in a seriously halfass way, I'd like to better our definition of the term rather than discard it though.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Frem's not about to have any kids, he's said outright that he doesn't want to. But say it weren't that way, and he had a bunch of kids with a bunch of polyamory girls. How do you figure taxes for the household, can you claim one of his families as dependents but not another, what about insurance and legal rights in a medical care capacity?

Do any of those things really have to require a paper proclaiming a legal marriage, or, are affirmed commitments between consenting adults and, for the kids, biological relatedness - in other words being a family - sufficient enough to be recognized as such with all the legal obligations and responsibilities that come with that?

Indeed, since I am incapable of producing them, one of the many things which led to me and the ex calling it off - although I am cheerleading their attempts with an occasionally disturbing enthusiasm.

For me something like that should be handled under contract law, there's provisions for it, and if there's one thing I am really a total freakin rules lawyer about it's contracts - kinda obvious in retrospect when you factor in how pyschotic I'll get over a broken one...

Problem is when folks take marriage as a legal contract and start throwing religion into it.

We really SHOULD split the terms within our legal system and define them seperately.
Marriage (religious)
Marriage (contracted)

Not so hard as that, but you got peoples prejudices to deal with, and that's always the hardest.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 2:31 PM

Quote:
although I am cheerleading their attempts with an occasionally disturbing enthusiasm

Lol. Minion Shipping.

(See also girl genius comics)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 2:54 PM

CHRISISALL

I'm right at the edge of sayin' just assume the government is lookin' out for your worst interests, and live completely under the radar. Actual Marriage? Forget it, homo, hetro whatever. ASSUME no grace will come from the man. Draw up legal agreements if you must. Get 'married' on a beach by your best friends.
The world is changing anyway, why spend your time begging for what is not available? Basic humanitarian rights, I mean.
Was Tarzan actually married to Jane in that treehouse?

I'm feeling more like Mal every year. By 2021 I conjure I'll BE him.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 2:59 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Bwahahahahaha!

Nah, that's more me with Pokey and Whammy - both are revoltingly cute and they make sickeningly adorable kids, plus being ridiculously fertile, since after the last they went to pills plus IUD and she STILL gets freakin pregnant!
(thankfully this was discovered and sorted without complication)
I told her she's now my official minion factory, hehehe.

Me and the ex are kinda somewhere between Big Bad Duumvirate and Big Bad/Dragon-in-Chief - cause HER plans work about as well as Mals do on average... besides which I'd rather be the one standing behind the throne than sitting on it, narrative causality indicates the Big Bad always gets it in the neck, while the Dragon can usually expect leniency, especially with a well-timed Face Heel Turn.

So this is more arming a Tykebomb, here.

*cue melodramatic villainous laughter*

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 4:22 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Anthony. Same sex grosses me out. I will never see its application as equal to regular sex in desirability. Of course it is equal to regular sex in that it needs to take place between mutual concenters etc. There's no way for me not to see it as grotty and so unions based on it don't feel like marriages to me. If people want to do that on their own time in their own lives in their own houses in their own privacy then that's their choice and they should have the right to do that, but I don't think such relations should be marriageable.

CTS that is a great question. I believe that any two people, a couple, siblings, best friends, you name it, should be able to get a stuff-sharing license and should be able to share insurance, see each other in the hospital no matter what, and all of those things that people are unable to have now, the tangible ones I mean. Why should you have to be lovers in order to do these things? That's not fair.

5 plus 5 doesn't equal 72, marriage has always involved a male component and a female componant, sometimes in history it has involved more than one of those but still both components have always been present in husband and wife situations.

Byte, if Frem has little Fremlets then they're all his no matter who he has them with so he's responsable for all of them no matter how many households they live in. My older brother is responsable for his children with his partner of 12 years, and he's responsable for his child he's having with his new wife, they have different moms but they're still his children. I don't know how that question is answered in regards to households, just that Frem is allowed to have as many lovers as he wants at any given time. That would get expensive though. :)

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 9:52 PM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Same sex grosses me out. I will never see its application as equal to regular sex in desirability. [...] There's no way for me not to see it as grotty and so unions based on it don't feel like marriages to me.

Hetero sex grosses me out. I will never see it as equal to lesbian sex in desirability. Unions based on it don't feel like marriages to me. Does such personal, emotional opinion on this matter mean that hetero couples shouldn't be allowed to get married, because people of another orientation may find it gross?
(My ability to empathize says that would cause unnecessary suffering to many people. Even if it would satisfy a certain emotional impulse I have, the sadness caused by such restriction would outweigh that satisfaction and ultimately make me unhappy.)

It's a horrid red herring argument when people bring up bestiality and pedophilia when discussing same sex marriage. The difference between consenting adults and children or animals is very distinct, and saying that one will somehow lead to the other is frankly mind-boggling.
Incest being thrown in there is also rather strange. Most people find the idea of incest appalling because evolution has provided us with certain failsafes to prevent in-breeding, such as being repulsed by the idea of sex with someone we grew up with, a very common phenomenon. Nevertheless, in-breeding between relatives has been traditional for at least as long as "traditional marriage" has, because many royals throughout history have thought 'pure' blood was the way to go. They've been proven wrong every time, and they had to be sure intended cousins or siblings didn't spend too much time together as children, or they wouldn't be able to bear the thought of sexual contact. Too many recessive traits cause multiple health problems (look at the famous King Tut for an example) and is a detriment, which is what can make incest problematic. It's a totally unrelated issue to same-sex marriage, which does not and cannot cause such problems. Since we don't reproduce, the main possibility provided by same-sex couples is child care, through adoption or just helping hetero parents. It's been theorized that this supplementary child care is the evolutionary basis of homosexuality.
Polygamy? If all parties involved are okay with it and understand the added responsibility that can result, it's not really anyone's business. Again, personal and emotional opinion should not dictate what legal rights consenting adults have. For all the hype about the religious roots, marriage is undeniably a legal institution. It stopped being the sole purview of religion as soon as legal rights were tied to it. If three people want to enter into a marriage and deal with whatever unique obstacles that may cause, then I have no right to tell them they can't just because I personally wouldn't want to enter into a marriage with two other people. By the same token, I don't have the right to say hetero sex is not a good basis for marriage just because it weirds me out. And by the same token, it's hurtful and insulting when someone says homo sex is not a good basis for marriage just because it weirds them out. Just because I want to spend my life with another woman doesn't mean any other woman has to, so I don't see why "it's grotty" is somehow a good reason to deny my partner and me legal rights that are provided to hetero couples. It has no personal impact on you whatsoever, so your personal-feelings-based argument is deeply, deeply flawed.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 10:46 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
After 10,000 years of man + woman marriage, we have to go redefining the institution..why ?

There have been same sex unions throughout human history and homosexual sex exists throughout the animal kingdom. The redefining has already been done, and by you.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 12:18 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

After 10,000 years of man + woman marriage, we have to go redefining the institution..why ?

It's not 'cherry picking' anything. It's how nature works, is all. It's the template for the continuation of the species, not just of humans, or of mammals, but of pretty much most higher life on Earth.

I don't see the crime in simply recognizing that fact.

Which 10,000 years was that? Marriage has not ALWAYS been about one man and one woman. Not for ever and not for every society. People have structured their societies in a variety of different ways. Some have had polygamus relationships, some polyandry has been the norm, in some it was usual for one man and one woman to marry, but one or both to have other partners, sometimes same sex unions have been considered normal for romance, but men and women together only produce children, in some societies brothers and sisters married. There is and has been no normal in human society, only what we agree.

Okay, I should have read on, what lili says.

And you know, really, unless we are talking about fantasy sex here, I'd rather not imagine most people I know at it. The thought of family members, friends, workers etc etc having sex seems pretty grotty to me, so I try not to think about it. I don't want to stop it, I just don't want to think about it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:33 AM

In some Native American societies, a girl would be born who decided to live her whole life as a man, and there were some men who lived as women, and they would marry members of the same sex. In their society it didn't matter what their outward physical traits were or what their genetics said, but rather who their spirit was.

And if a male human had a spirit that said she was a woman, who was anyone, including her husband, to question that?

And among the Ancient Greeks and Romans, many of the men considered their wives boring and uneducated, and preferred to either have relationships with the much more interesting and educated courtesans, or to have romantic relationships with other men. A wife was just for children, as described above.

In Celtic society, everyone was polyamorous. Women and men lived mostly separated, gathering only for certain fertility festivals (have a guess what THAT entailed). Arguably it was a very loose form of polyandry, as the women were the usually the ones choosing their partners, and they didn't often pair up with the same person. Later on, the culture was less segregated, and the concept of the handfast was developed - like a marriage, but it only lasts one year. Like a trial marriage perhaps. The pagan tradition flourished well into even CHRISTIAN times, when it was common on St. Valentine's day for Christian priests to hold the ceremony.

And if we're really going to get into it, marriage has traditionally had very little to do with any such thing as love. People lived too far apart to find someone who they shared much understanding or many interests with, and so coupling was more an act of convenience and to have children. In fact, I think love may have been invented in 1485, when Le Mort d'Arthur popularized the concept. And even then it wasn't really thought that a married couple would have it, but rather a lady and an unmarried knight because the romance would, by necessity, never be fulfilled.

All this star-crossed and one true nonsense is just a means of control created by TPTB so people waste their time obsessing over it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 6:09 AM

Riona: I don't mean to add to the pounding on you, if it seems that way. Actually, I'd be satisfied by your license idea, and I like that it can be between friends and not just romantic partners. Though I'd like some way to do it that didn't require government or religious oversight. Like if you have witnesses, and signed a form, done, you're good.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 6:12 AM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
In fact, I think love may have been invented in 1485, when Le Mort d'Arthur popularized the concept. And even then it wasn't really thought that a married couple would have it, but rather a lady and an unmarried knight because the romance would, by necessity, never be fulfilled.

You're thinking of the concept of courtly love, defined as basically devotion without lust. Supposedly, this made it selfless and perfect. It's flawed on many levels. Devotion, joy in another's company, and desire for physical/sexual contact has existed far, far longer than that, and this basic combination of feelings is what I think of as love, and how many people have defined it. True that such things did not always exist in marriage, but at times they did. For example, I brought up King Tut, who was reportedly very affectionate with his wife (who was his biological half-sister) and she was his favorite person to spend time with. An example of literally monumental love can still be seen in the form of the Taj Mahal, built by an emperor for one of his wives, his third and most favorite wife, whose death devastated him. He spent a fortune to give Muntaz Mahal the most beautiful final resting place ever to exist, and was entombed there with her after his own death. So I have to disagree that love was somehow invented 500-some years ago. However, as noted throughout this thread, the idea that marriage should be based on love is a fairly new one. While there have been marriages that involved love throughout history, those were commonly more luck than anything; people who became devoted and desiring of each other's company after marriage rather than before.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 6:26 AM

Yes, I knew it was called courtly love, but I conflate the two because I think they really aren't so different. Many of the principles of courtly love went on to inspire our current understanding of the concept I think.

If we want to go back so far, I think Plato discussed at some length the concept of different kinds of love, but I think even the ancients' concept of erotic love was quite different than ours. I really think there's been nothing like the current concept ever in history, and I also think it's a false thing.

King Tut was very young. I doubt he really "loved" his sister in the way we describe the concept. And, that wife buried in the Taj Mahal? THIRD wife. Definitely not one true love everlasting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 6:33 AM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

King Tut took the throne at ten, but he was 19 or 20 when he died, and throughout his reign great affection and devotion was observed in the couple. And yes, I did make note that Muntaz was the emperor's third wife, but he clearly loved her anyway, favoring her over anyone else. Your argument seems to be against the "soulmate" concept, which I will agree is flawed. A couple does not need to be soulmates to obtain love. I've personally found someone I would like to spend the rest of my life with. Is she the only one in all the world I could possibly feel that way about? Probably not, but that doesn't mean I don't love her.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 6:50 AM

Hmm. I suppose that's a fair assessment. I've held a lot of contempt for the concept of "soulmates" and I figured that was generally the concept of one true love being bandied about nowadays.

Searching around for some perfect someone really is a waste of time, and I think that people who focus on that end up ruining what might have been just fine relationships for the duration. And then there's the awful commercialism around it, women obsessed with cosmetics and fashion and plastic surgery so they can attract that perfect mate, and men deluding themselves than it's not about anything else but their base desires. People whining about being LONELY. There's 7 billion people in the world! How can anyone be lonely?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 7:31 AM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Nah Byte, I know I'll get pounded on in this issue so I expect it. If I say something I come into it knowing that none will agree. I'm curious as to whether your native unions between a woman living as a man and another woman were seen as equal to regular unions?

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 8:04 AM

The marriages were equal, because like I said, they really don't see it as two guys or two girls getting married or anything all that unusual.

There was quite a bit or spiritual/religious mysticism associated with the practice. Often times such a person was seen as more in touch with the spirits, and became shamans or the like.

They still exist nowadays, and they actually don't tend to become transgender or get operations, cross dressing is usually enough.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 8:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I believe that any two people, a couple, siblings, best friends, you name it, should be able to get a stuff-sharing license and should be able to share insurance, see each other in the hospital no matter what, and all of those things that people are unable to have now, the tangible ones I mean.

I love that idea. I agree.

But I got 2 more questions:

1. What do you do until all that changes in insurance and hospitals etc? Adding legal gay marriage is such a quick fix, compared to all those changes in different industries. Would you oppose the quick fix, with a sunset clause that all legal marriage would be null and moot when there is equal treatment for all persons in all these industries?

2. What would you do with inheritance, immigration, custody, and tax issues that are based on legal marriage?

In Peru, marriage is completely separated between church and state. Legal marriage is not recognized by the church, and religious marriage is not recognized by the state. Many people choose to get married twice, once in court, and once in church. Some people even choose to get married to different people, one in court, and one in church. It is interesting. But neither venue allows for gay marriages here, yet.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 8:10 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
After 10,000 years of man + woman marriage, we have to go redefining the institution..why ?
There have been same sex unions throughout human history and homosexual sex exists throughout the animal kingdom. The redefining has already been done, and by you.

HKCavalier

.

Same sex coupling & marriages are 2 different things. Sure, the former existed , but not so with the latter. Not on any significant scale..

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 9:11 AM

AURaptor, marriage hasn't even necessarily existed for ten thousand years, and it certainly didn't start out between one man and one woman. One of the earliest civilization known to us was the Sumerians, in 4000 BCE, and they practiced polyandry. They evolved from the Samarra culture, which was 5500 BCE.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 9:43 AM

America loves a winner!

I never said that marriage started off w/ 1 man + 1 woman, but clearly, the matching of the sexes, to produce a family line, is what I'm talking about here. And who knows the true origins of civilization ? That's an interesting side question, but as for this issue, the historical place of same sex marriage, it simply near non existent. Doesn't mean there aren't some anecdotal examples, here or there, but through out the whole of human history, " marriage " has been reserved for male + female, and for obvious reasons. I have no problem with keeping to that, nor do I have any problem with same sex unions, which address all the issues gay marriage advocates claim they're for.

And HK, I've not "redefined " anything regarding the definition of marriage. I just happen to agree with calling man+woman one thing, while calling same sex unions something else. Burn me at the stake for that crime, if you must.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 10:06 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I note for the record that the traditional ban on gay marriage was never discrimination. The bar against same sex couples marrying is the same for both heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals. You can only argue discrimination if one side gets to commit the same act that is barred to the other. Likewise gay people are free to marry persons of the opposite sex, so no discrimination.

No, it is discrimination. I can't marry someone of the same sex. The only reason I can't marry them is because of their sex. That is discrimination based on sex, which is illegal.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 10:07 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Riona, thank you for explaining your position. I understand where you are coming from. I used to feel as you do when I was younger.

Byte and others, I’m not sure it’s important to find historical precedents. We do many things differently than our ancestors. Whether they had gay marriage coming out of their ears or whether they never had gay marriage has little to do with whether we should have gay marriage now.

For my own part, when I deny someone the right to do something, I feel that I should have a darn good reason for imposing my will over their preferences. A substantial portion of the population is interested in having gay marriage recognized by the state. Recognizing gay marriage harms absolutely no one. Even were I to find this type of relationship repugnant, there is no reason to impose my will to interfere with their desires. I would gain nothing from opposing them, and I would lose nothing by accepting them. From a logical standpoint, the issue seems fairly straightforward to me.

I do not approach this issue bereft of emotion, however.

As a youth, I considered the idea of gay relations to be disgusting. I thought that gay persons were sick persons. That is, I thought they were literally suffering from some kind of mental malfunction that granted them unnatural desires. Sometimes I would join with my friends in speaking about gay people derisively, and expressing communal repugnance of the very idea of homosexual desire. There was no shortage of support for this position in religious circles, with most religious institutions of the time showing some anxiousness to harp on the idea of gay love being a sin.

During my teens, I had friends named John and Denise who were an adorable couple. They had been together for years, and were considered an ideal towards which others might aspire in terms of functional relationships. Then they suddenly broke up without warning. Neither would say why. One day I sat with my good friend John and asked him about their breakup when the two of us were alone.

He explained that he had never had romantic feelings towards Denise. He told me that he was gay, and that he liked men, and as his libido became a more prominent force in his life, he could no longer deny it. Having confessed this to Denise, they broke up but chose to remain friends.

I was shocked. I actually excused myself to go to the bathroom so that I could ponder this revelation. Gay people had been, to me, disgusting deviants performing unnatural acts. Yet here was my good friend John, confessing that he was one such person. Should I flee the house, lest he turn his romantic attentions upon me? Should I end our friendship, since he was now revealed to be an unnatural corruption of humanity? Could there be a treatment that might cure his abominable condition?

In the middle of this frenetic and ridiculous avalanche of concerns, I stopped myself. “John is your friend,” I said to myself, “He’s been your friend for years. He is the same man today that he was yesterday. What has changed, really?” And I realized that nothing was really different, with the exception that my friend had just relieved himself from the burden of living a lie. He was still John. He was still my friend. He was no more or less disgusting than he had been an hour ago. This realization served to calm me and to begin a transformation of my thinking. Not long after, I learned that one of my favorite Cousins was also gay. These were good people who just happened to crave physical love differently than I did.

My feelings towards gay people changed quite a bit after that. No more did I indulge in derisive talk. No more did I avoid and shun them. No more did I condemn them. These were my friends and family. These were people just like me. They deserved the same respect that I deserved. They deserved the same rights and privileges that I enjoyed. This was my emotional connection to the issue of gay rights.

But by my brain or by my heart, the conclusion I reach is the same. If they want this thing, why should I tell them no? Why should anyone deny them?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 10:08 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:

No, it is discrimination. I can't marry someone of the same sex. The only reason I can't marry them is because of their sex. That is discrimination based on sex, which is illegal.

I can't marry anyone who is the same sex as I am, so both you and I are under the same rules... no discrimination.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 10:23 AM