Gay Marriage

[Occhidiangela]

To occhi: I'm not sure I understood you (are you deliberately using these difficult words to lose all the non mother tongue english speakers on the lounge

Your comment means that I did a piss poor job of editing and crafting that post. Shame on me.

As to the priests, were the Catholic Church to reform and permit the clergy to marry . . . but the death of the force behind Vatican II put the kibosh on that. On that score and on a few others, such as the Popes infallibility, I cannot and will not join the Catholic Church, even though I adhere to my promise to the Monsiegnieur who married us that I would allow my Children to be raised in the Church . . . a situation that is a mess, to be sure, but works well enough. Some Sundays, I go to church, hear my daughter sing, and listen to a priest who I have reasonable reason to believe does not bugger the altar boys. He sometimes hits on a theme or a point that enlightens me just a bit. It's worth it. :)

*This post is ended, go in peace*

Take care of your self, mein freund.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

That's where all those tax laws, insurance laws, etc. come in.  The government still has to deal with marriage for this kind of stuff.

Why? Abolish that stuff. They can still factor in tax deductions for children without needing to know the exact configuration of the household. If a household has one, or two, or three bread winners, what need is there for the government to know that? I'm against income taxes anyway, but that's a different discussion. If the state is going to punish wage earners with taxes, then it should do so evenly and fairly for each worker. Treat them as individuals, and treat them all equally.

Employers offer benefits to a worker and that worker's family -- it is a contract between the worker and the employer. Sometimes that employer is the state, and so the state can determine what a "family" or what a "spouse" means for themselves. Insurance companies likewise will have a definition of what "family" and "spouse" are, and if they do not offer benefits to a particular groups needs, that group of consumers will choose an alternative. Where the state might have a role is to offer medical benefits, or insurance benefits to the disenfranchised. In my state, that is how medical insurance works. Everyone has medical insurance, because if you are denied coverage by normal insurance companies or are unemployed and cannot afford it, then the state offers full medical insurance for as low as $4 per person in the family.

When you say "traditional marriage" what does that mean?

Merriam-Webster says:

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

My personal view is that it is primarily a spiritual bond one makes to another individual. I object to the state needing to supply the license, or the church having to sanction it such that it can determine our state of grace. So traditionally, it is three things; 1] a spiritual bond, 2] a legal thing, and 3] a church sanctioned thing -- of which, in my opinion, the first is the only thing that matters. To me it is the spiritual contract that is important, and the commitment is between the individuals involved. Remove the state involvement, and allow the people to choose whether the religious part matters and marriage still remains as it always has been.

[eppie]

QUOTE&nbsp;
To occhi: I'm not sure I understood you (are you deliberately using these difficult words to lose all the non mother tongue english speakers on the lounge

Your comment means that I did a piss poor job of editing and crafting that post. Shame on me.

You didn't quote my smiley!

No serious I enjoy reading your (and others) posts. It is one of the few opportunities to read some quality (non scientific, non literature) written englisch.

You also take care, mijn vriend.
eppie

[--Pete]

Hi,

They can still factor in tax deductions for children . . .

Why? If people wish to have children and thus increase the burden on society and the environment, why should they be helped? Their choice, their desire, let them pay for it. Once they do have those kids, it is to society's benefit that those kids be educated, else we'll end up with a nation of ignorant jackasses that could make "reality TV" popular. Thus, since education is to society's benefit, society should at least help pay for it. But having the kids in the first place? I don't think 6 billion people are too *few*.

--Pete

[Griselda]

Occhi,

I found your post to be insulting and out of line. Were it any other poster, I would have deleted it. Instead, I am asking you to reconsider Lemming's post. He pointed to bias he felt he saw in your post, but it was your post that made it personal. I'm sorry that you're in a rotten mood, but I feel that your post was uncalled for.

[kandrathe]

Marriage already defines a rather broad spectrum of "unions," depending on who performs and recognizes the marriage. So here's the question that finally convinced me that "sperate but equal" is simply not enough: if civil unions and marriages are identical in every way except name, what good is a seperate name?

The problem is that all unions have been dumped into the "marriage" bucket, some of which were just civil unions or domestic partnerships. You have a large class of those in the "married" bucket that were tolerant of the non-religious unions due to religious freedom issues, but are less tolerant of gay marriage as it is an an abomination in their religion. Times have changed but the dogmatists have not.

If we're going to allow civil unions to homosexuals while denying them the term "marriage," then the reasons need to be carefully considered. If the reason for said denial is to appeas the religious groups in the states, then you said it nicely in the above quote: Let the devotees of a religion be married, and those who do not want the religious baggage have something else. If, on the other hand, homosexuals get civil unions while, say, atheist heterosexuals get to be married, then we have a problem. Then we're somehow arguing that a heterosexual atheist couple is religious, while a christian homosexual couple is not.

I think you caught the gist of what I was saying. If the state wants to continue to sanction unions for whatever purposes then all unions should be treated as civil unions, and non-religious unions would just lack the church ceremony. Let the religious devotees keep the word "marriage" -- and the non-religious people be content with "civil union" or "domestic partner". I wouldn't think anyone would have an objection to going down to the courthouse to file an application for a "license for civil union". Just remove the word "marriage" from it and the church people will have no objections.

Taking that just a tad further -- I'm curious if those who stand against homosexual marriages also believe all homosexual activity should be outlawed. In other words, is it only being actively married that causes these social harms? If so, how on earth is that possible? If not, I fail to see how it can be OK to allow gays to be gay, and yet not allow them to be married.

Well, I don't find homosexuality objectionable or disagree with gay marriage. If a church will allow them to marry, then they can be married. I just disagree with the state being able to co-opt the word "marriage" and redefine it to include a new class of people, that another group within that "married" class find objectionable. The objection is based on traditional religious grounds, and it means that the state became involved in something it should not have. So, my suggestion is a compromise to appease both sides. For instance, I would have the same problem with the word "citizen" being changed by law to include only those with military service, or a particular race, or affiliation.

Let's put "marriage" into a context in which you might be more sensitive. Say, we all started adopting American Indian ceremonies and claimed we were becoming one with the All Maker. Or, say, we teach our children Hebrew and then have Bar(Bat) Mitzvah ceremonies. The difference is that the state has not attached any legal status to being one with the All Maker, or being confirmed. These are just religious ceremonies reserved for the members of that belief. It would be an affront to American Indians, or to Jews to include into their custom non-believers. Anyway, that is where I'm coming from on the issue.

[kandrathe]

:) I agree with you. But, I understand why some liberals have a soft spot for progressive taxes and subsidizing the funding 6 to 8 munchkins per household. I don't agree with those liberals mind you, but I can see why they would have a soft spot. It is the same logic for lowering academic standards so that more people can feel successful, while learning less. The pessimist in me thinks we will be over run by Asia within the next 50 years anyway, so who gives a rats whisker what we do now? Population is power. There is nothing the US can do to hold off 500 million fathers of 2 billion hungry children when they decide to come farm the Midwest.

[Obi2Kenobi]

True, we don't need more people. However, we do need more people to adopt. Which is why (and I believe I said this somewhere in this thread) that there should be a larger tax break for adopting, and no tax break for just getting married.


/edit: That's people to adopt *kids*, not people who need to be adopted.

[kandrathe]

It is very hard to adopt. On average for normal children without special needs, it costs $10,000 to $30,000 and takes sometimes 2-3 years. There are subsidies available for adopting children with special needs, but one should really be prepared mentally and financially for that trip.

[Minionman]

Let the religious devotees keep the word "marriage" -- and the non-religious people be content with "civil union" or "domestic partner".

All this language arguing seems knid of pointless since whether they are called Civil unions, "marriages", etc. the description of them as "marriages" will probably work its way back into usage anyway, because all these terms are talking about a very similar idea.

[Minionman]

Right now with the tax laws marriage is still a government concern, since we're arguing about it right now. If those laws for marriages got cancelled out, than what you were saying would make sense.

So by "traditional" marriage you are talking abou the religious part? If it's the other two parts atheists still get a shot at it. If you did mean religious with traditional than that makes sense.

[Jester]

"But, I understand why some liberals have a soft spot for progressive taxes and subsidizing the funding 6 to 8 munchkins per household."

The liberal notion is not to reward parents for having lots of kids.

The liberal notion is to not punish kids for having stupid parents. They didn't pick the family with 8 kids, they were born into it. And if the parents deserve the crippling poverty they brought on themselves, the kids sure don't.

The difficult part is making sure that the state subsidy for the raising of children (not the benefit of parents) actually gets used to raise the kids, rather than simply being an incentive to have them.

Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

The difficult part is making sure that the state subsidy for the raising of children (not the benefit of parents) actually gets used to raise the kids, rather than simply being an incentive to have them.

Yeah. But since the "solution" is typically to give the money to the parents who didn't have enough sense to keep from having kids they couldn't afford in the first place, then the "solution" makes the problem worse. I have a few friends that are retired teachers. They all have stories of girls who figured that their future was made. Just have a few kids and the government will take care of them. After all, it worked for their mothers and grandmothers. And years ago, when I worked for the Census Bureau for a summer, I ran across a few such 'households' -- three or four generations of women, each with a passel of kids and none with any husbands (ever).

Yeah. Take care of the kids if the parents can't or won't. First, take them out of those homes where they have no future. Second, sterilize the parents (both of them, if the father can be found) using a reversible method. When the parent(s) show they are mentally and financially capable of taking care of the children, give them back (one time!). And if the parents want more children, then let them prove their financial ability by paying for their own sterilization reversal (think of it as a delayed fine).

But when I mention these concepts to my liberal friends, you'd think I was proposing genocide. When it is their policies implemented over the last 72 years that are causing the genocide -- the extermination of the self sufficient American.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Yes, I mean with the religion. Atheists can include that if they want a traditional religious wedding. :) I think if offered a "License for Civil Union" with all the legal status equated with "marriage" today, the atheist would choose the secular. No one ever asks to see my marriage license, and the only time it comes up for me is at tax time, or when I apply for benefits at work. I think we can figure out how to rework this so it's fair for everyone, and doesn't offend the religious people.

[Cybit]

How come every time I think I'm an uber liberal, I find myself agreeing with Pete? :D The only comment I don't agree with is liberal policies causing the extermination of the self sufficient American. What was liberalism 40 years ago is moderate ground now. How it has been, how it always will be, I think. But, yes, extreme liberalism has led to problems, just as extreme conservatism has led to problems.

I personally don't see the problem with gay marriage. Maybe because I'm not Christian (before someone asks, I'm Jain), but meh. I find it slightly ironic, since I bet the Christian lobbying groups pushed towards lots of tax breaks/laws giving married people more money and stuff, and now, that has come to bite them in the butt here, because gays want the same tax breaks and same benefits, so, they have every legal right to get married.

If you don't want gay marriages, then make it ONLY a function of the church. Take away all those benefits, and then you have something of an argument. Either way, it's writing discrimination into the Constitution, plain and simple. You know, people used to claim that the Bible said slavery was OK, and that the Bible could be interpreted in saying that blacks were below whites. I dont know where I got this from, but the quote applies here.

"Men never so cheerfully do evil then out of religious fervor"

For Occhi's point about a homosexual relationship's inability to procreate: Procreation has nothing to do with marriage. Procreation is all Darwin.

[Deadlyman]

Since we have cover pretty much the whole spectrum of the pros and cons of homosexual marriage, lets see what would be the logical solution that would be a win win situation for everyone, if possible. In other words, what should be the next step? Keep in mind, this is not really a political hotbed issue like abortion, health insurance, gun control, etc. Both Bush and Kerry are against the Federal government deciding the meaning of marriage. I know Bush is completely against homosexual marriage as a whole and Kerry wants it be a decision to be made on the state level.

So if left to the states and the citizens of the states (Example California has already done this) votes to define marriage as between a man and a woman, then should the issue be settled for that state? Or how exactly should this be decided? Who should have the authority to define marriage. I thought when issues are put to the vote of the people it is settled. If public opinion is against redefining the word marriage, then that is what needs to be worked on, not the government.

Sorry for another twist here. My mom teaches a critical thinking class online for the local CC here. I guess I have too much of her in me :D

[Munkay]

I think this is already decided. Pardon old information but,

About a month ago when Bush introduced a plan to congress, attempting to ban gay marriage on federal level, it was shot down by the senators. From what I read many senators didn't even bother showing up for the vote (this is some what common, but not generally for hot issues like gay marriage). Why? It's taking away a states right to chose. And a month ago in the Boston Globe the article said that 38 states have already passed bills banning gay marriage in their respective states.

It appears your 'what if' is already answered.

Twists are good, just try to research a bit before you throw them out. ;)

Cheers,

Munk

[Deadlyman]

Munk, I know that Bush tried the Constitutional ban. I think that was too extreme. I was thinking more on the state level. I agree the federal gov should not decide on this.

[Occhidiangela]

Consider it sorted.

[Guest]

I dont know about you but I see humanity as a synthesis of our genome and our society.

To try to divorce one from the other is absurd.