toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[rexlunae]

but you were unable to show the difference between a union with brothers and a union with a brother and sister

is that still true?

:sigh:

You need to learn to read. If you want to make a point, lay it out. I'm not interested in playing 20 questions with you anymore.

 

[kmoney]

maybe I can help you with this

the state has no problem with a brother and sister living together
but
they will not allow them to get married because they might get pregnant
so
the state assumes that a married couple will have children

would you agree with that?

I am simply trying to show that the purpose of marriage is to protect the child
and
looking a state laws regarding marriage shows that

I would slightly modify the assumption you have in the 1st quote. I would say the state assumes a married couple will be in a sexual relationship. Sexual relationships can lead to children.

I think you overreach when you say that laws against inter-familial marriages prove that the state is concerned with children. At least if you think it proves the state is ONLY concerned with children. It may show something more limited - that the state is concerned with children being born to close relatives, which is why incest laws have application beyond marriage.

I'm not sure anyone has denied that the child is in view when making marriage laws. It's just some people broaden it beyond that scope.

 

[Rusha]

:sigh:

You need to learn to read. If you want to make a point, lay it out. I'm not interested in playing 20 questions with you anymore.

Psssttt Rex ... Chrys doesn't make points. Ever. He makes noise. Granite is right ... we all need to just ignore his trolling.

 

[kmoney]

I don't think there's a single one of us here who isn't familiar with his unique posting style. He tries his dance with one person until they get tired of going in circles answering inane pointless questions, then he moves on to the next dance partner. Eventually, everyone gets sick of dancing. And, it seems like Zippy gave up the ghost here. And there's been no word from K-mo in a while.

I'm here. Just been busy the past few days. :noid:

 

[chrysostom]

:sigh:

You need to learn to read. If you want to make a point, lay it out. I'm not interested in playing 20 questions with you anymore.

I am just asking you to look at why the state will not allow a brother and sister to marry. It is not that they don't want them to live together, they don't want them to produce an abnormal child

do you agree with that?

 

[chrysostom]

Psssttt Rex ... Chrys doesn't make points. Ever. He makes noise. Granite is right ... we all need to just ignore his trolling.

I wish you would

 

[kmoney]

And I'm suggesting that advantages from the contract don't make the contract more of one or more than one. I set out the corporation as a more obvious example of how advantages are given by virtue of contracts and meant for that to establish the understanding that this "more" business is mistaken.

The differentiation being focused on is the presence of an active role by the government (beyond what you note below about enforcement). On the one hand you have a contract between two parties (that they bind with a lawyer). On the other hand you have a contract between those same two parties and the government (bound by the state). The government has a financial liability in the 2nd contract. I think the same "talking past each other" I suggested zippy and rex were doing is being done by us as well. And maybe others.

The crux of it is not whether or not marriage is a contract, because it is (and I'm not sure what "more than a contract" even would be). The crux is why the government takes a financial stake in the marriage. Or corporation. Or other contracts, probably.

Every contract carries a benefit in its establishment. At the least end of that is the enforcement of terms by the state and remedies for breach.

Again, I think using this in the context of our discussion is to stretch that benefit.

In that case, corporations get a better treatment than marriages, though I don't see the value in it as applied to our consideration.

I meant from the other direction. How the state benefits from the corporation vs how it benefits from the marriage.

I wasn't so much responding to an argument as setting out my part for you particularly. I don't know if you've bought into this more business of not, but if so then the rest is important. If not, it's clarification for those who might be giving the matter a once over.

And to jump into marital benefits over other contracts aimed at paralleling: spousal privilege isn't something that can be established else.
:e4e:

So in a nutshell, you just wanted to hear yourself talk? lain:



To clarify what I've bought and what I've not bought.....

I've bought that the government takes a more significant role in the marriage contract than others (not that marriage is the only one). The "why" behind that is the important question and I had begun to question the foundation for the government's more active role since I think most of their derived benefit would remain even if they withheld the benefits. You noted a convenience factor earlier which I suppose might be significant.

What I've not bought is that homosexuals couples should be excluded from participation in this contract.


:sheep:

 

[rexlunae]

I'm here. Just been busy the past few days. :noid:

No worries. Just explaining why I wasn't too worried about playing with the troll. Though, I'm kinda sick of that for now. I'd love to see him collect his thoughts, which he clearly has some of, into a post that actually lays out his position so that they can be discussed. But you can play his game, and answer all his questions, and he'll still say that there's something you haven't answered. So I think I'm done playing with him today. I'll wait for you to get back to it, or whoever feels like taking up the cause. I think Zippy declared himself done with it.

 

[kmoney]

You say that as if it's normal that a contract exists between three parties, where one of them does not exercise any specific discretion in forming it, and with that party able to amend the contract unilaterally by a legislative process.

No. Marriage is unique.

But as TH has pointed out already, this is exactly the same relationship that the state always has to contracts. The power to regulate.

Yes, there is some role the government plays in all. But I'm not sure the role of enforcement is particularly important in this discussion.

I don't know of a single subsidy that government offers that's written to imply that any of them are supposed to be controlling of the institution of marriage.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Controlling in what way?

The union of two people.

What does that union mean in regards to the contract and the state?

Right, it's a specific kind of civil contract.

That's pretty much exactly what I said in my next sentence. :chuckle:

Minus a few general restrictions, such as the prohibition of incest, the state exercises absolutely no discretion in forming the contract. The discretion is entirely on the couple, who are the real parties to the contract. And each restriction the government places on the union must meet Constitutional standards. This is why we rejected the standard that some states had that the union could only exist between people of the same race, and it is ultimately why we should reject the restriction that it may only exist between people of opposite gender.

I agree.

Sure, they can form a contract. They can sell land to one another, they can buy things together, they can assign power of attorney. But they aren't permitted the sort of world-recognized union that so many heterosexuals enjoy, and that's unfair, unwarranted, and unjustified by our highest laws.

No disagreement here.

How is that any less discriminatory or more just?

I wasn't saying it was.

Well, that varies a lot by state. If you just look at the chapters of law that define marriage, it's often little more than a definition and a set of regulations for how the marriage may be performed.

If you take a broader look, and consider state laws that reference marriage, you find things like prohibitions of spousal abandonment in many states. It often impacts how welfare works in a number of ways. It obviously impacts prenuptial agreements, and access to divorce.

Many of these things have the potential to save the state money rather than costing it money. For instance, the fact that a person is typically financially responsible for their spouse, it may prevent the spouse from collecting welfare, or it may afford the state someone to reimburse them for welfare paid.

Previously I quoted to Zippy the bits of state law from my home state that define marriage, with a link to the relevant chapter. Not a difficult read.

OK. :e4e:

 

[rexlunae]

How the state benefits from the corporation vs how it benefits from the marriage.

I think that's entirely the wrong question to ask. Marriage is considered, by the courts, to be a fundamental right, and I think this is consistent with how people view their marriages. The question should not be "How does the state benefit from permitting a right to be exercised?", but rather "How can the state justify not honoring the right?".

It might not be convenient at all for the state that its citizens have a right to free speech, in fact it might be very costly, but it is still obligated to uphold the right. Marriage is really no different.

The argument that marriage is intended for the sake of the state to derive some benefit is really just the only rock some people can find to throw. It's not even truly their own vision of marriage.

 

[rexlunae]

No. Marriage is unique.

Well, there's nothing fundamentally different about the state's role in marriage than in other contracts. Obviously, it has it's own chapters of law, as do any other specific types of contracts.

Yes, there is some role the government plays in all. But I'm not sure the role of enforcement is particularly important in this discussion.

But it's what make the marriage contract important.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Controlling in what way?

The conferring of a benefit upon the married couple by Congress was not intended in any case that I'm aware of to restrict access to marriage based upon the intent of the benefit. The only law I know of that really attempts to restrict access to marriage benefits is the deplorable Defense of Marriage Act, and that was passed after the fact specifically to deny benefits to homosexuals in an act of naked bigotry.

What does that union mean in regards to the contract and the state?

It's a legal union as well as a personal relation. There are any number of implications.

That's pretty much exactly what I said in my next sentence. :chuckle:

I agree.


No disagreement here.


I wasn't saying it was.


OK. :e4e:

We don't actually seem to be disagreeing much here, so I don't have much to add. Not sure if I've addressed your questions, but feel free to add more.

 

[Town Heretic]

The differentiation being focused on is the presence of an active role by the government (beyond what you note below about enforcement).

Okay. The corporation, well, most businesses have a more active interference/oversight than any marriage.

On the one hand you have a contract between two parties (that they bind with a lawyer).

No. Both corporations and marriages take filings that have to meet statute. Corporate filings are much more involved, time consuming and complicated. Both require licenses and payments and a measure of oversight.

The government has a financial liability in the 2nd contract.

The state has a financial stake in corporations and in marriages by virtue of tax breaks. I don't know about liability as you're using it.

The crux of it is not whether or not marriage is a contract, because it is (and I'm not sure what "more than a contract" even would be).

That's okay, neither do the proponents of that notion.

The crux is why the government takes a financial stake in the marriage. Or corporation. Or other contracts, probably.

To promote its own prosperity and stability, of course. Why do you invest?

I meant from the other direction. How the state benefits from the corporation vs how it benefits from the marriage.

Not sure why that matters, but both help produce productive citizenry in their different ways. What, in particular, are you angling to see?

So in a nutshell, you just wanted to hear yourself talk? lain:

If by that you mean make certain my part was clearly understood by anyone actually interested in more than waiting for their turn to speak, sure.

To clarify what I've bought and what I've not bought.....

I've bought that the government takes a more significant role in the marriage contract than others (not that marriage is the only one).

And significantly less than, say, the corporation. Right. And some in all.

The "why" behind that is the important question and I had begun to question the foundation for the government's more active role since I think most of their derived benefit would remain even if they withheld the benefits.

Maybe. But why not make it easier for people to enter into contracts which inarguably benefit you? That's an easy answer for the state that doesn't require speculation.

What I've not bought is that homosexuals couples should be excluded from participation in this contract.

Probably because there's no secular justification. People are happier in committed relationships. Happier makes them better members of the compact.

 

[Town Heretic]

since you are above social mores

It's funny how you throw out an attempt to illustrate a snobbery you can't establish while exhibiting one in the effort. I'm not suggesting that I'm better than you, Chrys...only that you aren't being rational and consistent in your approach.

you would be okay with a brother and sister marrying

right?

No. I think the interest of the compact is established in denial without the social more interjection. There are arguments against me in this and I linked you to one. Last time I'm addressing an off topic.

Now have you any actual, objective argument to compel discrimination absent the advancement of your particular religious dogma? Because I don't think you can manage it.

:e4e:

 

[chrysostom]

I'm not suggesting that I'm better than you, Chrys...only that you aren't being rational and consistent in your approach.

I wish I had said that first

anyone can live together without permission from the state
but
if you want to get married you have to meet certain requirements
and
get a blood test, all of which helps to protect the child

do you agree with that?

 

[bybee]

I wish I had said that first

anyone can live together without permission from the state
but
if you want to get married you have to meet certain requirements
and
get a blood test, all of which helps to protect the child

do you agree with that?

First, blood tests protect the marriageable population from std's. That is to say, if they are sensible enough to abstain or use protection first.
We are still free to enter into marriage contracts for our own purposes which may or may not include procreation.

 

[chrysostom]

First, blood tests protect the marriageable population from std's. That is to say, if they are sensible enough to abstain or use protection first.
We are still free to enter into marriage contracts for our own purposes which may or may not include procreation.

is that the purpose of marriage?

I thought it was to protect the child

 

[bybee]

is that the purpose of marriage?

I thought it was to protect the child

When I decided to marry, I loved the man of my choice with all of my heart. I believed/believe that he returned that love.
Our purpose was to be together through whatever life had in store for us and know that we were no longer alone.
Of course having children was one of our goals. We were blessed with five children all of whom continue to be in my life.
When the last child graduated from college we had to adjust to life with the two of us again.
We still liked each other. We shared our morning coffee at our leisure, no babies to feed, no teenagers to roust out of bed, just morning phone calls "Hi Mom, Hi Dad, how's it going? I wonder if you could help me with ...". Or, "Hi Mom, Hi Dad, I'll be over this afternoon to help you with...".
Now I am alone. He no longer sits in the chair next to me sharing coffee and listening patiently to all of my wonderings and surmisings.
The kids still call daily. I still help them and they help me.
Their lives are with their spouses.
That is the first purpose of marriage, in my estimation.

 

[rexlunae]

I wish I had said that first

anyone can live together without permission from the state

I really hope that's never been at stake in this discussion.

but
if you want to get married you have to meet certain requirements

It used to be that one of the requirements was being of the same race. That was thrown out by the Supreme Court. So, yes, with the caveat that the requirements must still meet the standards of legal review set by the courts.

and
get a blood test, all of which helps to protect the child

do you agree with that?

I'm pretty sure most or all states have dropped their blood test requirements. And even if it were required, the presumption that the marriage may lead to children does not establish that possibility as a requirement to be married, nor as the primary purpose of marriage.

 

[chrysostom]

I really hope that's never been at stake in this discussion.

do you ever wonder why the state does or does not do something?

I was hoping you would do that

 

[chrysostom]

That is the first purpose of marriage, in my estimation.

earlier you said that it was about std's

do you believe marriage protects the child?