Gay marriage

[inviere1644]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

[Goat]

Oh, I see. You are not interested in determining why government recognition of marrage is limited to male/female relationships, but are simply advocating for the expansion of that recognition regardless.

Regardless of what?

Well, regardless of why there is a law that recognizes marrage as between one man and one woman, for starters.

You mean, religious propaganda? Or, is it similar to those laws that forbid interracial marriage back in the day down south?

[Polyatheist]

Not as your question appears to imply.

That was not an implication but a statement that you could either agree or disagree with.

I believe it behooves us all to examine various laws that we may find onerous and the reasoning behind those laws, before making any judgements regarding demands to change those laws.

The reason this is still being discussed is because, after wrangling with presumptions and biases, we had just begun to find a clear definition of marrage and a parent, such that they can be applied to the existing laws and thus determine if a change to those laws would improve, deminish or have no effect on the underlying purposes of those laws.

I am sorry if you find the throwing out of objections as more reasonable. I believe that approach would be ad hoc at best. It is also prone to focusing more on proving one's point than understanding the role laws have in safeguarding a society and the rights of it's citizens.

This would only be useful if this forum actual had an impact on reality. As it doesn't it's literally just a thread for semantics.

[Autodidact]

Oh, I see. You are not interested in determining why government recognition of marrage is limited to male/female relationships, but are simply advocating for the expansion of that recognition regardless.

Regardless of what?

Well, regardless of why there is a law that recognizes marrage as between one man and one woman, for starters.

Well, I don't think that's the most important or useful analysis, but feel free to explore it as much as you like.

The two cases you present do tug at the heart strings. However, in the first case, the same concern could be presented by a poligamist.

If you want to discuss polygamy, there is a thread open to do that.

This goes to consistancy. If you hold that polygamy should also receive parity or can show a significant difference with regard to receiving government benefits. Then, your argument for the expansion of government benefits to cover same sex partners would have greater weight.

If practiced with equality, polygamy presents insurmountable practical difficulties that same-sex marriage does not. Further, historically, including in the U.S., polygamy has not been practiced or permitted with equality. So, it's either oppressive or unworkable. Now if you want to argue that this is not the case, I suggest we do so in the presently open thread for that subject. If you want to argue that the two cases are really the same, and present the same problems, then this would be the place to do that.

Regardless of where the line is drawn, there will be someone on the other side of it.

Yup.

That is why it is important to understand the actual purpose of a law and not just its perceived purpose. Though it can be tedious to determine the actual purpose, it is not just a matter of semantics.

Then, one must identify the significant factors that determine where that line should be drawn.

In the second case it was stated that there was no legal limitation, but simply a violation of existing law by the staff.

You will be suprised to learn that the family lost their lawsuit. Do you think this would have happened had the two women been married?

Then, the doctor was wrong and there was a legal limitation. What legal limitation was it that kept the children from seeing their parent? Was the patient an established relative of the children

.

She was their non-biological mother, who had raised them since birth.

Or is the use of the word parent just semantics designed to force an exception for the nonrelative children with regard to a live-in lover?

Well, uses of words are always semantics, aren't they? She was not a live-in lover, she was their mother. Just ask them.

This requires no change in the law, but proper enforcement or litigation to ensure enforcement.

Changing the law would solve the problem. In short, it may appear to be the best solution for a particular problem to change an existing law.

It also, may not. Laws can not be changed based on the possibility of something being the best solution in particular situations. Had the courts wished, they could have forced the rewriting of the law to account for a particular situation, if that situation had been deemed to be substantial. However, that does not appear to be the case. In order to determine that one must examine the reasoning of the majority opinion. What was that reasoning and why do you consider it to be in error.

I don't know that it was in error. Unfortunately, under Florida law, her family were not her legal relatives, and the hospital acted legally, though cruelly. The solution is to rewrite the law to permit same-sex marriage and second-parent adoption.

However, on examination, it may be little more than scapegoating and may have unintended consequences that undermine an important and honorable purpose for which the law was established. That is why it is best to examine the underpinnings of a law and not just change it because bad things happen to certain individuals.

If you have an argument, please go right ahead and make it.

That is my argument. Examining the underpinnings of a law is not just semantics. It is an integral part of analyzing the appropriateness of a law and any roposed change in it.

What is your argument? Why do you think same-sex marriage should not be allowed?

Here's another one--these happen all the time. My friend R. She's been not married to K for 25 years. They have two children, now 22 and 16. K is a doctor. For most of the children's lives, R stayed at home with them. As a result of the family decision for her to be a mother and homemaker, she has very little earnings record, and will not be allowed to draw Social Security on K's earnings record. If K predeceases her, or if they split up, she will finish her life in poverty.

They have been aware of this for the entire 25 years, so why is it the state's fault that proper alternatives were not taken by the couple?

There is no proper alternative. The solution, getting married, is not available to them. The only other option would be to do what they thought was not best for their children and R go to work outside the home. That is why same-sex marriage benefits families, and why the state recognizes and respects marriage--because it's good for families, and families are the basis of the nation.

Expecting that existing circumstances will change to fit one's personal decisions is like counting on the lottery to provide forone's retirement. Maybe it is the good doctor's fault for not contributing to an account in the name of R. Is this not the femnist argument for calling a homemaker in a hetrosexual relationship a slave?

They don't expect it. They took the hit.But they should not have had to do so; that's my point. It's discrimination with no rational basis. No, it's not their fault that they do not have the same rights you do. It's your fault. No, I don't think homemakers are slaves, unless they are forced into that role against their will. You really need to wait for me to take a position myself; not dictate what you think my position is.

I know several families who wanted one of them to stay home with the kids, but they couldn't, because she would not be covered on the other's health insurance. And you really cannot live without health insurance.

Then I must be dead!

The chances are much greater than you will be than men, if you don't have health insurance.

The surviving non-spouses of people who were killed in the twin towers on September 11 were deprived of the settlements that spouses got.

No, they were not deprived, they were deemed as not meeting the underlying purpose(s) of spousal compensation. That is yet another reason why examining the underlying purposes of a law is not just semantics.

No, they were not. They were not married. They could meet the purpose all day long, they just couldn't get married. Period. You could have a couple who didn't meet the purposes in any way, who did not live together, did not share expenses, were not sexually exclusive, and had not children. They got the benefits. While a couple who did all these things were deprived.

It's easy for you, speaking from your position of privilege, to say that other people who do not share your privilege are not deprived. Since you don't see it as deprivation, I suggest that we trade places, and you don't have the right to get married, while I, who do see it that way, do.

There are innumerable injustices being perpetrated on gay families every day, because their relationships are not recognized as marriages.

This presumes that not being recognized as married is the proximate and only cause of those "injustices". I put the term in quotes, not because Iam saying they are not injustices, but because the various cases must be evaluated in light of the underlying purposes of the marrage laws.

Feel free. Start at any time, instead of just spinning your wheels.

No, it assumes no such thing. However, in many cases, it is just that. When a woman can sponsor a man to immigrate, but not a woman, it's solely and proximately because she can't marry her. Period.

This is what same-sex marriage is about, not "curtailing liberties." They are real families who are really being screwed over, paying the same taxes as everyone else, and not getting the same benefits.

I pay the same taxes as everyone else, but do not receive the same benefits, ie. health insurance. However, I appreciate your honesty regarding a desire for largese from the government being a major motivation behind your desire to have the laws changed. Government largese really muddys the waters when trying to sort out proper legislation.

It's not largesse, it's a right. A right that you have, and I do not. Being able to visit your dying mother is not largesse; it should be a right. Receiving back the benefits that your family paid into a system, the same as everyone else, is not largesse. It's a right that you have and I do not. Having the same access to health insurance through my employer is not largess. It's a right that you have and I do not. Being able to sponsor my partner as a U.S. immigrant is not largesse. It's a right denied to one group, and permitted to another. Being able to file taxes as a married couple is not largesse. It's a right that you have and I do not. All of these things are rights that are denied to me, that you enjoy. And, as so often happens, the people who do enjoy the right don't seem to mind that it's denied to others.

But since you view it as "largesse," and presumably unmerited, I suggest that you give it up first.

It was not my intent to simply throw out objections, but to examine the various factors to see if the existing laws are indeed inappropriate.

Well, feel free to start doing that at some point. So far you've filled pages without saying anything.

You have a right to your opinion, but much of those post were spent attempting to find a point of agreement to work from, finding agreement regarding what the purposes of marrage are and how they relate to existing marrage laws. We had just gotten to a point of agreement, when you decided to switch to arguing from anecdotal evidence. Without a clear understanding of the underpinnings of the marrage laws, we can not really determine if the anecdotes really justify the changing of the laws.

Yes, well let me know if you ever decide to do that, rather than just talking about it. This remains the most boring and unproductive discussion of the subject I have ever seen. You asked me the purposes about ten pages ago, and I answered you, and explained how the purposes are equally fulfilled with same-sex couples as with heterosexual. There is no difference. Nor have you pointed out any significant difference.

Oh, and these "anecdotes," as you call them, are what the rest of us call reality. In your world, having the right to the same things you enjoy is called "curtailing my civil liberties." In reality, people are denied concrete rights that you enjoy. I thought it might sharpen your focus to see what some of those rights are.

[Autodidact]

From some of the court rulings that I've read, marriage is lawfully restricted to a man and a woman because of the traditional thought that a hetero marital arrangement is part of the foundation of society. I don't see that anyone disagrees with that thought but to say that's the only marital arrangement is when it seems overly restrictive. I tend to focus on this issue from the point of if it causes harm, and I've yet to come across any evidenced and logical reason that shows that non-hetero or even non-monogamous marriage would cause harm. It's sure a hek of a lot better than the govornment promoting or supporting people who have kids with different men when the men won't stick around to take responsibility or in some cases where the paternity is unknown.

Without examining that "traditional thought", one is left with legislation by dogma and not reason. As I have stated to autodidact, I am not calling for the abolishment of marrage law, but a clear understanding of it's purposes. Without such understanding, one might very well end up effectively abolishing it in ones attempt to solve problems one might have in making it apply as one would like. In short, one can not determine if harm is done, if one does not systematically compare any specific proposal to each of the purposes of the law.

You keep saying this, but so far have contributed nothing to that understanding.

By the way, another good approach is to observe what has happened in the states and countries that have permitted same-sex marriage, a group that is growing every day.

[Autodidact]

It was not my intent to simply throw out objections, but to examine the various factors to see if the existing laws are indeed inappropriate.

So you view yourself as some sort of judge? That's fine, the evidence has been presented and the conclusion is fairly obvious. I don't understand why this is still being discussed. It would make sense if you were arguing the opposite, but as you said that is not the case.

Not as your question appears to imply. I believe it behooves us all to examine various laws that we may find onerous and the reasoning behind those laws, before making any judgements regarding demands to change those laws.

The reason this is still being discussed is because, after wrangling with presumptions and biases, we had just begun to find a clear definition of marrage and a parent, such that they can be applied to the existing laws and thus determine if a change to those laws would improve, deminish or have no effect on the underlying purposes of those laws.

I am sorry if you find the throwing out of objections as more reasonable. I believe that approach would be ad hoc at best. It is also prone to focusing more on proving one's point than understanding the role laws have in safeguarding a society and the rights of it's citizens.

Page 18. Were you thinking of starting this approach at some point in this thread?

[bluethread]

Oh, I see. You are not interested in determining why government recognition of marrage is limited to male/female relationships, but are simply advocating for the expansion of that recognition regardless.

Regardless of what?

Well, regardless of why there is a law that recognizes marrage as between one man and one woman, for starters.

You mean, religious propaganda? Or, is it similar to those laws that forbid interracial marriage back in the day down south?

That is a consideration. Are laws enacted as the culmination of propaganda campaigns or based on reasoned consideration? When one pushes to change laws simply because they adversely effects one's own interests, the result is laws that are more driven by political consideration than reasoned social considerations.

[bluethread]

Not as your question appears to imply.

That was not an implication but a statement that you could either agree or disagree with.

I believe it behooves us all to examine various laws that we may find onerous and the reasoning behind those laws, before making any judgements regarding demands to change those laws.

The reason this is still being discussed is because, after wrangling with presumptions and biases, we had just begun to find a clear definition of marrage and a parent, such that they can be applied to the existing laws and thus determine if a change to those laws would improve, deminish or have no effect on the underlying purposes of those laws.

I am sorry if you find the throwing out of objections as more reasonable. I believe that approach would be ad hoc at best. It is also prone to focusing more on proving one's point than understanding the role laws have in safeguarding a society and the rights of it's citizens.

This would only be useful if this forum actual had an impact on reality. As it doesn't it's literally just a thread for semantics.

Then what is the protest? Under that premise, all posts are mere semantics, not just mine or even just the ones on this thread. Also, if your permise is correct, everyone who posts on this sight is in effect consenting to a semantic discussion.

[bluethread]

Oh, I see. You are not interested in determining why government recognition of marrage is limited to male/female relationships, but are simply advocating for the expansion of that recognition regardless.

Regardless of what?

Well, regardless of why there is a law that recognizes marrage as between one man and one woman, for starters.

Well, I don't think that's the most important or useful analysis, but feel free to explore it as much as you like.

The formating of the post that starts with these quotes makes it difficult to follow when simply reading, let alone responding to. Please, reformat to make posts and responses easier to follow and I will respond.

[bluethread]

Without examining that "traditional thought", one is left with legislation by dogma and not reason. As I have stated to autodidact, I am not calling for the abolishment of marrage law, but a clear understanding of it's purposes. Without such understanding, one might very well end up effectively abolishing it in ones attempt to solve problems one might have in making it apply as one would like. In short, one can not determine if harm is done, if one does not systematically compare any specific proposal to each of the purposes of the law.

You keep saying this, but so far have contributed nothing to that understanding.

Not true. Prior to your shifting of the discussion from this approach to the use of anecdotal arguments, we had narrowed the scope of marrage protection based on the care of children to parents. I was then propared to examine what qualifies one as a parent.

By the way, another good approach is to observe what has happened in the states and countries that have permitted same-sex marriage, a group that is growing every day.

Yes, one can resort to arguments of cynical hyperbole. Though this may be a useful tool in emphasising a point, I find it to be less substantial than a thorough examination of the law that one wishes to change.

[bluethread]

The reason this is still being discussed is because, after wrangling with presumptions and biases, we had just begun to find a clear definition of marrage and a parent, such that they can be applied to the existing laws and thus determine if a change to those laws would improve, deminish or have no effect on the underlying purposes of those laws.

I am sorry if you find the throwing out of objections as more reasonable. I believe that approach would be ad hoc at best. It is also prone to focusing more on proving one's point than understanding the role laws have in safeguarding a society and the rights of it's citizens.

Page 18. Were you thinking of starting this approach at some point in this thread?

I am more than willing to get back to this approach, once I have finished answering objections to it. Shall we continue where we left off with identifying what costitutes a parent, ie genetics, adoption, number of years of acquentence, etc.?