equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

you realize how insane this sounds, and how this is the most homophobic position you've yet

If there are no government incentives for marriage - why do I need the government to "sanction" my marriage?

[anitram]

Originally Posted by AEON

Do lawyers handle prenuptials? Divorce? Wills? I imagine with a divorce rate above 50 percent, you haven't lacked clients.

Well if you think that domestic contracts are more common than not, then you imagine wrong.

Obviously it depends on your jurisdiction, but generally speaking, divorce and family law legislation currently dictates the means of calculating net family property and splitting it up on a separation event. The vast majority of people do not have domestic contracts because they a) can't afford them, b) aren't legally savvy, c) don't think they need them.

When you take away marriage-related legislation, then what law will govern when a couple splits?

I don't have time right now to get into the nitty gritty, but as I said earlier, your proposal is totally unworkable, and really to me sounds like little more than cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

if that's your position, fine. i find it surprising that same-sex marriage led you to this conclusion.

It falls in line with my preference for small government and the protection of the church from the state.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

fortunately, most people don't agree with you.

That can be debated by the evidence of recent gay marriage defeats in very liberal states.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

you seem to have been backed into a corner defending an indefensible position...

To a certain degree you are actually correct. The more I researched and posted - the more I realized I was actually advocating the state should define marriage when I actually desire that the state be as little involved in people's lives as possible.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i think you should start by refusing your tax breaks and getting separate medical insurance.

The tax breaks are minimal, at best. We already have separate medical insurance...

[AEON]

Originally Posted by anitram

When you take away marriage-related legislation, then what law will govern when a couple splits?

What law currently governs when any non-married couple living together splits?

[anitram]

Originally Posted by AEON

What law currently governs when any non-married couple living together splits?

Again, depends on the jurisdiction because it depends on whether they are seen as common-law partners or not (defined differently based on where you live). Usually there is a family law statute that addresses CL couples, of course this is not extended to same-sex couples unless you live in a place where the legislation has been amended.

So you'd have to address that point either way.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

It falls in line with my preference for small government and the protection of the church from the state.

so now you've adopted the position that marriage is only for sexual satisfaction and society has no interest in helping people create families. as with most faux-libertarian positions, this will wind up hurting the poor who would benefit most from the advantages of marriage and often need to blend incomes in order to stay out of poverty.

but so long as the homos don't marry, then i guess this is worth it?

That can be debated by the evidence of recent gay marriage defeats in very liberal states.

you've really tripped yourself up here. none of these states have voted to eradicate any and all social recognition of marriage, the new position you're advocating today. all that's happened is that a vote was held on whether or not to allow gay people to marry (in states that already have strong anti-discrimination laws and civil union-type structures already i place.

i should point out that this is (at least) the second false dichotomy you've set up.

again, you're just adding fuel to the theory that you're ready to eradicate marriage just to keep the homos out.

The tax breaks are minimal, at best.

does $400k over the course of a lifetime sound minimal to you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/yo...y/03money.html

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

so now you've adopted the position that marriage is only for sexual satisfaction

My opinion on marriage, and the beauty and importance of it, has not changed. The state should have no jurisdiction over it.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

and society has no interest in helping people create families.

How has this been working out the last fifty-odd years? What the state helps is usually what it hurts.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

you've really tripped yourself up here. none of these states have voted to eradicate any and all social recognition of marriage, the new position you're advocating today.

I thought you were referring to my personal opinion on marriage, and whether or not it was popular. My apologies. I agree, the voters would not have supported removing the incentives for marriage.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

again, you're just adding fuel to the theory that you're ready to eradicate marriage just to keep the homos out.

Where have I called for the eradication of marriage? Religious organizations or any secular group wishing to perform marriages are free to do so.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

does $400k over the course of a lifetime sound minimal to you?

Man, then I need a new accountant...well, I guess it is better for society to have that $400k back and fix the bridges.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Pretty simple, and pretty good case for what marriage is supposed to be about...



In their first interview as a married couple since they tied the knot in August of last year at their home in Los Angeles, Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi talk about making their marriage official and the joy of wedded bliss on 'Oprah Winfrey.'

"The thing about being a gay couple is that in the past you referred to your wife and there were quotation marks around it, and there was always that chance that people would kind of snigger about it, but now it's fact. It's law," de Rossi said. "She's my wife. I get to say that she's my wife. That's just the way it is. It's fact."

Clearly, Ellen is enjoying married life and looks forward to a long union with de Rossi, who she dated from December 2004. "Anybody who's married knows that there is a difference. It feels like you're home. There's an anchor. There's a safety," she told Oprah. "I'm going to be with her until the day I die, and I know that."

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

My opinion on marriage, and the beauty and importance of it, has not changed. The state should have no jurisdiction over it.

How has this been working out the last fifty-odd years? What the state helps is usually what it hurts.

I thought you were referring to my personal opinion on marriage, and whether or not it was popular. My apologies. I agree, the voters would not have supported removing the incentives for marriage.

Where have I called for the eradication of marriage? Religious organizations or any secular group wishing to perform marriages are free to do so.


Man, then I need a new accountant...well, I guess it is better for society to have that $400k back and fix the bridges.

so i take it you've given up?

can you at least agree, that under the current law regarding civil marriage, there is no logical reason to bar gay couples from the institution.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

* Definition of forward is not subject to debate, dissent or vote

the definition of the word "faggot" has changed enormously over time.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

the definition of the word "faggot" has changed enormously over time.

Great point, Irvine. And eventually, if a word changes enough, it loses its original meaning. And if the word eventually compiles too many definitions, it actually becomes "meaning"-less.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

so i take it you've given up?

No, I am adopting the more libertarian view that states should not be authorized to decree marital status.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

can you at least agree, that under the current law regarding civil marriage, there is no logical reason to bar gay couples from the institution.

see above

[Irvine511]

why is a marriage between two women meaningless to you?

[phillyfan26]

So, because I'm leaving the Catholic Church, I'm not allowed to get married anymore?

You're trying to make marriage into an exclusive, religion-only activity. I mean, this is stiflingly stupid. I actually can't believe it.

[Vincent Vega]

No, as long as you marry a vag... a woman it's okay. Even I can do that and even though I don't believe it, and wouldn't do it in such a setting, the spirit would be with me.
But the spirit stays out when it's to pen... men or two vag... women getting married. And that's why that cannot happen.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

You're trying to make marriage into an exclusive, religion-only activity. I mean, this is stiflingly stupid. I actually can't believe it.

Before you identify something as as "siflingly stupid" you might want to consider re-reading the post.

Perhaps you missed this part...

Originally Posted by AEON

...or any secular group wishing to perform marriages are free to do so

[AEON]

Originally Posted by martha

Anything that challenges the hegemony of the ruling group is suspect.

Is this a univeral law? (something that always, or almost always, happens)

If it is, would the next "ruling group" be less defensive to the challenges of its hegemony? Or is it your hope the next "ruling group" would be so enlightened that it would freely surrender its hegemony once it achieves it?

[Irvine511]

i feel confident that we've successfully demonstrated that there's no logical reason to bar gay people from the institution of civil marriage. either we have to turn to universal laws given to us from a supernatural source thousands of years ago, or we have to abandon the thing altogether.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by AEON

Where have I called for the eradication of marriage? Religious organizations or any secular group wishing to perform marriages are free to do so.

So basically if your church decided it would marry two women you would be ok with that? Since now there is no governing body deciding if a marriage is legal or not, then you've pretty much opened it up to anyone...

[diamond]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Why won't you answer the question?

If people can get married and not have children, why is a vagina so important for marriage?

It's the model that God set.