Canada has WMDs

[--Pete]

Hi,

From the POV of the State (or whatever government), marriage should just be viewed as a contract between two persons.

I did not say "two". I just said "the people involved". If a group wished to set up a polyandry, a polygyny, or even a group marriage then as long as all participants do so of their own free will, I see no reason why it should be banned. Indeed, a "line" marriage would be (at least in theory) a stabler means for raising children than the presently accepted norms which lead to so many "single" parents.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

There was a great deal of social experimenting with

Open marriages
Multi partner unions

Variations on communal living that approximate the options you delineate.

I suspect that there may still be some communities who hold to those models.

They do not seem to have caught on, rather, what seems to have evolved in the past generation is a pretty significant divide.

1. Those who approach the bond as 'a two person team' and choose not to add levels of complexity beyond the challenging dynamic of two personalities.

2. Those who don't bother with the bond, or who pay it lip service.

Then there are those who work to actively destroy the very concept of marriage, and who still wish to substitute a father with the State.

[kandrathe]

IMO, it is hard enough to maintain one solid committed relationship and do a good job at it. Of course, I've never tried anything else so I wouldn't really know. :D Just as a frame of reference, my wife and I have been together since 1983.

[--Pete]

Hi,

What I don't remember is laws getting changed. "They {Variations on communal living} do not seem to have caught on" may very well be because they are not only still not recognized, but actually illegal in many places. Making something illegal does seem to drive it underground.

Then there are those who work to actively destroy the very concept of marriage

Which concept of marriage? The traditional christian, Western European concept, as I've said in other posts, is dead. Has been since restricting procreation by means other than abstinence became a choice. Everything aside, the *central* purpose of marriage is the care of the children. With the large percentage of children without marriage and the large percentage of marriage without children, that concept covers nearly nothing.

The social and religious aspects of marriage can remain whatever tradition wishes them to be. Individuals can choose to accept those any way they want to. For the legal aspect, if the purpose of legal marriage is to provide for a *family* (and not just a couple), then make a *family* the requirement. Make laws favoring and benefits for marriage apply only to a family. In other words, children must be involved. So, a couple of opposite or same sex are not a marriage *in the eyes of the law* until either a female becomes pregnant or a child is adopted. They remain "married" for the purpose of tax and other benefits only as long as they have a "minor" child living at home. As for ownership of property and other long term effects that are not related to children, let them, if they wish, sign a contract.

However, to say that marriage is and must be what eleventh century christians adopted as a social norm is limited thinking. It neither accepts the concept that other people's solutions to the same problem may be equally valid nor does it accept the fact that many factors have changed extensively in the last *millennium*.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Everything aside, the *central* purpose of marriage is the care of the children. With the large percentage of children without marriage and the large percentage of marriage without children, that concept covers nearly nothing.

I'd put that 'central' purpose a bit differently. The central purpose is to define, within a given social setting, pairings who will procreate and ensure the longevity of the tribe/social group. (See the aristocratic group of Europe for a few centuries, as an example, which like other small tribes led to inbreeding and all of its wonderful side effects.) The need to define the pairings, which is driven by biology(man and woman) and by social norms, would be at least be to prevent conflict over who mates with whom in a given setting. That conflict is played out in high schools (even if only who dates whom) every day.

Varied cultures had varied ways of approaching that, to included both monogamy and polygamous models. The core purpose of clan continuation, or social group/family continuation, is the one common thread. Pass on the blood.

How that model applies to a non-breeding pair (woman-woman/man-man) is somewhat dubious, until we look into the well accepted social structure of fostering or adopting children born to someone else. Same gender pairs can live together, just as man-woman pairs can live together, without marriage and get along just fine.

But given your point that the baseline models are a bit outmoded, certainly in America at present, then what would be the point of codifying as marriage a pairing that is not derived from the very same customary roots? It strikes me as a contradiction, or an attempt to continue to confuse the evolution of marriage, which is a social custom that has been passed down with gender roles embedded. SInce the Lee Marvin Palimony case, which I referred to, I would argue that marriage is irrelevant as a model for either man-woman pairs, Man-Man pairs, or Woman Woman pairs. At least in California.

The most significant break in the wall of custom came, IMO, when same gender couples could legally adopt children. THAT is the stone, IMO, that starts the rockslide of eventual social change. The same-gender two parent family unit is already a reality in the US, though I am pretty sure that it varies by State.

The justification for change can be founded on that premise/precedent alone, IMO, with a lot of reasonable arguments pro, while the argument of 'the Canadians are doing it, we shoud to cater to their habits' has no merit.

Some of the pieces to the puzzle are already in place. I suspect that the change, like the 55 MPH limitation change, will eventually take place state by state. Part of the process will be the weeding out, by attrition, of folks who are unwilling to accept that change.

[pakman]

There was an article yesterday in the Chicago Tribune about Cook County (where I live) considering to recognize gay couples as domestic partners, thus giving them the rights of married couples, but not recognizing marital status...if only I could find that article, I'd provide a link.

And about that 55 mph rule in Illinois....I hate it. Fifty-five miles per hour is just too damn slow, why not think sensibly and have the limit set to where most people drive...around 70-75, like in Michigan where the speed limit is 70. :) I like driving in Michigan. But no, these rules are made by people in Washington D.C. where they take a bus to work instead of driving. :angry:

[Occhidiangela]

That is what this is all about, at present. :)

[Taem]

Everything aside, the *central* purpose of marriage is the care of the children. With the large percentage of children without marriage and the large percentage of marriage without children, that concept covers nearly nothing.

I think the both of you, Occhidiangela and Pete, are trying place marriage and relationships into a definable quandary with strict adhesions towards a specified order in which a relationship should be. You’re trying to define the purpose of marriage without knowing why people get married in the first place. However, as anyone in a relationship knows, “all bets are off”, meaning people are so different in their approach to relationships, that they almost never fully get along in every aspect. Marriages need nurturing and take time and work to make happen.

I married my wife out of what I'd like to call ‘Destiny’. I saw her for the first time in my life at a local restaurant. She was coming out the door of the restaurant and instantly I felt her presence so I turned my head and magnetically, we both locked eyes. Suddenly, we both embraced each other and started madly kissing. I have never done anything like that before (I'm a talk then kiss type of person) but I honestly felt we knew each other in a past life and were meant to be together. Years later after talking about it with my wife, she still feels the same way I did. I've never loved anybody as much as I love my wife. She is my companion and soul mate.

I have a good friend who married for companionship. He can have children, but his wife cannot. He married not to procreate (as Pete exclaims is the one and only true purpose behind the idea of marriage), but to enjoy a fulfilled lifetime with his spouse. Isn’t this what marriage is *really* all about? Companionship? I find it strange when an elderly spouse dies and the other will sometimes die within 1-3 years.

I know of a LOT of people who marry and then leave the area their family lives in so they can start a family away from their family. Perhaps these people feel that being around the parents that “controlled” their behavior as children will try and take over their relationship. Who know, but this seems to debunk the whole ‘cultural identity of marriages’ bit.

What I'm trying to say, and I think I basically already did, is that people don't marry FOR children, to procreate, to keep or increase cultural boundaries, or even because of religion. The central focus of a person’s mindset when marrying is one of love and a sincere interest in companionship (most of the time). Companionship and love; this is the purpose of marriage.

[EDIT] It just dawned on me of the numerous studies involving people and relationships and a humans basic need to be social. If a human does not have a social outlet, that person begins to withdraw, become depressed, and eventually die. It is not only an important need but also a vital necessity to have social interaction. What does this have to do with marriage? I’m not sure, however I do feel it could be the driving force behind marriages – the need to feel wanted by others.

[kandrathe]

I saw her for the first time in my life at a local restaurant. She was coming out the door of the restaurant and instantly I felt her presence so I turned my head and magnetically, we both locked eyes. Suddenly, we both embraced each other and started madly kissing.

Wow, that's a great visual! I met my wife at a party, she was playing Cannonball Blitz. But we both knew during and after that party we had some great chemistry. We started seeing each other every day for the next year.

[Occhidiangela]

The ones Pete and I were wrestling with. It had to do not with why you and your dearly beloved chose one another, but why that pairing is codified as a marriage.

We were addressing the marriage, the social convention that is codified by law in all 50 States, and in most of the world via a law, common law, or established social custom, and what its purpose as a social model is now. We were discussing its social root, as it were, and why it became what it is, and what it was, and what the rate of change in its baseline assumptions are or should be.

Why people get married is no more important than why two people go steady, or choose to live together as 'a couple' for 10 years without performing the social rite of 'matrimony.'

Except . . .

A critical element of a 'marriage' is that the personal decision is made before witnesses, and hence it takes on the character of a social contract. In most cases under the American model, the intention is to make the pairing permanent. (In some places, they still say "until death do us part.") We all know how the road to hell, and divorce, is paved with good intentions.

In some places, the arranged marriage is still very much a social norm: try some parts of India, and the dowry is still negotiated by families involved.

Why the discussion? Among other reasons, to explore the logic of a non-breeding pair adapting the social contract that is built for a breeding pair. Your wife and you may indeed have been destined to get married, my wife and I as well. Or, maybe my wife and I were bucking Destiny, and are fighting an uphill battle karmicly! :D

Who knows?

Maybe Nicholas Cage and L.M. Presley were destined to get married, and maybe they were fighting fate by trying to do so. (IIRC, it did not last. Ceste la Holywood Wedding. They need an express line out there at the marriage cafeteria!)

[channel1]

Just a note:
Although a same-sex marriage will not be recognized by federal law in the USofA, or any other FEDERAL jurisdiction in the world at this time, there are regional jurisdictions that do recognize them.

One such place happens to be Vermont, which has recognized same-sex marriages for years.

Also, whether the proposed change in legislation is actually passed in Canada: A recent poll showed public opinion pretty close either way. 54% approved of the change, and 44% disapproved. The rest were undecided, which I think is a very low percentage to be undecided. Cretian has given his party members the option to vote as they wish on this issue, so there will be no official party line set for the majority Liberals to follow. I haven't heard what the other parties are doing this way, but I would suspect that the Alliance party might set their party line against the legislation. None of the Alliance members are likely to vote for it, anyway. The PCs will be anybody's guess, and the NDP will probably be for it.

Where it stands at this point, I think it would be very possible that the bill will be rejected. With all of the Alliance against it, as well as most of the PCs and quite a few of the Liberals, it will be pretty tight.

The public opinion poll is interesting, since the response was so heavily influenced by the way the question was put. I believe that a lot of people would feel the way that I do. I really don't care if a same-sex couple gets married, but I don't "approve". So, I would answer "Yes" that the legislation should pass, not "No" if asked if I approve of same-sex marriage.

Finally, as far as the tax situation is concerned, it probably would NOT be neutral. In most large urban centers, both people in a couple work. Although they can opt to file their taxes separately, there are still some benefits and deductions that are not available for a couple that are available for singles. The tax benefits that come in for the survivor of a couple would not compensate for a lifetime of increased taxation and reduced benefits.

-rcv-

[Occhidiangela]

I am only familiar with the US model.

However, that issue will be raised should that law come to a vote.

Thanks for the correction, I thought the law had been passed in New Hampshire, Vermont it is. :)

[Jester]

"The justification for change can be founded on that premise/precedent alone, IMO, with a lot of reasonable arguments pro, while the argument of 'the Canadians are doing it, we shoud to cater to their habits' has no merit."

Nobody is saying any differently. The argument is not "The Canadians did it, thus the Americans should do it". The argument is "The Canadians did it for reasons that apply equally well on the American side of the border. Why not do it there as well?"

Jester

[Jester]

... why don't I check it when I come down with paranoid delusions? Or after a lobotomy? Or under the influence of opium? Or after I killed someone myself? There are thousands of conditions where I would be disabled from thinking clearly. My objectivity is scant enough as it is without any of those things.

Why on earth would I want to get rid of it? Is there some value to irrational rage that I maybe missed, that should inform my ideas of justice?

Jester

[wakim]

Perhaps I misunderstood the premise here. Is the question whether one country is under obligation to honor another country's laws outside of that country's defining borders? If this were the case, then there would be no need for national borders to define the limits of a country's jurisprudence; and hence the question is whether to allow national sovereignty. Is it being asked here if "love" can only exist if sanctioned by a governmental authority in the form of marriage? We are asking the government to be the sanctioning body of, and to define "love"? Is the question whether two (or more) people should be given tax benefits because they choose to associate with each other? Heck, I may love and live with my dog, should I be allowed to marry it so that the state can recognize that 1) love exists in this relationship, and 2) that I (we) can get tax benefits as co-habitants? Sadly this little ad absurdum fits all the criteria for a new definition of marriage - love, living together, being committed, companionship, etc. It only lacks state recognition - you're not a speciesists, are you? Does it diminish the status of marriage, in general, if I marry my dog or am formally committed to a lifetime of love and companionship with a gallon (3.79 liters) of Haagen Daz double chocolate-chip ice cream? (I just love ice cream, it can be a companion when I'm feeling low, a real life-saver.) If one is true and just, can they not love the vast majority of all others who are also true and just? Can I therefore enter into a group marriage with, say, an entire country? Or, is the question here whether marriage can be used as a straw man to attack religion in general, as a benighted superstitious ignorant relic, or simply to be iconoclastic?

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'd put that 'central' purpose a bit differently. The central purpose is to define, within a given social setting, pairings who will procreate and ensure the longevity of the tribe/social group.

I think this is pretty much the same thing I said but in different words. Either way, I think we agree that the purpose of marriage is to aid in the continuing existence of the group. There have been many studies done concerning what the purpose of procreation is (the selfish gene, unless you're a mollusk in which case it's the shellfish gene :) ). There have been all sorts of models as to the best strategy for both the male and female (and that strategy is very species dependent). The (supposedly) monogamous lifetime marriage custom of Western Europe is one solution for compromises between "optimal" strategies for individuals.

However, as you point out below, this is strictly besides the point of this discussion.

The point of this discussion as I see it is precisely this: since the legal aspect of marriage no longer fills the purpose for which it was designed but instead addresses many other aspects of life, what should the requirements of a legal marriage be and why.

How that model applies to a non-breeding pair (woman-woman/man-man) is somewhat dubious, until we look into the well accepted social structure of fostering or adopting children born to someone else. Same gender pairs can live together, just as man-woman pairs can live together, without marriage and get along just fine.

A few comments on this. First, based on the statistics for marriage and children, I would say that a lot of male-female pairs could be included in the "non-breeding" category. After all, whether a pair does not have children because they cannot or because they choose not is moot. The fact that is pertinent is that they do not have children, and so they do not meet the "traditional" requirements for the existence of marriage. Thus, if marriage is to be something other than a way to procreate and care for children, two things need to be determined:
1) Just what is the purpose of marriage given that it is not children?
2) How do we as a society make sure that children *are* cared for in a world where traditional marriage no longer fills that function and the extended family is mostly a thing of the past.

Yes, same gender pairs can live together without marriage. However, consider just health insurance. Many employers (and especially the various governments within the USA) supply health insurance to the spouse of an employee. Now, consider a heterosexual pair who either cannot or will not have children. That pair gets the health insurance because they are "married". But, indeed, they are simply companions with no more commitment than they wish to have (i.e., there would be no question of child support and even alimony (which is a travesty) would be questionable). Now, how is this couple any different from a homosexual couple? Indeed how is the heterosexual couple different from apartment mates of the same sex?

The problem there goes back to the fact that a partnership of any two people without the involvement of children is no more nor less than what those two want it to be. Whether those people cohabit or not, with or without a license, does not matter.

So, if the law requires a contract which goes by the name of "marriage certificate" for a couple to be granted certain benefits, but does not require procreation as a part of that contract, then why should not any couple, regardless of gender, be eligible for those benefits and thus for that certificate?

But given your point that the baseline models are a bit outmoded, certainly in America at present, then what would be the point of codifying as marriage a pairing that is not derived from the very same customary roots?

No point at all. Which is why I feel that the religious aspect of marriage stay the same. Which is why the social aspect of marriage should stay the same. It is the legal aspect of marriage that needs to be changed or dropped entirely. The legal aspect of marriage has *nothing* to do with children (they aren't even a requirement). It has nothing to do with companionship. It has everything to do with tax breaks, with inheritance, with benefits, with insurance, with entering the country as a permanent resident.

And it is exactly in that sense that whatever "marriage" means in the law, it does not mean what you point to with the phrase "customary roots". The fact is that the reality of the legal fact of marriage is not what it was in 1900. Thus, the laws governing it should be changed to reflect the reality of the present situation rather than the fiction that things have not changed. And laws do not change themselves. They are changed by the agitation of the governed or the desire for power of the governors.

Part of the process will be the weeding out, by attrition, of folks who are unwilling to accept that change.

Notice that no one is forcing those that will not accept the change to make any change themselves. It is simply a matter of being open minded enough to admit that a set of circumstances might be right for someone else even though they have no appeal (and possibly a distaste) for oneself.

--Pete

[Chaerophon]

I think that you are missing the point. Marriage is both a religious and a political/symbolic institution. Nobody is forcing the churches nor any religious institution to sanctify the marriage of homosexuals. In fact, there is a passage in the law which makes this very point. However, to exclude them from the political/symbolic right to marry is to declare them second-class citizens. You may hold this very opinion of them; however, it is no doubt on just such underlying assumptions that you do so. The fact remains, homosexuals aren't hurting anybody - the notion of the common nuclear family is well under siege already. The differences between polygamy and pedophilia versus homosexuality are obvious; the former two, by nature of their association, degrade or at least greatly raise the potential for degradation of a class of citizens. Whether moralists approve or not, homosexuality does not create such a relationship of subjectivity. If we are truly free and equal, then who is the government to declare it unlawful to sexually relate with whomever we please so long as the affair is consensual and the participants are adults? Subjectivity should not have anything to do with it. Sounds to me like what you are proposing is exactly the opposite of what you claim - in my opinion, by virtue of the mosaic that is the American cultural fabric (which I dare say doesn't show any more outward variety than does that in Canada), I would deem it a responsibility of the American government, under the ideals upon which the nation is based, that the homosexual lifestyle not be quashed by a tyrrany of the majority.

[Occhidiangela]

Small disagreement on just one point: entering assumptions.

Marriages of opposite gender can be assumed to be fruit bearing until proven otherwise, or bearable of fruit. The fact that some couples either can't, medically, or won't, due to personal choices and-or medical imperatives, or try and fail, does not translate find an equivalence in same sex unions: they, by definition and mechanical impossibility, cannot 'bear fruit.' (More on that later, since surrogates, in vitro, and other tools open new possibilities.)

Then why marry?

For man-woman pairs, why marry if you have not intention of having children? The social revolution of the 60's & 70's broke many norms, and the 'living together' model reached far greater acceptance. I myself never had any intention of marrying. When I married Tina, however, we both entered into the union with the explicit agreement and aim, well ahead of time, of raising a family. Had we both not had that idea, had we both not had that goal, I'd be single to this day. (And the poorer for it, in a life sense.)

You put your finger on where the issue at hand lies: the money. The social engineering aspects of marriage laws and tax laws and a host of other regulations are all based on the (possibly defunct) common cultural assumption that a marriage is indeed that of a breeding, or breedable, pair.

If that common cultural assumption is ever rejected or overturned, then other laws can be enacted to imbue the effects of 'supporting families that stay together' (and maybe even executing a divorce lawyer once per month just to keep them all honest) that will approximate some of the tax breaks now designed to ease the tax burdens on parents raising children. Or, children will become to an even greater extent wards of the State, in some Brave New World that I am not interested in living in.

Two ways out of the non-breedable pair issue from above, both of which run into custom, which influences law, particularly in a representative form of government. (Remember China? Against the LAW to have more than one child, unless on wants punishment. In Western Europe, small families have become a matter of choice, not law, so a customary assumption/behaviour was changed.)

One is the redefinition of 'family;' A family is defined once an offspring shows up. In the case of same sex couples, adoption triggers that status, or two lesbians choosing a man as a sperm donor (David Crosby anyone), as it would for man-woman couples who breed, adopt, or whatever. This would have the effect of changing underlying assumptions of man-woman couples in favor of same gender couples, in the case of those who had no children: for any reason at all. Would that create an incentive to breed?

Would that create a disincentive to marry? Hell, is there any incentive now? As it stands now, the disincentive is in the numbers. You have rougly a 50-50 chance of having your marriage break if you marry tomorrow. I don't see those as pro marriage numbers. Ya gotta roll the bones, take a risk. :)

If the above option were chosen, I believe we'd see more adoption, and a better process than the current red tape circus. Maybe a good thing would come about for a bad reason, or maybe fostering and adoption would turn into a national nightmare. Not sure.

The other way out would be to redefine marriage in new terms completely, more along what I guess your suggested theme to be. The problem with that is that you run into a critical mass who will reject such a profound change. It takes votes to make change work, or a Supreme Court decision.

I'd put my money on the Courts beating the legislators for a very simple reason:

IMO, most folks really don't see same sex unions as a marriage, but as a different version of 'man and woman living together/in sin/fill_in_the_blank.'

Or, back to semantics, the term marriage implies and connotes two of two different genders forming a union.

Perhaps our vocabulary at present in insufficient to deal with the issue.

[Occhidiangela]

The argument is "The Canadians did it for reasons that apply equally well on the American side of the border. Why not do it there as well?"

You assume a demographic and cultural 'sameness' and a homogenity of understanding that simply does not exist. Please consider the Latin demographic alone, with which I am passingly familiar here in South Texas. Common cultural assumptions? Not.

Now, do many well educated, college aged, single people see this issue as you do? Probably, and in fact, I'd suspect a great many do.

Guess what. There's more to the make up of a place than the 'elitists' (of whatever political persuasion), and as many Canadians are sure to point out, America is not Canada, and Canada is not America.

So, friend Jester, I will ask you again: just because you may want smoke dope, why would I choose to do so? Why is the 'reasoned' Canadian approach, should the vote turn that way, justification for a completely different population of people?

[Jester]

When I did most of my heavy thinking on this issue, I came down to exactly that distinction: there are "groups" without children, and there are "groups" with them. That, as far as the state should be concerned, is all.

As far as people who haven't/can't/won't have children go, I can't see any reason not to lump them all in the same category. And since the children (not the parents) are the relevant subjects in any law governing their wellbeing, I also don't really think it matters what the particular arrangement of parents is. Why should two people raising a child be treated different from one, or six? What matter is their gender? Since adoption, artificial insemination, etc... (cloning, at some point?) enable any group, of any size or composition, to participate in child rearing, why don't our laws reflect that?

The only answer I can ever come up with is the social conservative one; it's tradition. I don't think that holds up.

As far as benefits to childless couples of any composition goes, it only makes sense to me to either allow any semi-permanent cohabitation the same advantages (if we want to encourage it) or no advantages until there are children involved (if we don't).

Jester