Panache

I'm allowed to marry my sister in most states?

But why is it a marriage? Why are we according rights to people based on a religious, spiritual union between romantically involved and sexually intimate couples?

People who want rights associated with legal responsibility should apply for some sort of civil contract through the government, and should not be limited in who they are sharing responsibility with.

People who want a "marriage" should get it from a religious provider of their choice, or do it themselves, and it should follow whatever restrictions the religious provider determines and have absolutely no legal meaning whatsoever.

If marriage does not imply a sexual union, then what do states have against a brother sharing legal responsibility with his sister and taking care of her when she gets pregnant?

CaptainCourtesy

Panache, since you seem to be arguing the point that a sexual relationship should not be a prerequisite to have the legal privileges given to those who are married, I have a question for you. Why present this issue as a gay-rights issue if you don't have an agenda? This seems more like a marital rights or a single-person's rights issue, yet the title of the thread points to something else.

__________________
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

====||:-D

Panache

Well, first off, I present this issue as a gay rights issue because I think it will get more people engaged in the conversation. The single-person's rights movement doesn't have enough of a following to make a good controversy.

Secondly, I raise it as a gay rights issue because I think the gay marriage movement is hypocritical, whereas the anti-gay marriage movement is not.

Admitedly, I think the anti-gay marriage movement is stupid, but at least it is not hypocritical.

The anti-gay marriage folk claim that the government has a legitimate interest in promoting heterosexual family environments. They are wrong, but at least consistent.

The pro-gay marriage movement folks pretend to claim that this is wrong because it treats gay couples as second class citizens, while completely ignoring the fact that it treats all unmarried people as second class citizens, not just gays.

My personal agenda is to get the government to get out of the Marriage business altogether, as they shouldn't have gotten into it to begin with.

I would have much more sympathy for a movement that wanted the government to stop giving special priviliges to what it considered a "moral relationship."

They gay marriage movement doesn't want that. They want the government to consider their relationship a "moral relationship" and actively promote it, and give them special priviliges, meanwhile screwing over everyone who wants to depend on friends/family rather than spouses.

The silenced majority

Agreed.

This would also shed light on to which family structure benefits society the most and which family structure is a social construct created in spite of an existing enduring social order.

__________________
'To begin with unlimited freedom, is to end with unlimited despotism." ~ Dostoevsky

FallingPianos

you're correct. you can to my list that the two people cannot be closely related. exactly how close varies by state, but I dont think any state allows you to marry someone closer than your first cousin.

however, this does not negate the fact that a sexual relationship and/or attraction is not a requirement of marriage. you can still marry you're best friend or roommate, as long as they meet the conditions I've listed.

its not a spiritual, romantic, or sexual union unless you want to be. any two people who are eligible for marriage can get married in a court house without all the mushy stuff.

you'll get no argument from me there.

marriage does imply a sexual union, however it isnt actually required by law.

__________________

Cephus

So in other words, you're trying to create controversy where none exists, presumably for personal gain. Yeah, that's a good idea.

Nothing hypocritical about it, it's about equality. If two heterosexual consenting adults can get married and gain these rights, then why can't two homosexual consenting adults get married and get those same rights? There is no rational reason whatsoever that it cannot and should not happen.

Of course it's hypocritical. They anti-gay-marriage people want to be special, they want to have rights that no one else has and status above everyone else. The religious side wants to push their zealous religious beliefs on everyone else (along with a good helping of "we're better than you"). How can you see that as anything but hypocritical?

The government has no place making any relationship "moral" and gay-marriage advocates don't want any priviliges that straight-marriages don't currently have, so where you get off thinking they're special is beyond me.

__________________
I'm not anti-religion, I'm anti-hypocrisy.

Blog me! http://BitchSpot.JadeDragonOnline.com

CaptainCourtesy

Thanks for the thoughtful response. There is a consistency issue with your position. Look at it like this. The Black civil rights movement focused on Black civil rights...not women's civil rights, or gay civil rights, or anyone else's civil rights. Does that mean, because they did not focus on the rights of other groups, they were hypocritical? No. They represented a specific group of people that were not being treated in the same way as others. It was not their position to assist all other groups. This is similar to gay-rights groups. If single people want the same rights as marrieds in regards to income tax, survivor benefits, etc..., a single-person's organization would probably attack the issue. Gay-rights activists handle gay-rights. There is nothing hypocritical about this.

Panache

Thank you as well for your thoughtful response.

The hypocrisy is not that gays-rights activists are not also fighting for single person rights, it is that they are seeking special priviliges from the government specifically for being gay married couples while purporting to be fighting against the unjust granting of special priviliges to a particular group.

I am differentiating here between rights, such as "we won't throw you in jail for saying something we don't like" or "we won't throw you in jail for practicing a religion we don't approve of" etc... and priviliges, such as "We want to promote a particular type of relationship so we will give you these tax breaks and special benefits."

As far as the government staying out of people's business goes, gays have already won. They can to to a church, say some vows, exchange rings, and the government will leave them alone. The government isn't going to give them special priviliges for doing so though, and therein lies the point of contention.

They see that special priviliges are unjustly given to a particular group, and instead of petition government to cease unjustly giving privilileges to a particular group, they petition the government to unjustly give priviliges to their partiular group as well.

That is the part I find hypocritical.

If the government were to say that both gays and women should be banned from practicing Christiantiy, I would agree with you that it is not hypocritcial for gay-rights activists to fight for the right to freely practice Christianity without fighting for the right for women to aslo freely practice Christianity.

However, if the government were to say that women would be given free scholorships to college because they were women, I do think it would be hypocritical for gay rights activists to allegedly fight this injustice by petitioning the government to give them free scholorships to college for being gay.

Do you see the difference I am getting at?

Panache

I would have said for personal entertainment and insight into others thoughts on the matter, but you got the idea. I don't see that I have much to personally gain other than that.

And if the government said that Christians wouldn't have pay taxes, there would be nothing hypocritical about Muslims fighting for equal rights by claiming that only Jews should pay taxes?

I don't buy it. You see that one group is being given unjust special priviliges, you fight for equality by saying "Hey! Don't be giving them unjust special priviliges."

You don't fight for equality by saying "Hey! Give my group unjust special priviliges too!"

Umm... How about because they arn't claiming not to? Saying "Im better than you so I am going to shove my religious beliefs down your throat" isn't hypocritical, its just stupid.

Hypocritical isn't just a fancy word to describe people you disgree with. It involves an element of betraying ones own principals on a matter.

For example, if one were to proclaim that it wasn't fair for people to get special priviliges for belonging to a particular group, and then turn around and ask for special priviliges for belonging to a particular group, that would be hypocritical.

Gay marriage advocates want people in a same-sex matrimonial relationship to get special priviliges that people in a same sex fraternal relationship are not. Priviliges not granted to seven people who start a commune, pool all their assests, file jointly and take care of each other. Priviliges not granted to people in opposite sex platonic co-habiting finanically co-depent relationships.

Marriage is a religious/cultural/spiritual union, and the government has no business being invloved in it.

Cephus

Since all are religions, all are treated equally and all have the same rights and responsibilities. When you talk about marriage, all people should be entitled to being treated equally and having the same rights and responsibilities. Why can't you get this through your head?

Marriage hasn't been a religious union in a hell of a long time. You can walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want to, you're not married until you get that piece of paper from the state that says you're married. It's not about standing up in front of some farcical deity, it's about inheritance rights and financial obligations and all kinds of things that have even less to do with religion than they do about sex.