View Poll Results: Which candidate will create equality?

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • Candidate 1 (civil unions)

    1 3.70%
  • Candidate 2 (government redefinition of marriage to include gay marriage)

    6 22.22%
  • Candidate 3 (government defined marriage'j as one man, one woman)

    5 18.52%
  • Candidate 4 (get government out of marriage)

    15 55.56%
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: True equality

  1. #41
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: True equality

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    I hate when the right answer is not available.

    How about a government that honors its own constitution and bill of rights? Very simple. You don't need to redefine anything as same-sex marriages were around before our modern-day concept of marriage which allows a women to have a say in the union--that concept is less than 300 years old.

    Bam!
    Indeed. I noticed that none of those options including anything like "decouple the religious ideas from the legal one" without jamming in those pesky buzzwords like "redefine" to suggest that it's wrong to do so. None of the options are "repeal the stupid law that tangles religion and law together". That, of course, is the correct option, and it is the one that we are pursuing.

    Here's another good hypothetical. A whole bunch of Muslims move into the US, and begin to outnumber the Christians here. They pass a law that Christians can't marry other Christians. They even vote in amendments to state constitutions enforcing this. "You have the same rights as everyone else", they say, "to marry a non-Christian. We define marriage as a fundamentally Muslim thing. You can't ask us to redefine marriage to suit your tastes. This is a democracy, where people vote on how they want the country to be."

    Suddenly, you are in the exact same situation gays are in right now. Doesn't feel too good, does it?
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  2. #42
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: True equality

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    Not bitter at all and happily married. Yes, I feel my rights are violated with legal marriage in place. Especially as it stands now. If I decide I want to marry a man I don't get the same benefits that I get in my current marriage. If I want to marry another person, that illegal unless I divorce the one I have now.
    We are fighting to get the ability for anyone to marry a member of the same sex, so that is kind of a moot point.

    You cannot get legal recognition for that third or subsequent people even without any marriage. Even with POAs, you could only leave the decisions up to one person in most cases. If you wish to have more people make those decisions, there may be a way to write that into a POA that they have to both or all agree, but that would sort of defeat the purpose of having such a thing in the first place. And I am all for some arrangement that gives a way for additional adults to be able to enter into some legal agreement, even called marriage, that could give them family standing as a legal spouse.

    But what you are arguing doesn't make sense because it requires legal marriage to be in place anyway in order for you to get those things.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  3. #43
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: True equality

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    We are fighting to get the ability for anyone to marry a member of the same sex, so that is kind of a moot point.
    Legal Marriage requires the government to define "marriage". That definition inevitably excludes someone from participating in the institution of marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    You cannot get legal recognition for that third or subsequent people even without any marriage. Even with POAs, you could only leave the decisions up to one person in most cases. If you wish to have more people make those decisions, there may be a way to write that into a POA that they have to both or all agree, but that would sort of defeat the purpose of having such a thing in the first place. And I am all for some arrangement that gives a way for additional adults to be able to enter into some legal agreement, even called marriage, that could give them family standing as a legal spouse.
    Legal marriage is a legal contract. Legal contracts happen between groups of people all the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    But what you are arguing doesn't make sense because it requires legal marriage to be in place anyway in order for you to get those things.
    No, you specifically asked if I thought my rights were violated BY LEGAL MARRIAGE and I was answering you question. I believe the government should not provide any acknowledgement or benefit to a person deciding to cohabitate with another.
    From the ashes.

  4. #44
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: True equality

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    Legal Marriage requires the government to define "marriage". That definition inevitably excludes someone from participating in the institution of marriage.

    Legal marriage is a legal contract. Legal contracts happen between groups of people all the time.
    All legal contracts have to have definitions and reasons for their existence. They also have limitations. It all depends on the type and purpose of the contract. I'm in a legal contract with the Navy. No one else can be involved in this contract but me and the government, specifically the US Navy, because more people would complicate the terms of the contract. For in loco parentis contracts, only one person is allowed to be named as a guardian in place of the parents because more would cause issues. Is that discriminating against someone else?


    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    No, you specifically asked if I thought my rights were violated BY LEGAL MARRIAGE and I was answering you question. I believe the government should not provide any acknowledgement or benefit to a person deciding to cohabitate with another.
    And you have not shown how, legally, your rights are being violated with merely the existence of legal marriage. It is your choice to enter into the marriage with another person, therefore taking on certain legal and financial responsibilities and accepting the fact that your relationship will have to be dissolved legally prior to you being able to enter into another such contract or absolve some of that financial or legal responsibility for the other person. In return for that commitment and accepting those responsibilities, the government offers benefits and rights. Some of those rights come from just being legal family (usually by blood) with another person anyway. The rest are given as basically an incentive to a) encourage stable relationships and b) help to try to protect each person from some abuse by the other.

    If you want to have some recognition given to a relationship you may be in, such as friendship, roommate, or less-than-marriage serious relationship, you need to push for that in your government. Otherwise, your rights are no more being violated by having legal marriage exist than they are from business contracts existing or in loco parentis's (as an actual legal document) existing.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #45
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: True equality

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    All legal contracts have to have definitions and reasons for their existence. They also have limitations. It all depends on the type and purpose of the contract. I'm in a legal contract with the Navy. No one else can be involved in this contract but me and the government, specifically the US Navy, because more people would complicate the terms of the contract. For in loco parentis contracts, only one person is allowed to be named as a guardian in place of the parents because more would cause issues. Is that discriminating against someone else?
    You are talking about a specific contract. Many business partnerships have more than two members all with equal ownership / rights.


    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    And you have not shown how, legally, your rights are being violated with merely the existence of legal marriage. It is your choice to enter into the marriage with another person, therefore taking on certain legal and financial responsibilities and accepting the fact that your relationship will have to be dissolved legally prior to you being able to enter into another such contract or absolve some of that financial or legal responsibility for the other person. In return for that commitment and accepting those responsibilities, the government offers benefits and rights. Some of those rights come from just being legal family (usually by blood) with another person anyway. The rest are given as basically an incentive to a) encourage stable relationships and b) help to try to protect each person from some abuse by the other.
    Why should the government decide that any partner relationship I enter into must be a 50/50 partnership? Maybe I only want to devote 25% of my time and resources to a particular individual. As long as we are two consenting adults, why is that a problem?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    If you want to have some recognition given to a relationship you may be in, such as friendship, roommate, or less-than-marriage serious relationship, you need to push for that in your government. Otherwise, your rights are no more being violated by having legal marriage exist than they are from business contracts existing or in loco parentis's (as an actual legal document) existing.
    Why in the world would I push for FURTHER assine recognition of my relationships? It's interesting I think that the Pro SS marriage crowd often touts "keeping government out of the bedroom" when it's exactly the opposite they are asking for.
    I can have a roommate agreement with whomever and however many people I want. Why not marriage? That is my point. By government defining a marriage they discriminate.
    How would you define legal marriage in the United States?
    From the ashes.

  6. #46
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: True equality

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    You are talking about a specific contract. Many business partnerships have more than two members all with equal ownership / rights.
    And the marriage contract is a specific contract between two people in a relationship. There are different types of contracts. The marriage contract is just one of those different types.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    Why should the government decide that any partner relationship I enter into must be a 50/50 partnership? Maybe I only want to devote 25% of my time and resources to a particular individual. As long as we are two consenting adults, why is that a problem?
    You can do that. You do realize that people have first say in the terms of their divorce in most states, right? And if you want to cover it prior to the marriage, it's called a prenup. There still is no discrimination. You have every right to only devote as much time and resources to each other as you like. That is well within your rights.


    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    Why in the world would I push for FURTHER assine recognition of my relationships? It's interesting I think that the Pro SS marriage crowd often touts "keeping government out of the bedroom" when it's exactly the opposite they are asking for.
    I can have a roommate agreement with whomever and however many people I want. Why not marriage? That is my point. By government defining a marriage they discriminate.
    How would you define legal marriage in the United States?
    Legal marriage is a legal contract between two people who are not otherwise closely enough related in order to make them legal family. Along with that legal kinship, they also agree to be each other's closest relative (barring a POA or will by either of them that says otherwise). Due to this arrangement, which has been shown to benefit society due to its stability and increased likelihood of an already existing stable environment to raise children in, the government offers certain incentives beyond just those they offer to blood relations.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #47
    Student
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    03-06-13 @ 02:59 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    272

    Re: True equality

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No. Civil marriage is practical and reasonable as a way to track who is married and to ensure that legal relationships, particularly ones people choose to enter into, are given high priority with little fuss in our legal system.

    Any proposal to get out of civil marriage, at least for the foreseeable future, will end in laughter. No one is going to willingly give up the rights and benefits that come from just one simple contract that is marriage.

    Hell, I'd bet that most Christians would rather allow same sex couples the right to marriage if the only alternative was giving up marriage altogether.
    At least then those against SSM would know what it's like, thanks to the wise all-knowing voters, to go from being unmarried, to married, to unmarried like your life and relationship means nothing. But no i don't want this either, very few do, don't worry.

    As I've said, I don't find it practical for government to abandon marriage entirely. True, there'd be far fewer marriages and this would almost be a non-issue if you disentangled government from the complexities of tax breaks, inheriting of benefits, other financial incentives. This currently discriminates against singles. There's something i think that isn't being taken into account.

    There's usually an emotional attachment that government recognition facilitates, that does the rest of us no harm to leave in place. Even something like getting your mail, seeing the same last name is nice. There's no reason to take this frustration out on everyone, and it makes us look like petty haters ourselves. In addition there are practical reasons for government to be involved, like if one partner is a foreigner. How else are they supposed to immigrate quickly? What about adoption in some cases, where prejudiced southern states would deny a gay couple? I mean, if they don't have any document to say they're a couple...In my experience any technicality will be used, thus the need for marriage. Two of those on that poll however don't remotely fit the definition of equality.

  8. #48
    Advisor dabateman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    11-13-12 @ 05:57 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    469

    Re: True equality

    The government will not willingly extract itself from marriage. There is a legitimate state interest in marriage and as long as there a legitimate state interest, the government will continue to regulate. Seeing as government won't be leaving the institution, the remaining question is to equality. The only equality available under the current system is to permit same-sex marriage. Separate but equal is not equal.

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    07-08-12 @ 03:33 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    271
    Blog Entries
    40

    Re: True equality

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    I really don't understand why more people don't advocate removing government from marriage altogether. From a government stand point it is an antiquated practice. Since people have kids out of wedlock these days like it's nothing what's the point of a marriage license? To keep people from marrying their cousin? Why? they can screw anyway and make babies.
    The other problem I have is people that will scream separation of church and state to justify not outlawing SS marriages BUT have no problem with most marriages being performed by a member of clergy and accepted by the state. Hello....
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/newrep...1392&noquote=1

    I can't understand why the government doesn't advocate for the removal of government from marriage. It is obviously unconstitutional. It's 2012 and the government still inches it's way toward realizing it's own claims in the Constitution.

  10. #50
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

    Re: True equality

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No. Civil marriage is practical and reasonable as a way to track who is married and to ensure that legal relationships, particularly ones people choose to enter into, are given high priority with little fuss in our legal system.

    Any proposal to get out of civil marriage, at least for the foreseeable future, will end in laughter. No one is going to willingly give up the rights and benefits that come from just one simple contract that is marriage.

    Hell, I'd bet that most Christians would rather allow same sex couples the right to marriage if the only alternative was giving up marriage altogether.
    Wow, I've never agreed with someone as much as you on a topic. Just a note that you assert then omit. Marriage will exist with or without government involvement. All organized religions also define marriage, but not uniformly. Married in the governments POV should be accepting a specific contract, government defined, between two people. To keep it rational and workable the government only allows an individual to enter one of these contracts at a time. It's unfortunate that we call what the government does a marriage, it's not, it's a standard contract like you say. It saves huge amounts of time and money for everyone. Having each state come up with different contracts wastes everybody's time and money. Without a standard country wide contract it will waste the governments money also. Just limit it to two adults. Thanks for your cogent posts.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •