Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[CortJstr]

There is no compelling reason to grant a new state-sanctioned, state-defined relationship to a narrow class of people that creates a spectrum of rights or privileges that are already covered in the body of law or can be addressed by non-legal means. You can't compel the state to make a law which then it would be required to spend money to administer and uphold, when the interests that would be served by the law can be served in either the existing body of law or by policies in non-legal areas. Hospital visitation, adoption, property succession, power-of-attorney, living wills, Gay-friendly churches who bless unions, and work benefits are all areas that do not require any or additional legislation and serve virtually every purpose for which altering the definition of marriage would supposedly accomplish.

Also you are making my point; once you begin recognizing every kind of relationship it becomes farcical and indeed destroys marriage as sacred institution. As I have tried to say, call it something besides 'marriage' and define it in legal terms that accord specific rights and responsibilities to the involved parties and you will have a much better chance at seeing this concept supported.

Then why do you need a law that specificaly bans that same arrangement?

And the "sacred institution" argument doesn't work because sacred is by its nature a religious term.

[V-Adore]

How does anything I was saying imply that recognizing any kind of relationship somehow destroys marriage as a "sacred institution?" My point was that marriage can be quite safely legally defined in such a way as to avoid your "slippery-slope" argument and that it might be entirely possible to allow that definition to be inclusive of polyamorous groups -- in other words, that a legal definition of "marriage" can be created in such a way as to allow gay couples and other societally-constructive "alternative" life-partnership arrangements without allowing societally-destructive ones (incest, people marrying their dogs, &c.) Presumably marriage as a religious/"sacred" arrangement remains as it is regardless of a definition of which partnerships are eligible for legal rights, and the idea that a theoretical granting of legal rights to non-heterosexual couples somehow erodes that sacred notion totally baffles me.

Also, presuming that all the people involved have a mutually-loving relationship and are prepared to enter into the awesome responsibility of creating a household together, what's farcical about polyamory?

(And with that, I'm bowing out for a while. It's not personal -- I just have a huge lab report due tomorrow and thus have to focus on writing it. I may end up posting anyway, but still...)

[Nabubrush]

Also, presuming that all the people involved have a mutually-loving relationship and are prepared to enter into the awesome responsibility of creating a household together, what's farcical about polyamory?

Hear, hear. Thank you, V.

[AlohaDawg]

It's farcical to call polyamory analogous to marriage. I think you would find little support for such an argument in any state.

I don't think I've argued 'for' banning. I'm definitely against a Federal Ban; I think states have certain latitude to pescribe and proscribe behavior based on the values of their community.  I've asserted that all of the rights alleged to come with creating a new protected class of relationships already exists and I've argued that using the term marriage serves to offend a lot of people that you could get to support some fairness measure, if required to remedy a documented disparity, if you remove the cognitive link to a sacred institution. I don't support the creation of a new class of relationship where the supposed advantages are already inherent in law and society. When you strip all of that away, all you have left is a small segment of the society who want their relationship somehow blessed or sanctioned by the state. I think that is unnecessary from a legal standpoint.

[arkabee]

i agree with whomever put the idea of stopping state-sanctioned marriage all together and outright into my head.

do not allow the state to recognize or not recognize marriage at all, redefine politically/legislatively recognized "marriages" as "social contracts" or some other term that removes ALL religious connotations from the union/contract and let the institution of marriage become a religious rite and/or sacrimant in and of itself.

as i understand the marriage process, it currently exists as such except that the TERM "marriage" is used in the political/legislative process.

you go to the courthouse and get your LICENSE to get married.  some people then go to a church to perform a marriage CEREMONY etc.

two distinct processes/concepts with one name.

confusing.

the state can simply say that it will not accept a marriage as legally binding without state mandated licensure/registration (which it currently does) but "simply" rename the lincensure/registration something other than "marriage license".

grandfather in ALL currently at large "marriage licenses" as termed as the new name of the contract.

all current local, state, and federal legislation regulating marriage would strike "marriage" and replace it with the new term, and henceforth "marriage" would fall solely into the religious world, which is where it belongs anyways.

any current issues regarding states' decisions to accept or not to accept other states marriages would now apply to this new term.

this would in no way shape or form affect the "sanctity" of any current or future marriages or marriage license holders.

keep the government out of the people's religions and keep the religions out of the government.

sadly, this would never happen, because people would react negatively to the government no longer referring to the licensure as "marriage", and the cultural phenomenon of "status: married?" etc.

[V-Adore]

It's farcical to call polyamory analogous to marriage. I think you would find little support for such an argument in any state.

Why is it farcical, though, assuming that the people involved take the commitment as seriously as a married couple? What about adding another person to the equation intrinsically makes it a farcical setup?

I'm not saying that you'd get support for legalized polyamory any time soon -- I just have no idea why you're asserting it as a given that it's a farcical setup.

[AlohaDawg]

I can hang with this as a start. Another idea could be just to register a union between two people and pay a fee. No ceremony required; it would be like registering a business. It would legally note the relationship between these two people for all purposes necessary to the state (taxes, property ownership, probate) while allowing them to exercise their relationship in whatever way that they want.

Actually, this is unnecessary too - you could just just be like a limited corporation. Then you could involve as many people as you want.

The spiritual process of marrying would still be available to those who want it. Divorce would eventually be an option too as would dissolving the corporation, dealing with the assets of the corporation/partnbership, etc. etc.

However, at the bottom line, I still believe that a major factor behind this issue is the yearning of gay people everywhere to have the 'stamp of approval' on their relationship - and your solution would continue the perceived inequity since most churches still won't marry gays. Taking the word 'marriage' out of the government context is probably a good start.

[arkabee]

I can hang with this as a start. Another idea could be just to register a union between two people and pay a fee. No ceremony required; it would be like registering a business. It would legally note the relationship between these two people for all purposes necessary to the state (taxes, property ownership, probate) while allowing them to exercise their relationship in whatever way that they want.

Actually, this is unnecessary too - you could just just be like a limited corporation. Then you could involve as many people as you want.

The spiritual process of marrying would still be available to those who want it. Divorce would eventually be an option too as would dissolving the corporation, dealing with the assets of the corporation/partnbership, etc. etc.

However, at the bottom line, I still believe that a major factor behind this issue is the yearning of gay people everywhere to have the 'stamp of approval' on their relationship - and your solution would continue the perceived inequity since most churches still won't marry gays. Taking the word 'marriage' out of the government context is probably a good start.

the corporation thing.  i was talking to someone today about the whole "don;t call it "marriage"" thing, and they said "isn't that just like giving them power of attourney?

so, i dunno.

i want smaller government, i want less interference in personal life, i want to keep my liberties and freedom.

why am i unable to call myself conservative?

[AlohaDawg]

i want smaller government, i want less interference in personal life, i want to keep my liberties and freedom.

why am i unable to call myself conservative?

The only reason I can think of is that you feel you are entitled to these things and don't need to work for them.

[Nabubrush]

Actually, this is unnecessary too - you could just just be like a limited corporation. Then you could involve as many people as you want.

My wife's mother suggested this to her before we were married. I have to tell you, I wasn't having any.

But I can get behind most of the rest of it. I just feel like homosexuals ought to be able to get married, and call themselves married, if they would like to. Bisexuals can get married if they want to, provided they don't enter into a same-sex marriage, so what the hell.

[Choop]

Seeing as how the voting period is over, and this thread is pretty much going nowhere other than the gay-marriage discussion, I'm going to lock it at some point tomorrow. Until then, carry on.

[andalucia]

I was leaving it since although it had obviously wandered, it had done so into a fairly germane and articulate debate.  Split perhaps?

[CortJstr]

These are actually wonderful ideas. My "wedding" is going to be at a courthouse with our parents and possibly grandparents. No gods, no candles, and no pointless pomp.

[AlohaDawg]

Cort -

Congrats on getting married. Or legally bound. Or joined. Or whatever it is that you are getting once we decide what to call it.

[Nabubrush]

I can't remember; did I mention I got married at a donut shop?