Gay Marriage

[Occhidiangela]

I was not aware that they had in fact withdrawn. Neither, for that matter, did Iraq ever withdraw from its participation in the same treaty. The Non Proliferation Treaty is a broad reaching multilateral accord. The choice to withdraw from it would be a decision of some political gravity. Such action would not be undertaken lightly, as withdrawal would likely result in unfavorable political, informational, and economic consequences.

ABM was fundamentally a bilateral treaty. Major difference, and its intents, to defuse the arms race by ensuring MAD was possible, represents a bit of reverse psychology, or at least a counter intuitive security policy.
Occhi

EDIT Add:

From Wikpedia.

The parties to the treaty are: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, The Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, North Korea, South Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Federated States of Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

[LemmingofGlory]

Ashkael:
I believe that if homosexual marriage is made legal, the divorce rate of homosexual couples will be MUCH lower than the divorce rate of heterosexual couples. This is because homosexual couples only have each other to love since there are (usually) no children in the picture. It’s a more personal relationship.

This argument from conjecture is not particularly convincing, because someone can easily argue the exact opposite. In US culture, some people get married, remain married because of children, and (in some cases) become closer partners because of their mutual decision to raise children. In absense of children, one could argue it's easier to divorce because the relationship is the primary consideration, and thus divorce would be more frequent among childless couples than among couples with children.

So, I ask again, what problem do you have by letting me (and many others) live happier with our loved ones?

Beware loaded language. The counterargument would be that marriage will not make one happier in one's relationship, because marriage will not alter the quality of one's relationship. Thus, any couple can be just as happy in their relationship with legal entanglements as without.

Lastly, there’s that “if we allow homosexuals to marry, then we have to allow children to marry animals and etc.” Oh. My. God. Every single time I read or hear about a person using that argument, I just want to hand him a Darwin award.

Unfortunately, they do not qualify for a Darwin: The Darwin Awards honor those who improve our gene pool... by removing themselves from it. Of necessity, this honor is bestowed posthumously.

How can anybody be so utterly stupid as to come up with such an argument against homosexual marriages? Somebody already smoked that argument in this thread by saying that marriage is a contract by law, and thus only consenting adults should be allowed to marry. But do we really need to get that technical (if that can be called technical)? It’s called common sense, people!

Well, yes, since we're discussing a matter of law it does need to be technical; law does not necessarily depend on common sense. Moreover, what makes sense to one person may not make sense to another due to different axioms.

-Lemmy

[Moldran]

Juristically, you can resign from the NPT whenenever you want. Politically, it can be a bad thing to do, of course.
The only country that ever resigned was North Korea (in 2003). Iran is still a party to the treaty. They have even (after alot of internatioanl pressure) signed the additional protocol that largely extends the possibilities for IAEO inspections.

[Minionman]

QUOTE 
How can anybody be so utterly stupid as to come up with such an argument against homosexual marriages? Somebody already smoked that argument in this thread by saying that marriage is a contract by law, and thus only consenting adults should be allowed to marry. But do we really need to get that technical (if that can be called technical)? It’s called common sense, people!


Well, yes, since we're discussing a matter of law it does need to be technical; law does not necessarily depend on common sense. Moreover, what makes sense to one person may not make sense to another due to different axioms.

Askael does have a point though, that even if marriages with animals/kids/large amounts of people are allowed to get married, therte will be very few people who actually try to do it. Personally, I think that if a lot of people can make a several person marriage work, they can go for it. The amount of such marriages will still be kept low beacuse jealousy, people rubbing against each other while living together, the paperwork, etc. would push against marriages with a lot of people. As for marriages with animals, parts of common sense would say that eve nif they were legal, there would still be almost no such tries at marriages, and people who did try would run into paperwork problems that are the reason animals and kids aren't allowed to sign contracts.

Edit: how can I copy the quote boxes so they are inside each other.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . even if marriages with animals/kids/large amounts of people are allowed to get married . . .

Well, first, it is pretty clear that, once again, people are focusing too much on the sexual part of marriage.

Animals? Hell, I'll gladly marry my cats if that means they'll be covered under my health insurance. I've spent a lot more (out of pocket) for the well being of my animals (cats and dogs and fish) than I have for the 'people' in my family.

Polygamy, line marriages, rings, groups and mobs? Whatever works. As a "child of the '60s" I saw all of those variations in practice and some worked for some people and some didn't. But the "one size fits all" mentality is too authoritarian to appeal to me.

But children? Thank you, thank you, thank you. You've just given me the best argument yet against the "marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman" nonsense. The number of children that have been "married" to each other and to adults over the course of history is amazing. From ancient times to modern, arranged marriages for political or material gain have been exceedingly common, and often the "spouses" were young, even infants. And note that it wasn't just the arrangement that was made for young children. In many cases an actual 'marriage' took place (sometimes by proxy if the children were infants or separated by some distance). So, perhaps "between a male and a female" (I, at least, know of no arranged homosexual marriages) but that at least cracks the people who would interpret the word 'marriage' narrowly.

--Pete

[LemmingofGlory]

Pete:
Animals? Hell, I'll gladly marry my cats if that means they'll be covered under my health insurance.

This made me smile, so I mentioned it to a friend of mine. He replied, "Does that mean I could marry my cat to get covered by his health insurance plan? His doctors are better anyways."

-Lemmy

[Minionman]

Animals? Hell, I'll gladly marry my cats if that means they'll be covered under my health insurance. I've spent a lot more (out of pocket) for the well being of my animals (cats and dogs and fish) than I have for the 'people' in my family.

Marriages for money. Sounds fun. ;)

But the "one size fits all" mentality is too authoritarian to appeal to me.

True. The best way is probably a "one size fits most" or "A small range of sizes fit most" strategy, and the ones who are not "most" can try out other stuff.

Edit: fixed quote tags.

[Occhidiangela]

Thus, any couple can be just as happy in their relationship with legal entanglements as without

Exactly. So why marry? Again, personal POV here, but I grew up at a time where "in the privacy of your own home between consenting adults" took on considerable weight as an acceptable social norm. (Ostrich feathers, anyone?) I also had no intention of marriage through most of my 20's. Had a number of experiences of "cohabitation" or what was called in the 1970's "living together." Called in the 1950's living in sin.

So, why marry?

1. For the social sanction
2. For the money
3. For both
4. Because mom and dad did
5. Because the Church will throw me out if I don't, and I don't want to "Live in Sin"
6. Because it's romantic
7. Because that's what everyone does
8. To create a family
9. To have children who are not bastards

10. to ad nauseum . . . I'll stop t here, it could go on for pages.

As for point 2, which never seems far from the surface when one is addressing this issue, if the driving point is that homosexuals want to codify their pairing as marriage for the beneficial financial incentives, which are in statute, then that makes them . . . equivalent to gold diggers? Marrying for the money? Hmm, that's a bit of a reach. My point much earlier that many heterosexual and homosexual pairs live together without resorting to marriage, successfully, might be something that those who are boresighted through their soda straw on the benefits, think for a minute.

For the money. For the financial advantage.

That takes us back to the motivations of any number of systems, such as 1500's in Europe, where marriages were indeed all about a contract in the higher strata of society, and about advantageous marriages.

"For the children" is a reductionist viewpoint, as was the "for the money" I just threw up there.

The continuation of the community, the village, the clan, the nation, the family, one's own immortality, and any number of other social consideration all blend to form the varying conventions of marriage across many cultural boundaries.

What is the dowry? Do you use the ultra sound machine to detect and abort female fetuses, as has happened in India and CHina (if one believes the TV documentaries and magazine articles.) There's a fine modern tradition, made possible thanks to science that was aimed at the health of the prospective baby. :angry:

What land is to be offered, either by the bride's or groom's family? How is that established? What social contract, what law, what custom?

As to the "blown out of the water" bit, the "marriage is a contract."

That kind of shortsighted, evern reductionist thinking is why divorce courts are so full, and any number of divorce lawyers suck the life out of people for their living.

Marriage: it's more than a contract, when it is entered into freely by two people. If you are going to do a thing, don't do it half arsed.

For Pete: the arranged marriage bogey is noted, but does not strike me as germane. That marriage is an imperfect institution, even with conventional man-woman pairs, is not in dispute. That, however, is not the issue the homosexuals are trying to resolve, or so it appears to me.

The social sanction, the acceptance, is what is being sought. That is what makes the marriage discussion extend beyond the contract issue, which is necessary. To get the social sanction, the campaign to influence people's acceptance favorably requires effort. My earlier comments, before I bit at Lem, apply with no need to repeat them.

So, one group wants to embrace the good and dysfunctional elements of marriage as it stands today, with the prime value added being financial benefits already discussed. (Pete's link in his first reply to me.) Methinks not, thats partly the issue, and partly smokescreen.

I think what is really desired is acceptance and social sanction. With those two, a law change is not hard to enact. Or does it take a bludgeon to enact such a change? Took half a million dead to change, permanently, the dilema of slavery and continuation as one nation.

So, the information campaign will continue, or should continue, if successful change is to be achieved.

The debate should extend beyond the box of soda straws where ever possible. And I will sorta repeat:

Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, anyone? Billy Crystal's sympathetic homosexual character in the Prime Time sitcom SOAP in the 1970's? Will and Grace?

Shows not seen before 1975.

The film "In and Out." "That Kiss" between Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve in "Deathtrap."

Made money, even if they used stereotypes and charicatures of homosexual men.

The information campaign will continue, I think. Seems to be slowly working so far. The omelette just aint done yet.

Occhi

[channel1]

I haven't been following this thread, since this topic almost defines "beaten to death", but there was a news story today that you folks may find amusing:

http://toronto.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/Vie...divorce20040721
Toronto couple seeks same-sex divorce

Toronto — A Toronto lesbian couple that got married shortly after a court legalized same-sex marriage last summer are now fighting for the right to get divorced.

The couple, known only as M.M. and J.H., were married last June a week after the Ontario Court of Appeal legalized same-sex marriage. They separated five days later.

But a lawyer for one of the women said that the federal Divorce Act bars them from legally splitting since it still defines a spouse as someone of the opposite sex.

"Although we've had about 3,000 same-sex marriages in Canada since last June, same-sex couples can get married but literally can't get divorced at the moment," said Martha McCarthy.

"It's unconstitutional to give straight people the freedom to divorce, and not gays and lesbians."

McCarthy said the Act must be ammended, either by parliament or a judge under the Charter of Right and Freedoms.

-rcv-

[Occhidiangela]

Thanks for that, I am sure it will all get sorted out, but it once again shows that:

"The Law Is A Ass."

Cheers

Occhi

[Guest]

It isn't hurting anybody to let gay people marry. If it does bother somebody, then they have problems. Let them do what they want and I think everybody would be a lot happier.

[Griselda]

Are we still talking about that? I thought we had moved on.

[Munkay]

Whats that Griselda? I couldn't hear you over the sound of a dead horse being beaten to death. :P

I smell glue. . . That or a troll.

[Sir_Die_alot]

I don't think it is being beaten, at this point I think it's horseburger.

[Tal]

No Tomato

[--Pete]

Hi,

Seems the potatoes got in the way while we were pummeling the horse. All we have now is mashed.

--Pete