Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-12-2013, 11:26 PM
Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
I know there are a few homosexuality related threads already rolling around but I didn't think this fit nicely in those. So lets start fresh shall we?

Over the holidays my family engaged in a lengthy discussion about homosexuality. I come from a very heavily conservative and religious area so you can imagine what their stance was.

I made an argument that I will post here and see what you folks think:

Marriage is a function of the church. It is first and foremost a religious act. That is how it started and that is how the current law is set up. All the government does is add a contract to said marriage that legally binds the two parties together and gives certain rights and incentives to the same.

My argument was not that gay marriage should be legal, but that the whole idea of marriage by government was a fallacy. Why do we need the government contract to be considered married? Why do we need to be married to receive a government contract?

In my opinion, completely separating the two is the best solution. You go to your minister to be married in the face of your deity. Then, if you want, go to your local court to enact a civil contract binding yourselves together legally.

Any combination of consenting adults should be able to attain one of these contracts. If you live together, run your finances together, or whatever else married couples do together, then you should be eligible to receive the same rights and benefits.

Scenario:
Two sisters are widowed. They move in together and begin raising a small child who comes from a broken home. They resemble a married couple in every way except sex. Should they not be able to receive the same benefits as a married couple simply because they do not have a sexual relationship?

A man and woman are in love. They go to their minister and say the vows and everything, but they do not want to be legally bound together. They prefer to keep things like finances and personal property separate. Are they not considered married simply because they choose not to legally bind themselves? And even then, are they not worthy of the benefits of marriage just because they keep some things separate? We have prenuptial agreements which do this right?

Two men are roommates. They were best friends from childhood and are now working their way through college. They live together, share the bills, maintain a home together and both have small children from failed relationships. They share the parenting of the children as well as the financial burdens that come with it. Should they not be able to have the same benefits as any other parents?

If it looks, sounds, and smells like a duck. Then it must be a duck. What one duck gets, another should surely be entitled to. That is my argument.

The government has no business in marriage. It has the power to create and enforce contracts. But a contract does not invoke marriage.

Again, marriage is a function of the church. Legal contracts are the domain of government. Lets keep the two separate.

"Your mind is twice a valuable as your body. And your ears are twice as valuable as your mouth. People will pay you based on which you use." - A very smart old lawyer
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like PatThePoltergeist's post
26-12-2013, 11:48 PM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
Ummm that is not how it started... O.o

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Losty's post
27-12-2013, 12:20 AM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
(26-12-2013 11:48 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Ummm that is not how it started... O.o

Regardless, that is how it is viewed today. The vast majority of anti-homosexual marriage arguments are based on a strong religious backing. Religion has influenced our ideas about what marriage is so much that it can be argued that marriage laws are based largely on religious ideals. That may not be how it started. But the argument still stands.

"Your mind is twice a valuable as your body. And your ears are twice as valuable as your mouth. People will pay you based on which you use." - A very smart old lawyer
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2013, 12:43 AM (This post was last modified: 27-12-2013 12:50 AM by WindyCityJazz.)
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
Marriage, until very recently, was a business transaction, and nothing more. This whole "Gays are infringing on this special, holy event that we do before God!" is a bunch of bullshit. For thousands of years, marriage went like this: A woman's father chose a man that he felt was best suited for taking care of his daughter. The father then paid the dowry, and the man was left with the responsibility of taking care of the woman. It didn't matter if the daughter liked the man, and it sure as hell didn't matter whether or not they loved each other. It had nothing to do with love. Once they were married they were stuck for good (this was to protect the woman by not allowing the man to trade her in for a newer and better model down the road). It was a business deal and nothing more. That's the way it was for millennia. The whole dating somebody and falling in love and choosing to spend the rest of your life with somebody is a very new way of doing things in the long history of marriage. The church is trying to con people into believing that it was never a business deal - that it was always a sacred act of love done before their god, and that gays are somehow destroying it. Don't fall for the bullshit.

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” - Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like WindyCityJazz's post
27-12-2013, 01:07 AM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
(27-12-2013 12:20 AM)PatThePoltergeist Wrote:  
(26-12-2013 11:48 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Ummm that is not how it started... O.o

Regardless, that is how it is viewed today. The vast majority of anti-homosexual marriage arguments are based on a strong religious backing. Religion has influenced our ideas about what marriage is so much that it can be argued that marriage laws are based largely on religious ideals. That may not be how it started. But the argument still stands.

I think the argument is shit. Laws (at least in the US) are not supposed to be based on religious ideas. It isn't something that we should accept, it's something that we should change. The constitution lists marriage as a fundamental right. It's the 3rd thing in CAMPER which describes our fundamental right to privacy. Whether or not we like marriage is irrelevant. If the government allows adults to married then any adult should be allowed to marry any other consenting adult.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Losty's post
27-12-2013, 01:09 AM (This post was last modified: 27-12-2013 08:25 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
Nah!

L&I's and WCJ's points are relevant.

The christian church (The Cafia) saw a buck in it and stole it (like they stole christmas).

It was originally a way of uniting two entities together for what later became legal reasons.

If you simply imagine both church and state like any other formation of an interest group (societies, trade unions, guilds, businesses, football clubs etc.) i.e. identifying in-groups for admin / management / governance / control / moralistic reasons (good or bad) then it becomes very obvious.

Marry within a state for state-specific legal benefits.
Marry within a church for whatever membership privileges that church offers.

The OP moved from 'is' to 'ought' so I will do likewise:

Let's look at this as a contract.

There are (in internationally defined 'best practices') 4 supplier category types...

Strategic (partnership)
Tactical
Operational
Commodity

The four types vary in terms of sharing of common goals, sharing sensitive information etc. and quantity i.e. it is usual to only have one strategic supplier (unless you form a consortium) but the commodity-relationship (consortium Laughat ) will be a one-to-many relationship.

To categorise your three scenarios:
Two sisters are widowed.......... Strategic.
A man and woman are in love... Tactical.
Two men are roommates.......... Strategic.

Here are another couple of scenarios:
I have flatmates who get to stay for free in exchange for services they provide... Operational.
I get a girl for one night... Commodity.

All these scenarios have contracts... legal/social, moral or verbal.

The contract is there for risk mitigation should the relationship go wrong. It's there for security / assurance.

I would argue that the state recognised contract is the most powerfully binding of all these.

If I feared a god, of course, I might say otherwise.

Smartass

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
27-12-2013, 01:18 AM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
(27-12-2013 12:43 AM)WindyCityJazz Wrote:  It was a business deal and nothing more.

Yes. You have to remember that in the ancient culture, women were essentially property. This is the reason for arranged marriages. It was all about social status and the rules of barter. If a father could arrange a marriage for his daughter with a son of a man with a higher social status than his own, than the value of his "property" increased, thus increasing his own net worth, as he retained a connection with his daughter through the marriage.

I watched a lecture a while back explaining it in much more detail, but I can't seem to find it now.

It was always about property and worth. The notion of it being a "spiritual union" between only one man and one woman is a relatively new concept born out of the church. You can get married without one iota of religiousness if you so choose. Legally, marriage is purely a contract with the state, and a secular one at that dealing with rights of the estate. The religious ceremony is by choice and has nothing to do with any legal ramifications.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2013, 06:43 AM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
It pisses right wing conservative nut jobs off, thus it should be legal.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like earmuffs's post
27-12-2013, 07:38 AM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
Regardless of how it started or what the religious overtones may be, the fact is that mariage conveys certain legal rights to people and denying those same rights to gay people is discrmination, period. Out of this debate I've seen people start to argue that the government should not be involved in marriage at all. Ok, fair enough, but the fact is that they are. And, for as long as they are they should not be picking and choosing who should be able to get married. The right and the privileges should be afforded to all citizens equally. That's what is at issue here. The rest of it is window dressing.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like BnW's post
27-12-2013, 09:23 AM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
Don't forget the context. It was in the early 20th century when the eugenics movement took hold and the Supreme Court ruled it was the proper role of government to determine who was allowed to participate in the gene pool to breed a superior race, and weed out 'undesirables', that many states passed marriage licensing laws, which stated that "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded" could not be issued a license to marry and breed, and whites could only marry other whites to preserve the Aryan blood lines. The US Eugenics Record Office then exported this to Europe and, well we know how that turned out.

When people defend the current system that those who want to live together as a family need to first go to the government and get a 'license' after proving they meet the criteria, just remind them the background of the system they're defending.

Religious conservatives have a convenient way of ignoring history. Now, when the White House calls it a "holiday tree", Fox says it's a "War on Christmas", ignoring the fact that the ideological founder of the Republican party, Abraham Lincoln, banned the White House from even having a tree or any other token of Christmas, and Federal law required people to work on Christmas lest the separation of church and state get blurred.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: