Same Sex Marriage

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Azure

Whatever you want it to be.

Civil union for economic benefits, civil union for this, that and the other thing.

And do you think the groups that fight SSM will be happy when suddenly the marriage/union they have fought against will now be given totally equal rights? They they can now call themselves married?

I'm not so sure the groups fighting against SSM are simply fighting against a word. I think they are fighting against the whole concept.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Ok, so let's suppose the government stops issuing marriage licenses to anyone and only recognizes civil unions. What's the definition of a civil union? Could, for example, two college roommates enter a civil union for the economic benefits? Is there still an expectation that civil unions are intended to be lifelong bonds?

That would be up to the government. I would propose it would be like the common law definition without the minimum time constraint. Are two roomates considered common law because they live in the same house? Do they gain the economic benifits because they have lived together more than 6 months? As well what is stopping two room mates from getting married right now for economic benefits.

I would think the civil union would imply a long term relationship where assets and incomes are co-mingled.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

And do you think the groups that fight SSM will be happy when suddenly the marriage/union they have fought against will now be given totally equal rights? They they can now call themselves married?

I'm not so sure the groups fighting against SSM are simply fighting against a word. I think they are fighting against the whole concept.

Too freakin' bad.

I know they're against the concept, but take away any power the government has over 'marriage'...and what are those people going to do?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

And do you think the groups that fight SSM will be happy when suddenly the marriage/union they have fought against will now be given totally equal rights? They they can now call themselves married?

I'm not so sure the groups fighting against SSM are simply fighting against a word. I think they are fighting against the whole concept.

I'm not sure they will be happy but they wouldn't have to recognize someone else's marriage. Also it would expose them as biggots if they continued to fight, their argument that they are okay with equal rights but not the word marriage that they currently use would be gone.

It would also probably pull enough moderates on the anty Gay Marriage side that any referendums over the issue would fall on the side of equal rights.

[Thunderball]

From a Libertarian POV, who really cares? Why should the straight couples have all the misery, and why shouldn't the lawyers get to profit off gay divorce too?

However, once you get into social policy, there are a boatload of questions and concerns. Does this constitute a real limitation of rights, does this change affect other's rights, is there way to settle both sides, and does this open the door to other less-desirable legislation down the road?

I'm quite sure California is not opposed to same-sex couples... they don't like the idea of trampling other people's rights and beliefs to satisfy someone else's. Expect a British-style solution soon with civil unions.

[GGG]

I heard a funny story on the news a few weeks ago where a Gay couple got married in Canada and now wanted a divorce. I think they lived in Ohio but I am not sure. The law in Ohio recognized marriages from other juristictions including Canada so they were considered legally married in Ohio but the judge wouldn't grant them a divorce under Ohio law because the divorce law only applied to a man and a women and the judge didn't want to legislate from the bench. They then tried to get a divorce in Canada but Ontario law states that you have to live in Ontario six months before getting a divorce.

So if SSM is a hot issue will SS divorce be worse?

[DementedReality]

this is such a dumb debate ... if a church doesnt want to regonize a marriage other than in traditional sense, so be it. otherwise, why do they get to dictate what the rest of us do.

i woud like one anti SSM person to tell me how SSM reduces the value of their traditional marriage. and not with bafflegab, give me the technical and mechanical actions that occur when a SSM is recognized.

at the end of the day, if consenting adults want to be married (in any combination), i say go for it!

{frankly if some dude chooses to have more than 1 wife, isnt that punishment enough? llol)

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

this is such a dumb debate ... if a church doesnt want to regonize a marriage other than in traditional sense, so be it. otherwise, why do they get to dictate what the rest of us do.

i woud like one anti SSM person to tell me how SSM reduces the value of their traditional marriage. and not with bafflegab, give me the technical and mechanical actions that occur when a SSM is recognized.

at the end of the day, if consenting adults want to be married (in any combination), i say go for it!

{frankly if some dude chooses to have more than 1 wife, isnt that punishment enough? llol)

Problem with polygamy is that groups of people could "marry" simply for the inevitable tax benefits and income splitting.

Of course, who is to then stop people from marriage to family members for the same reason? Can't use the "its gross" card anymore once you say that people have no right to judge what two or more consenting adults do. Its a bit of a slippery slope, I admit... but quite probable. People don't always marry for love.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Problem with polygamy is that groups of people could "marry" simply for the inevitable tax benefits and income splitting.

Of course, who is to then stop people from marriage to family members for the same reason? Can't use the "its gross" card anymore once you say that people have no right to judge what two or more consenting adults do.

ok, so what? marry your sister and your brother (and claim the tax benefits), i dont give a hoot. my point in regards to this debate is "how will that undermine my traditional marriage."

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

ok, so what? marry your sister and your brother (and claim the tax benefits), i dont give a hoot. my point in regards to this debate is "how will that undermine my traditional marriage."

I'll let someone who believes its the death of traditional marriage answer that.

I was just stating why its a bad idea for society in terms of lost tax revenue. Also, that once you take the traditional sensibility and biology out of the equation, society opens itself up to all sorts of nonsensical things in the name of personal rights and freedoms.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

this is such a dumb debate ... if a church doesnt want to regonize a marriage other than in traditional sense, so be it. otherwise, why do they get to dictate what the rest of us do.

But why should the state own the word marriage. A word with a different definition for many different people. Get rid of the state definition of the word and let the English language take its course.

One might ask as secular marriages became popular why the government used the religious term. It would also be interesting to see if when the government started to recognize secular marriages was there the same protest from the religious communities.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Problem with polygamy is that groups of people could "marry" simply for the inevitable tax benefits and income splitting.

I would suggest removing tax considerations from civil unions.

Why should a single mother/father have less tax breaks than a couple with kids?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I'll let someone who believes its the death of traditional marriage answer that.

I was just stating why its a bad idea for society in terms of lost tax revenue. Also, that once you take the traditional sensibility and biology out of the equation, society opens itself up to all sorts of nonsensical things in the name of personal rights and freedoms.

I don't think you would see slippery-slope marriage theory that once you allow SS couples everything goes down hill and room mates will marry eachother.

Do male and female room mates marry eachother now for tax benefits? I don't know any who have so why would 2 male or 2 female room mates do it. All of the slippery slope arguments if true would be happening now on a purely male/female basis.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

i woud like one anti SSM person to tell me how SSM reduces the value of their traditional marriage. and not with bafflegab, give me the technical and mechanical actions that occur when a SSM is recognized.

Good luck with that. The question was asked (not just on here but in reality) and nobody could ever give a straight answer. Bafflegab was the name of the game and it always will be.

That bafflegab looks even more ridiculous now, considering we have been "living with it" for a couple years and nothing has changed, but it's the best answer we can hope for.

I think one of the anti-SSM should put their money where there mouth is and get a divorce and blame it on the fact that a man can marry another man. Then we'll really be talking.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I would suggest removing tax considerations from civil unions.

Why should a single mother/father have less tax breaks than a couple with kids?

A single mother/father have far more social programs geared toward them then a traditional married couple. You really should be more concerned about the single individuals who get screwed. The system is also heavily scewed against single income 2 parent families.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don't think you would see slippery-slope marriage theory that once you allow SS couples everything goes down hill and room mates will marry eachother.

Do male and female room mates marry eachother now for tax benefits? I don't know any who have so why would 2 male or 2 female room mates do it. All of the slippery slope arguments if true would be happening now on a purely male/female basis.

They don't have to right now. They can be considered common-law couples, and get most of the same benefits. Traditional sensibility and biology typically hold them back too. However, once you allow for polygamy, which is a slam-dunk the moment anyone challenges some of these polygamists (at least, thats what the BC Attorney General intimated), its a whole new game.

I'm not necessarily opposed to any of this. I'm saying when you take biology and traditional sensibility out of the equation, as is clearly the case with SSM... you can not dismiss the claims that will likely come from the previously considered "lunatic fringe." Its not a slippery slope argument when you consider the wording of the charter. Plus, its not that it will happen, its that we have opened the door for it to potentially happen, a door that was previously bolted shut by biology and traditional sensibility.

[Traditional_Ale]

[troutman]

^^^^^^

There is a 40% chance one of those boys is gay.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

They don't have to right now. They can be considered common-law couples, and get most of the same benefits. Traditional sensibility and biology typically hold them back too. However, once you allow for polygamy, which is a slam-dunk the moment anyone challenges some of these polygamists (at least, thats what the BC Attorney General intimated), its a whole new game.

I'm not necessarily opposed to any of this. I'm saying when you take biology and traditional sensibility out of the equation, as is clearly the case with SSM... you can not dismiss the claims that will likely come from the previously considered "lunatic fringe." Its not a slippery slope argument when you consider the wording of the charter. Plus, its not that it will happen, its that we have opened the door for it to potentially happen, a door that was previously bolted shut by biology and traditional sensibility.

Polygamy is already legal as long as you only marry one of the women. The others can just live with you. Same Sex marriage doesn't open the door for this at all. The biology argument actually works better for polygamy then it does for monogomy. More male seed is spread and the women are cared for. From a strictly biological stand point polygamy is quite common in animals.

As well the use of the term "traditional Sensability" seems to me to be a term resistant to change. It goes along the lines of women shouldn't vote, children should be seen and not heard, 10% of your income should go to the church, the king gets to sleep with a new bride first. All kinds of outdated cultural norms can be defended with the term traditional sensability.


Anyways all of these slippery slope issues is just more reason that the government should get out of the marriage buisness.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by GGG

Polygamy is already legal as long as you only marry one of the women. The others can just live with you. Same Sex marriage doesn't open the door for this at all. The biology argument actually works better for polygamy then it does for monogomy. More male seed is spread and the women are cared for. From a strictly biological stand point polygamy is quite common in animals.

Not all animals... many are naturally monogamous. (Some by death of course). The question is whether polygamy is a learned behavior or an instinctual one. If you think its learned, then biology harms the argument.

As well the use of the term "traditional Sensability" seems to me to be a term resistant to change. It goes along the lines of women shouldn't vote, children should be seen and not heard, 10% of your income should go to the church, the king gets to sleep with a new bride first. All kinds of outdated cultural norms can be defended with the term traditional sensability.

Of course, traditional sensibility is a term resistant to change because much of it has stood the test of time. Sensibility has positives, and does evolve over time with society, eliminating tithes, primae noctis, and even mysogyny.


Anyways all of these slippery slope issues is just more reason that the government should get out of the marriage buisness.

I totally agree with this. I'm simply saying if the government wants to play in the marriage pool, expect to deal with a lot of crap.