Seriously: do you think that one word, marriage, could realistically be applied both to a "traditional" family and to a troupe of seven lesbians in an economic/romantic cooperative?
We would never be able to find a word to encompass such a wide range of relationships without causing the word to lose all meaning, surely.
Yes, it has changed. But never has it been so utterly nebulous as, "any number of men + any number of women who might have legally bound themselves together for any number of reasons, from raising a family to getting tax breaks for orgies."
Seriously: do you think that one word, marriage, could realistically be applied both to a "traditional" family and to a troupe of seven lesbians in an economic/romantic cooperative?
The line has to be drawn somewhere. If we acknowledge the need for companionship and physical intimacy as a fundamental human need, and accept homosexuality as a legitimate sexual orientation, then we can allow for gay marriage. And that should be enough for everybody. Polyamorists can have their swinger parties, or form their communes as they wish. But plural marriages are unnecessary to satisfy anyone's civil right to legitimate, committed companionship; and they would further unleash a nightmarish tangle of logistical and legal difficulties.
The problem is that you are arbitrarily deciding that a polyamorous relationship doesn't deserve marriage, they "can have their swinger parties" as they wish. Why not? Just because of legal and logistical difficulties? That seems a little immature.
Historically, marriage has been defined as a monogamous, or unilaterally monogamous (like in Arab societies) institution. Polygamy does not go well with marriage, even in places where it's allowed.
You do realize that this formula can be applied to things like gay marriage and interracial marriage, right?
The problem is that you are arbitrarily deciding that a polyamorous relationship doesn't deserve marriage, they "can have their swinger parties" as they wish. Why not? Just because of legal and logistical difficulties? That seems a little immature.
From my personal experience, having experimented with polyamory and been to a number of swinger parties, I would contend that the desire for multiple partners is also "a little immature," although it tries to dress itself up in enlightened rhetoric. And the legal and logistical obstacles are in no way minor, and quite probably insurmountable within the context of modern society. For example:
1. Is the employer of one member of a polyamorous union obligated to extend healthcare coverage to all other members?
2. What happens when one member decides to divorce the group? Does he/she get to collect alimony from the rest of them? If he/she has the best income, do the rest get to collect alimony from him/her?
3. When a member of a polyamorous union dies, who inherits his/her assets? Can they be designated to go to a favored husband or wife (DANGER: JEALOUSY)? Or are they to be divided evenly among the remaining partners? In the latter case, what if one person wants to retain a certain possession (say, the deceased's custom Harley) and the rest want to liquidate it?
4. Children! Do all members of the polyamorous union have parental rights over the child(ren) of any given members? If one member decides to divorce the group and take his/her kid with, can the rest of the members fight for custody, even if they have no biological ties to the child?
This is all way more trouble than it's worth, IMHO. If gay marriage is legalized, then everyone has a right to marry the sort of partner they desire. That should be sufficient, at least within the bounds of what society legally recognizes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Yes, it has changed. But never has it been so utterly nebulous as, "any number of men + any number of women who might have legally bound themselves together for any number of reasons, from raising a family to getting tax breaks for orgies."
Seriously: do you think that one word, marriage, could realistically be applied both to a "traditional" family and to a troupe of seven lesbians in an economic/romantic cooperative?
The line has to be drawn somewhere. If we acknowledge the need for companionship and physical intimacy as a fundamental human need, and accept homosexuality as a legitimate sexual orientation, then we can allow for gay marriage. And that should be enough for everybody. Polyamorists can have their swinger parties, or form their communes as they wish. But plural marriages are unnecessary to satisfy anyone's civil right to legitimate, committed companionship; and they would further unleash a nightmarish tangle of logistical and legal difficulties.
Did you read what I said?
It depends on the needs of society what the state can allowed as a sanctioned marriage under it's law. There's no need for a "band of lesbians" as you so nicely put it. There is however a need for gay couples to be married.
However there is absolutely NO NEED for gay couples to be allowed to marry through a catholic church(or whatever). That should be the call of the religion, not the state.
Yes, some good friends of mine are lesbians/gays and they're good people, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to get a complete and full marriage.
I don't see why or even how State law wouldn't allow the marriage of gay couples. It is merely a legal document stating that those two people will enjoy certain privileges and draw backs in the eyes of the law. My wife and I have been married for 5 years and neither of us wear rings or go spewing about how we are married. She simply took my last name and we continued on. So why even get married? Health care where I work covers her and if she had a child before we were married it would have covered that as well. It provides some tax benefits though not much. It allows for us to both apply on credit forms for loans etc.
We love each other and that's enough. No rings showing possession of one another, because neither is in control of the other. We agreed that for our survival in this world that we would be "mates" and that union under God was celebrated with just my family and friends and a minister to say a few words but no actual wedding. Then off to get the legal document that allows us to increase our advantage over unmarried people.
If someone sees there best chance of survival in the arms of someone of the same sex then so be it. Let them join the others that have paired up with their "mates" and continue on. It takes a lot in this day and age to keep a relationship going and if these couples traditional or not have that ability then they are already ahead of those not in the position to be married.
It depends on the needs of society what the state can allowed as a sanctioned marriage under it's law. There's no need for a "band of lesbians" as you so nicely put it. There is however a need for gay couples to be married.
However there is absolutely NO NEED for gay couples to be allowed to marry through a catholic church(or whatever). That should be the call of the religion, not the state.
I'm confused. I think we've been talking past each other.
Summarily, my position is this.
Gay marriage: YEA
Polyamorous marriage: NAY
Agree, or disagree?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Either u r a ****ed up, perverted piece of **** or u need to spend the rest of ur life in rehab.
ppl, if u want to see a bunch of freaks doin their thing, go to a circus or a zoo. plz, let's not turn our society, our world in to a freak-show. any sexuality other than Straight is unnatural. they shouldn't be discouraged, they should be forbidden if not eliminated. we r humans. let's stay that way. let's not turn into pathetic homosexual creeps.
Okay, so, epic infraction here. We got some blatant flaming, some censor evasion and a wee bit of trolling.
All, obviously, if consensual and if all participants are old enough.
I agree. As for being old enough, I'd love that to say "mature and informed enough", but I realize that's idealistic and it's just easier to put a blanket number on it.
Either u r a f**ked up, perverted piece of sh*t or u need to spend the rest of ur life in rehab.
ppl, if u want to see a bunch of freaks doin their thing, go to a circus or a zoo. plz, let's not turn our society, our world in to a freak-show. any sexuality other than Straight is unnatural. they shouldn't be discouraged, they should be forbidden if not eliminated. we r humans. let's stay that way. let's not turn into pathetic homosexual creeps.
So intolerance is much better then loving someone that doesn't fit into a straight relationship? If you don't like a society don't be part of it live on a island. And are you encouraging genocide? I think you have in fact lost your humanity and not these people you look down upon.
The argument I always get, is when I hear men say "I LOVE seeing woman on woman action". then i ask them, Well what about men on men? "Oh, thats disgusting!" so apparently theres always a margin or error in everything. the best quote I heard on YT (youube) was a gay guy talking about his homosexuality. He was asked "when did you decide to become gay?" Which incidentally was the conversation piece. His response was "Well, when did you decide to become straight." His point was that he had always been gay.
-my 2cents-
Why do we even need marriage at all? Couldn't propogation of the species and/or joining of mates just be done without any defining fanfair or instition?
Why do we even need marriage at all? Couldn't propogation of the species and/or joining of mates just be done without any defining fanfair or instition?
You, sir, have asked the million dollar question.
See, the cavalier attitude a lot of people take towards redefining or abolishing marriage... they're not taking into account anything other than the desires of adults. What about the needs of children?
Children grow up best in a stable and loving home. I certainly hope that's common knowledge.
The existence of marriage as a legal institution -- as a personal commitment that is also a contract -- serves to encourage married parties to stay together by, if nothing else, making it messy and difficult for them to separate. It's a lot easier to bail on a girlfriend or boyfriend than it is to bail on a husband or wife. And this means that husbands and wives going through rough straits have a greater incentive to give it another chance, to have another go at rediscovering why they fell in love in the first place.
I've experienced this myself early in my marriage. I was very frustrated with things, and wanted to get out. But the prospect of the legal mess I'd have to go through was mighty intimidating, and I decided I wasn't quite frustrated enough to brave all that. So I stuck it out, and things got better.
AND... I stayed around for my stepkids, and didn't put them through any more turmoil. After a few years, they've gotten over their mom's divorce, embraced me as "Daddy," and are doing quite well. But a whole lot of kids are hurting and confused and scared because moms and dads (and then stepmoms, and stepdads) are walking out on them. That's a proven recipie for all sorts of psycho-social problems.
In short: marriage is invaluable for providing the stability that growing human creatures need to become healthy, grounded adults.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Marriage is invaluable...as a social construct governed by the state. Gays and Straight folk alike should be allowed to such that utility.
However, religions have a right to say "No, you can't be married in a catholic church." or "No, this religion does not condone what you are doing. It's a sin in our eyes." In that case, you can't have a wedding in a church or w/e because of the religion.
I think the state should be allowed to let gay couples sign the piece of paper that says they're married. Honestly, it's not that big of a deal without the religious stuff floating around.
Marriage is invaluable...as a social construct governed by the state.
Why?
If the state were to say "we no longer sponsor marriage, it no longer has any legal effect." What would be destroyed that could not be corrected by having everyone get a civil union (provided they wanted the appropriate governmental benefits)?
If the state were to say "we no longer sponsor marriage, it no longer has any legal effect." What would be destroyed that could not be corrected by having everyone get a civil union (provided they wanted the appropriate governmental benefits)?
Nothing. You would only be changing the word naming a functionality rather than changing the functionality itself. You could change 'marriage' to 'wookoo-wookoo' and as long as the laws and rules governing the practice stayed the same, it would not make any functional difference.
If the state were to say "we no longer sponsor marriage, it no longer has any legal effect." What would be destroyed that could not be corrected by having everyone get a civil union (provided they wanted the appropriate governmental benefits)?
Nothing exactly. Civil Union is just fine. Anything is fine. Call it what you want, everyone deserves to have it.
However, weddings through a religious institution such as a church = NOT FOR GAYS if the religion doesn't accept it.
Nothing. You would only be changing the word naming a functionality rather than changing the functionality itself. You could change 'marriage' to 'wookoo-wookoo' and as long as the laws and rules governing the practice stayed the same, it would not make any functional difference.
so the function is what matters, and not the name?
Doesn't it logically follow that if civil unions and marriages have identical functions under the law, there would be no issue?
(Note: next part addressed to everyone not just the quoted poster)
Yet, this is clearly not the case. It's been made abundantly clear in this thread that the term "marriage" is in and of itself also of importance.
The whole "separate is inherently unequal" argument has been raised over and over again, yet there are some people (or at least there were) who argue that changing everything to civil unions and leaving "marriage" to churches is not enough.
I'd really like a reason why this is not true aside from "well this is what I want marriage to mean."
so the function is what matters, and not the name?
Equality in function and equality in name are what's important. (Note: the latter is basically a subset of the former)
Doesn't it logically follow that if civil unions and marriages have identical functions under the law, there would be no issue?
Nope, but apparently you already understand why.
Yet, this is clearly not the case. It's been made abundantly clear in this thread that the term "marriage" is in and of itself also of importance.
The whole "separate is inherently unequal" argument has been raised over and over again, yet there are some people (or at least there were) who argue that changing everything to civil unions and leaving "marriage" to churches is not enough.
Reason the first: Marriage is *already* not a purely religious construct. As stated many times, lots of us know lots of people who got married either not in a church, not by a priest or both.
reason the second: Civil union is a horrible buerocratic term which sounds about as exciting as paying rates.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We would never be able to find a word to encompass such a wide range of relationships without causing the word to lose all meaning, surely.
-E
The problem is that you are arbitrarily deciding that a polyamorous relationship doesn't deserve marriage, they "can have their swinger parties" as they wish. Why not? Just because of legal and logistical difficulties? That seems a little immature.
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
You do realize that this formula can be applied to things like gay marriage and interracial marriage, right?
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
From my personal experience, having experimented with polyamory and been to a number of swinger parties, I would contend that the desire for multiple partners is also "a little immature," although it tries to dress itself up in enlightened rhetoric. And the legal and logistical obstacles are in no way minor, and quite probably insurmountable within the context of modern society. For example:
1. Is the employer of one member of a polyamorous union obligated to extend healthcare coverage to all other members?
2. What happens when one member decides to divorce the group? Does he/she get to collect alimony from the rest of them? If he/she has the best income, do the rest get to collect alimony from him/her?
3. When a member of a polyamorous union dies, who inherits his/her assets? Can they be designated to go to a favored husband or wife (DANGER: JEALOUSY)? Or are they to be divided evenly among the remaining partners? In the latter case, what if one person wants to retain a certain possession (say, the deceased's custom Harley) and the rest want to liquidate it?
4. Children! Do all members of the polyamorous union have parental rights over the child(ren) of any given members? If one member decides to divorce the group and take his/her kid with, can the rest of the members fight for custody, even if they have no biological ties to the child?
This is all way more trouble than it's worth, IMHO. If gay marriage is legalized, then everyone has a right to marry the sort of partner they desire. That should be sufficient, at least within the bounds of what society legally recognizes.
Did you read what I said?
It depends on the needs of society what the state can allowed as a sanctioned marriage under it's law. There's no need for a "band of lesbians" as you so nicely put it. There is however a need for gay couples to be married.
However there is absolutely NO NEED for gay couples to be allowed to marry through a catholic church(or whatever). That should be the call of the religion, not the state.
We love each other and that's enough. No rings showing possession of one another, because neither is in control of the other. We agreed that for our survival in this world that we would be "mates" and that union under God was celebrated with just my family and friends and a minister to say a few words but no actual wedding. Then off to get the legal document that allows us to increase our advantage over unmarried people.
If someone sees there best chance of survival in the arms of someone of the same sex then so be it. Let them join the others that have paired up with their "mates" and continue on. It takes a lot in this day and age to keep a relationship going and if these couples traditional or not have that ability then they are already ahead of those not in the position to be married.
My Two Cents.
I'm confused. I think we've been talking past each other.
Summarily, my position is this.
Gay marriage: YEA
Polyamorous marriage: NAY
Agree, or disagree?
Either u r a ****ed up, perverted piece of **** or u need to spend the rest of ur life in rehab.
ppl, if u want to see a bunch of freaks doin their thing, go to a circus or a zoo. plz, let's not turn our society, our world in to a freak-show. any sexuality other than Straight is unnatural. they shouldn't be discouraged, they should be forbidden if not eliminated. we r humans. let's stay that way. let's not turn into pathetic homosexual creeps.
Okay, so, epic infraction here. We got some blatant flaming, some censor evasion and a wee bit of trolling.
I agree. As for being old enough, I'd love that to say "mature and informed enough", but I realize that's idealistic and it's just easier to put a blanket number on it.
.
So intolerance is much better then loving someone that doesn't fit into a straight relationship? If you don't like a society don't be part of it live on a island. And are you encouraging genocide? I think you have in fact lost your humanity and not these people you look down upon.
Thanks to Magus of the Sheep at Scuttlemutt Productions for the best ever sig.
-my 2cents-
MTGO name: LeviathanTM
Failure is a four letter word.
Avatar credit goes to DarkNightCavalier
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
You, sir, have asked the million dollar question.
See, the cavalier attitude a lot of people take towards redefining or abolishing marriage... they're not taking into account anything other than the desires of adults. What about the needs of children?
Children grow up best in a stable and loving home. I certainly hope that's common knowledge.
The existence of marriage as a legal institution -- as a personal commitment that is also a contract -- serves to encourage married parties to stay together by, if nothing else, making it messy and difficult for them to separate. It's a lot easier to bail on a girlfriend or boyfriend than it is to bail on a husband or wife. And this means that husbands and wives going through rough straits have a greater incentive to give it another chance, to have another go at rediscovering why they fell in love in the first place.
I've experienced this myself early in my marriage. I was very frustrated with things, and wanted to get out. But the prospect of the legal mess I'd have to go through was mighty intimidating, and I decided I wasn't quite frustrated enough to brave all that. So I stuck it out, and things got better.
AND... I stayed around for my stepkids, and didn't put them through any more turmoil. After a few years, they've gotten over their mom's divorce, embraced me as "Daddy," and are doing quite well. But a whole lot of kids are hurting and confused and scared because moms and dads (and then stepmoms, and stepdads) are walking out on them. That's a proven recipie for all sorts of psycho-social problems.
In short: marriage is invaluable for providing the stability that growing human creatures need to become healthy, grounded adults.
However, religions have a right to say "No, you can't be married in a catholic church." or "No, this religion does not condone what you are doing. It's a sin in our eyes." In that case, you can't have a wedding in a church or w/e because of the religion.
I think the state should be allowed to let gay couples sign the piece of paper that says they're married. Honestly, it's not that big of a deal without the religious stuff floating around.
Why?
If the state were to say "we no longer sponsor marriage, it no longer has any legal effect." What would be destroyed that could not be corrected by having everyone get a civil union (provided they wanted the appropriate governmental benefits)?
Nothing. You would only be changing the word naming a functionality rather than changing the functionality itself. You could change 'marriage' to 'wookoo-wookoo' and as long as the laws and rules governing the practice stayed the same, it would not make any functional difference.
Nothing exactly. Civil Union is just fine. Anything is fine. Call it what you want, everyone deserves to have it.
However, weddings through a religious institution such as a church = NOT FOR GAYS if the religion doesn't accept it.
so the function is what matters, and not the name?
Doesn't it logically follow that if civil unions and marriages have identical functions under the law, there would be no issue?
(Note: next part addressed to everyone not just the quoted poster)
Yet, this is clearly not the case. It's been made abundantly clear in this thread that the term "marriage" is in and of itself also of importance.
The whole "separate is inherently unequal" argument has been raised over and over again, yet there are some people (or at least there were) who argue that changing everything to civil unions and leaving "marriage" to churches is not enough.
I'd really like a reason why this is not true aside from "well this is what I want marriage to mean."
Nope, but apparently you already understand why.
I don't know who's saying that. Link/quote?
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
Reason the first: Marriage is *already* not a purely religious construct. As stated many times, lots of us know lots of people who got married either not in a church, not by a priest or both.
reason the second: Civil union is a horrible buerocratic term which sounds about as exciting as paying rates.