My Solution to the same-sex marriage issue

[SW85]

Marriage was a religious union before it became a legal contract, so marriage is a social/religious/cultural institutuion and not some just some papers you sign to share property.

Sure.

But as it exists today they are PARALLEL institutions.

I can have a marriage ceremony in a church and not be legally married. I can have a legal marriage outside of a church. QED.

The church's involvement in marriage is ceremonial and exists more or less according to the preferences of the couple getting married.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

In Oregon male/female couples can not have domestic partnerships. A domestic partnership is a paper you fill out with the name and info of your domestic partner, the following month you can have another domestic partner.

Male/females must pay for a license they must wait a certain period of time then again pay for another decree to dissolve that first relationship, and only after those papers have been paid for, filed, read by a judge exc. Can you start over and pay again for the new marriage license and wait for the period of time to get make it legal then you can add them to your health insurance.

So sure you can’t take your domestic partnership to another state but I can not be in a domestic partnership period!

It is reasonable that civil union paperwork would be simpler since it confers so few benefits when compared with the more complex and valuable marriage certificate. If you are feeling put upon you can have a common law marriage which is much simpler yet--gays are denied common law marriages as well.

 

[Pandora]

It is reasonable that civil union paperwork would be simpler since it confers so few benefits when compared with the more complex and valuable marriage certificate. If you are feeling put upon you can have a common law marriage which is much simpler yet--gays are denied common law marriages as well.

My point is that I can not have a domestic partner, I can not do that, they will not let me. Doesn’t that mean I am disenfranchised? My having an alternative doesn’t make up for the fact that I can not do that thing I would rather do because the law refuses to let me.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

My point is that I can not have a domestic partner, I can not do that, they will not let me. Doesn’t that mean I am disenfranchised? My having an alternative doesn’t make up for the fact that I can not do that thing I would rather do because the law refuses to let me.

Well then, help us change the laws.

 

[Pandora]

Well then, help us change the laws.

If they change the laws to say


Anyone or anything can marry anyone or anything in groups or in singles anytime for any reason.

I will help. But if it’s being changed to make one group happy, leaving other groups disenfranchised then I can not help.

Oh and the IRS and government in general has to get their greedy hands out of it all!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If they change the laws to say


Anyone or anything can marry anyone or anything in groups or in singles anytime for any reason.

I will help. But if it’s being changed to make one group happy, leaving other groups disenfranchised then I can not help.

Oh and the IRS and government in general has to get their greedy hands out of it all!

I think that your "anybody or anything" provisio is not a good idea. Restricting it to consenting adults who can be reasonably expected to be capable of fulfilling the requirements of a marriage contract is a more rational approach.

Adults marrying children, or anybody marrying animals or appliances is not good planning since none of them will have the capacity to carry through on the contract.

 

[Pandora]

I think that your "anybody or anything" provisio is not a good idea. Restricting it to consenting adults who can be reasonably expected to be capable of fulfilling the requirements of a marriage contract is a more rational approach.

Adults marrying children, or anybody marrying animals or appliances is not good planning since none of them will have the capacity to carry through on the contract.

I can see the kids thing and you make valid points but sooner or later someone is going to feel their rights are being stepped on.


in an earlier thread I think it was you who thought brother / sisters shouldnt have that right. I personally am against it but I am learning to keep saying to myself that my morals can not define you or anyone else.

so I am for everyone/thing having the right, but I would add a provison of at least 18 years of age. Maybe that would rule out most farm animals

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I can see the kids thing and you make valid points but sooner or later someone is going to feel their rights are being stepped on.


in an earlier thread I think it was you who thought brother / sisters shouldnt have that right. I personally am against it but I am learning to keep saying to myself that my morals can not define you or anyone else.

so I am for everyone/thing having the right, but I would add a provison of at least 18 years of age. Maybe that would rule out most farm animals

The law has always said "consenting adults" which lets out children and animals and appliances. No, I don't think brothers and sisters should marry and raise children for obvious and well proven SCIENTIFIC reasons. Children should not marry for similar SCIENTIFIC reasons, none of which apply to gays or most of the consenting adult population.

Marriage laws have tried to reduce the coercion involved in relationships by limiting them to consenting adults.

 

[Pandora]

The law has always said "consenting adults" which lets out children and animals and appliances. No, I don't think brothers and sisters should marry and raise children for obvious and well proven SCIENTIFIC reasons. Children should not marry for similar SCIENTIFIC reasons, none of which apply to gays or most of the consenting adult population.

Marriage laws have tried to reduce the coercion involved in relationships by limiting them to consenting adults.

OK you talked me into consenting adults or at least 16 with parent consent.

but I am not budging on what adults can or cant even if I dont personally agree with it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

OK you talked me into consenting adults or at least 16 with parent consent.

but I am not budging on what adults can or cant even if I dont personally agree with it.

So, incest laws would be done away with in your scenario?

 

[Pandora]

So, incest laws would be done away with in your scenario?

who are you to judge another persons lifestyle? what gives you the moral athority?


That is what I have been told and I am coming to accept that its how I guess it has to be.

You seem to be willing to draw the line just after it passes you...

but there is some other person out there who wants the line drawn past them.

So the argument wont end if we add one or two more groups....there is always going to be another group who feels left out. So we have to do away with the line if we are going to be fair to everyone.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Re: My Solution to the same-sex marriage issue

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Mare Tranquillity
The law has always said "consenting adults" which lets out children and animals and appliances. No, I don't think brothers and sisters should marry and raise children for obvious and well proven SCIENTIFIC reasons. Children should not marry for similar SCIENTIFIC reasons, none of which apply to gays or most of the consenting adult population.

Marriage laws have tried to reduce the coercion involved in relationships by limiting them to consenting adults.

Pandora Said: OK you talked me into consenting adults or at least 16 with parent consent.

but I am not budging on what adults can or cant even if I dont personally agree with it.

Then you are talking about doing this on the Federal level and mandating that all the states abolish their individual state statues on what should and shouldn't be an allowed 'Civil Union/Marriage'....because their are some states that do clearly state 'no First Cousins' may marry!!! At least in Kansas it does...and you can be considered 'common law' if you've shared the same bedroom for overnight or you have been introduced as "This Mrs. so & so" or "this is MR. so & so" and the person doing the introduction referred to you in the last name of the 'assumed marriage partner'. Quite the sticky wicket around this area...middle of America can be real confusing place to 'pull an all nighter'!!!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

who are you to judge another persons lifestyle? what gives you the moral athority?


That is what I have been told and I am coming to accept that its how I guess it has to be.

You seem to be willing to draw the line just after it passes you...

but there is some other person out there who wants the line drawn past them.

So the argument wont end if we add one or two more groups....there is always going to be another group who feels left out. So we have to do away with the line if we are going to be fair to everyone.

I assumed that this was your approach, Pando, but it won't work. I draw the line at genuine scientific proof that incest increases the likelyhood of damaged children. This isn't about personal freedom any more than adult/child sex is about personal freedom. Our laws are intended to protect those who need protection. Unfortunately sometimes laws get passed because of religious bigotry with no scientific basis at all--such as the laws denying homosexuals equality.

Your plea for anarchy is also logically false. As soon as we do away with the laws entirely, then we'll simply have arranged society so that the strongest and most violent members will have control and everyone else will be fodder for them.

This is a somewhat disengenuous argument that you are making and I think you don't believe it either. You know as well as I do that we have to look at each situation and judge it on its own merits rather than have a blanket response.

 

[Pandora]

I assumed that this was your approach, Pando, but it won't work. I draw the line at genuine scientific proof that incest increases the likelyhood of damaged children. This isn't about personal freedom any more than adult/child sex is about personal freedom. Our laws are intended to protect those who need protection. Unfortunately sometimes laws get passed because of religious bigotry with no scientific basis at all--such as the laws denying homosexuals equality.

Then are you for banning any woman over the age of 40 from having children? There is a high risk of Downs Syndrome when you reach your 40s. Also, back in the 70s and before that even when a couple wanted to marry they had to get blood tests, if those tests showed non compatible blood types they were denied the right to marry, those tests so rarely came back badly so they discontinued the tests. I have a friend who ended up marrying a man who she would have been denied marriage in the 70s because their kids will all be born with genetic defects. They have two kids and won’t be having anymore unless there is an unexpected pregnancy. Should they be forced to divorce? Isn’t that the same as a brother/sister issue?

If there is a brother / sister situation that would want to marry do you think they will refrain from sex because some people don’t think its right? I don’t think so, They will just have sex without marriage. Should they be jailed for doing it? Not my call. I think it’s a very small percent of brother sister couples who would want the right but they would be as entitled as any other person or group and their children would have the same risk as any 40 year old woman getting pregnant I would think.

Again I am not personally for this but how can I pick and choose what groups I am willing to support and what groups I am not. Are you against same sex brother / brother marriage or sister / sister? Is it just the baby issue? Are you against cousins who marry? Through out history first and second cousins have married and it was a non issue depending on what part of the world you are from.

Your plea for anarchy is also logically false. As soon as we do away with the laws entirely, then we'll simply have arranged society so that the strongest and most violent members will have control and everyone else will be fodder for them.

I have never advocated for anarchy. I have only said that marriage should not be in the hands of the federal or state government. It was not in the beginning and it should not be now. It should be a private thing between who ever is getting married. I want police, I want a military I want judges and courts and jails. I just don’t want the government in the marriage business.

This is a somewhat disengenuous argument that you are making and I think you don't believe it either. You know as well as I do that we have to look at each situation and judge it on its own merits rather than have a blanket response.

I don’t know why it’s dangerous. And I know you think I am just trying to jerk your chain but I am not. Originally I was just thinking about plural marriages and how I thought they had far more rights than any other denied group according to the constitution, but the more I think about it the more I think I want government out of marriage entirely. There will always be a group who feels left out, we will always have this argument as long as the government controls marriage.

 

[Pandora]

I draw the line at genuine scientific proof that incest increases the likelyhood of damaged children.

Can you at least answer this part in my post about 40 year olds being banned from having babies? I want to know if you really mean you draw the line at the likelyhood of damaged children.


Please