In real life - that happens quite often in hostile family situations (which is not that uncommon when a member is gay).
No. A will is contestable only when there is a question of mental competence or coerscion. It has nothing to do with marriage.
Of the nine reasons listed for a case of anulment, six of them have nothing to do with reproduction. It is a purpose, maybe even a very important purpose, but to claim it is a necessary purpose means that one would have to take a critical look at all marriages where that is clearly not possible and question why they were allowed to proceed.
That is exactly what it means. A single condition can nullify marriage because all conditions are NECESSARY conditions.
There is no need to re-examine each and every marriage since that would be an unforgiveable breach of privacy. In the absence of any complaint, the marriage is assumed valid. That's how it works.
It's not irrelevant. Adoption means that a couple can have children who otherwise might not.
I'm not saying its impossible. Tarzan himself was adopted by apes. The point is that family relations cannot come from the union. It is contingent on the state, the determination of which has nothing to do with homosexual unions.
In addition a couple can bring children in from a previous marriage. I'm not citing it to "validate" - I'm citing it to point out that children can and do occur in same sex unions and that lack of children alone is not sufficient reason to invalidate those unions.
They do not OCCUR within the union, rather the child was BROUGHT IN the union. Big difference.
Notice that the inheritance of a spouse obtained after marriage isn't part of the conjugal property?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote View Post
I disagree. The state confers special rights and privledges to heterosexual individuals desiring to marry the consenting partner of their choice through the institution of marriage that it will not grant to homosexual individuals.
Am I misusing the term "rights" then? The state DOES gives special legal privledges and perogatives to married heterosexual couples related to property and rights....
The privileges are there as a consequence of the right to motherhood, the rights of children and family relations.
These rights do not exist in a same-sex union, hence no privileges are necessary.
Human Rights, according to Wikipedia:
Civili Rights, according to Wikipedia:
Civil rights are distinguished from "human rights" or "natural rights". Civil rights are rights that are bestowed by nations on those within their territorial boundaries, .....
From the second treatise of civil government by john locke
"If man in the state of nature be so free, if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to nobody, why will he part with this freedom, why will he give up his empire and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power?...Though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain and constantly exposed to the invasion of others; for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers; and it is not without reason that he seeks out and is willing to join in society with others who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the
mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name "property".
The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealth and putting themselves under government is the
PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY...."
The great political theories volume 1, chp 12 pp 380-381
Not at all. Law can only work with what it has: written law and the power of pecedence. Both grant greater strength to bonds of blood and legally recognized marriage. There is no "invented right" involved.
I'm sorry but the power of government merely arises from the consent of its citizens. All agreements, including marriage, therefore, arise from consent. An
EXPLICIT CONSENT manifested in any legal undertaking is what's required,
NOT marriage.
The purpose: marriage is regarded as a stabilizing institution in society.
No. The natural family stabilizes society since it is the fundamental group unit of society. Any attempt to undermine the natural family merely serves to disrupt the social order.
It sets legal rights for both partners that can be upheld in a court of law against outside challanges.
Any consent that is freely given can be upheld in a court of law.
It allows partners to care for each other in times of illness, to be regarded as a family - which means legally recognized ability to share benefits of insurance, pensions, etc. -
Consent given to another over one's personal affairs may be as limited or encompassing as the intending parties wish it to be. Again, no marriage required, as long as they are your own personal affairs.
all of which could be regarded as stabilizing as otherwise those burdens might fall on the state to assume of one partner is incapacited.
In the presence of a valid agreement, no burden of assumption need fall on the state.
That may not be as strong a purpose as given for heterosexual marriage but it is strong enough not to deny it for homosexuals.
And so, any undertaking performed by any homosexual couple can be as binding as they wish it to be. Even marital rights are already being limited through pre-nuptial agreements. There is no reason why such a thing cannot be done in this case.
Challanges by blood relations do happen in marriage but they have less legal strength and frequently can not overturn the will then they can if there is no legally recognized bond such as marriage or say, civil unions.
Overturning a will happens on the grounds of mental incompetence or coersion -
REGARDLESS OF MARRIAGE.
I've mentioned that before: the equal rights to pensions, health insurance, inheritance, hospital visitation rights as immediate family. Those benefits are denied to an entire segment of people without marriage or something equivelent.
But thse are privileges that follow from the right to motherhood, the rights of a child and family relations -
ALL OF WHICH ARE NOT PRESENT IN HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS!
Because WE ARE NOT ARGUING ADOPTION here. If you want to argue adoption rights - I agree with you. It's in the best interest of the child and those rights include stability which marriage is thought to confer.
Again - WE ARE NOT ARGUING ADOPTION here. You picked out that single point out of all the others.
A couple who needs the financial perks of marriage isn't really a financially stable environment, now, is it? Conversely, a couple wishing to adopt should necessarily demonstrate financial stability, which makes the perks irrelevant.
So, which is it?
Non sequitor. This has nothing to do with - as one debator put it - "helping them feel good about themselves". It has everything to do with an equal degree of legal protections and rights that are provided to a heterosexual married couple whether or NOT they procreate.
And such a legal protection can come from
ANY legal undertaking,
NOT NECESSARILY MARRIAGE. Marriage is special since it involves the right to motherhood, the rights of a child and family relations.
Stability is in terms of society as a whole. Married couples are typically more able to invest in society, have stable incomes, are less likely to be promiscuous and/or spread sexual diseases or produce unwanted children.
Are you talking of consumption patterns? Surely a family of three would spend less than three homosexuals combined. A family of three would earn less than three homosexuals combined. And fidelity has nothing to do with the legal aspects of marriage.
Not in the eyes of the law in practice. The right to motherhood can exist without marriage as can the rights of children and family relations. Indeed, they do.
Of course not. The 'perks' of marriage come from these rights.
If it does not - prove it. What harm does it do?
You do not see medical harm in the homosexual practice itself?
Or you find it coincidental that aids vector within the homosexual lifestyle?
Or you think that undermining the purpose of the marital institution is particularly good for society?
Using that same logic, I could likewise argue why the hell can't you recognize it's limitations according to RACE?
Because there isn't any logical limitation according to race. Such a limitation assumes superiority/inferiority among races -- an assertion that has no logical nor scientific basis.
