News Stories

[DonQuigleone]

The only argument I give credence to against gay marriage is that marriage is meant to facilitate the raising of children. Ideologically, this is true, there is no other reason to have an institution of marriage except to create a stable legal environment for children to raised. There are two flaws:

1. Married people don't have to have children. So they are not necessarily tied.

2. There are circumstances where homosexuals can have children, be it through adoption, or other informal agreements (EG sperm donors, "baby/sperm swapping" between lesbians and gays)


To address 1, perhaps the benefits of marriage should be stripped away for couples who lack children. Also, there's good argument for anyone who cohabits with another person (regardless of their romantic interest in one another), to get some form of inheritance rights regarding their property, eg, their shared dwelling.

2 is a stickier ethical question. I don't think Homosexuals are necessarily bad parents, and I'd say they're better then a single parent household, but I think man/woman, all else equal, is still best, and I'd say a significant portion of the population would agree with that.

I think that marriage is a loaded term. Perhaps all state sanctioned "marriages" should be retermed "unions", with the title of marriage being reserved for a union sanctioned by an outside organisation (like a church). IE you can be married before a church, be in a union before the law, but not necessarily be in both (my grandpa is in a purely ceremonial marriage with his current wife, for instance). In this way, Gays can simply join a church, or other organisation, willing to call them married. Or they could just self declare themselves as married.

It would be up to individual churches as to what criteria they set on "marriages".

But another thing to consider is marriage itself, should two people who barely know each other, that get married one weekend in vegas get the same legal benefits as a couple who've been married for years? And what of people who have cohabited together for many years? Should they be granted none of the beneficial property rights that married couples get?


I think that ultimately marriage needs to be revamped. Remove all ceremonial and religious elements, leave them to other organisations, only leave the contract part in state hands, with an uncontraversial title. I think that would be a solution that would please everyone. The religious right only care about the religious element, while the gays only want the legal recognition.

And anyway, how much harm is it going to do anyway, if gays get married? If you don't like it, well, you'll probably never see it anyway.

[Vexx]

I think it was a mistake for the state to ever get involved in "marriage" (which dates back to the days of "religious states". Civil unions for all... let the religion of choice call it whatever they want.

[warita]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I think that ultimately marriage needs to be revamped. Remove all ceremonial and religious elements, leave them to other organisations, only leave the contract part in state hands, with an uncontraversial title.

If you do that, a very important part of what makes a marriage something people desire will fall away.
Its like you said, marriage is there to offer a stable legal and social environment for children. But if people are not commited and can get divorced anytime, how stable this environment is then?

This boils down to the feeling of commitment. For some this commitment comes from their religion, for some it is a matter of principle.

Strip it of all ceremonies and emotional values and what you get is a simple contract, that can be canceled anytime.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by warita

If you do that, a very important part of what makes a marriage something people desire will fall away.
Its like you said, marriage is there to offer a stable legal and social environment for children. But if people are not commited and can get divorced anytime, how stable this environment is then?

This boils down to the feeling of commitment. For some this commitment comes from their religion, for some it is a matter of principle.

Strip it of all ceremonies and emotional values and what you get is a simple contract, that can be canceled anytime.

Thing is, it's already like that already. As it is right now, over half of marriages end in divorce anyway.

That's not to say Unions are not a commitment, legally speaking they'd be the same as a marriage, with all the seperation difficulties that entail. It would not be something that could be "broken at any time", the complications that so often go with divorce would not dissapear.

For those who do want marriage, and the ceremony and commitment it represents, they would still be fully capable of doing so outside a state context. The "Idea" of being married is much more powerful then the legislation that enforces it.

Those of a religious bent will still have their marriage recognised by god (if not the state), and those who are not religious will probably not care what the exact symbolism or ceremony is used. Pledging themselves to each other in front of their assembled friends and family will be more then enough.

[monsta666]

If you want to get even less romantic and get to the crux of the matter a marriage is a legal contract between a man and women. For a long period of time by becoming one they became one legal entity in the eyes of the law thus separation became very difficult if not impossible. Whilst that has largely diminished the important point to take home is that getting a divorce costs significantly more financially than any other relationship. So in some way you are putting your mouth where your money is. In terms of vows and commitments.

This binding contract means that you are must be doubly sure that marriage is more longer lasting because the consequences of failure are that much higher. This was particularly true in the past where there was not just high financial barriers but there was the issue of social and personal stigma attached to divorce. Looking at marriage this way is not popular and we like to see the romantic, happy side of marriage but we need to recognise the underlying concept behind it.

Sure, lots of values have changed and diminished over time but the core concept of increased cost of separation still remains. And this in my opinion will always mean that marriage is more than just a simple piece of paper.

Now whether same-sex marriages should exist is another question. Marriage was originally conceived to be between man and woman so I would be inclined to reserve marriages for that group. However same-sex couples should be able to form unions that would bestow much of the same legal rights as a married couple in terms of tax breaks and inheritances etc.

[ganbaru]

Subs, silos, UAVs: Rumors cloud Israel's Iran clout
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8140BG20120205

[Ascaloth]

I think we're coming to the point where we'd be better served reviving the Gay Marriage thread?

[MrTerrorist]

Argentina to raise Falklands UK 'militarisation' at UN

[Ithekro]

The UK's response:

The UK Foreign Office later issued a statement that said: "The people of the Falkland Islands are British out of choice. They are free to determine their own future and there will be no negotiations with Argentina over sovereignty unless the islanders wish it."

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

Argentina to raise Falklands UK 'militarisation' at UN

so the real question is how much shit is Argentina in to wag the dog?

[Irenicus]

Just another day in California.

Now watch as it gets appealed, and SCOTUS fails again.

A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal.

The ruling was narrow and likely to be limited to California.

[...]

“Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,” the court said.

That guy in the article's photo has such a sexy hat.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Just another day in California.

Now watch as it gets appealed, and SCOTUS fails again.



That guy in the article's photo has such a sexy hat.

I think its going to be fascinating watching the SCOTUS wrap itself around a pole trying to sidestep this. I'm half convinced they'll refuse to hear it and let it sit.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Just another day in California.

Now watch as it gets appealed, and SCOTUS fails again.



That guy in the article's photo has such a sexy hat.

Just let it be termed as a "civil union" and make the term synonymous to "marriage" except that it is for the same gender. In this way, you keep the BL fangirls and the queer happy.

[Ithekro]

The primary argument I've read against that is the whole "seperate but equal" thing. It implies that one is lesser than the other (one way or another). One problem that gets brought up is that Civil Unions don't have all the legal rights of a marriage. Some of it might not be in the law, but based on company responces to the law...as (if I understand this correctly) a Civil Union does not make you related while a Marriage does. There are things you can't do if you are not considered related under the law. This seems to be one of the major issues presently.

It is possible that the right and privilages under Marriage and Civil Unions are the same, but not on everyone's policy books...or something like that.

[MrTerrorist]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Just let it be termed as a "civil union" and make the term synonymous to "marriage" except that it is for the same gender. In this way, you keep the BL fangirls and the queer happy.

Then what about lesbians?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

Then what about lesbians?

Then it is also called a civil union. And that will keep the yuri fanboys happy.

Just ban librarians from the ceremonies.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The primary argument I've read against that is the whole "seperate but equal" thing. It implies that one is lesser than the other (one way or another). One problem that gets brought up is that Civil Unions don't have all the legal rights of a marriage. Some of it might not be in the law, but based on company responces to the law...as (if I understand this correctly) a Civil Union does not make you related while a Marriage does. There are things you can't do if you are not considered related under the law. This seems to be one of the major issues presently.

It is possible that the right and privilages under Marriage and Civil Unions are the same, but not on everyone's policy books...or something like that.

That is to maybe "legalising" a civil union; the only problem I see is with buying insurance for joint and last-to-survive policies, as the insurer may not recognise the "insurable interest" in such a civil union.

Marriage as a term to this is a little funny, but I do respect queer rights though I find gay love interaction disgusting - they should be free to choose who they love and make it legal, as long as it is kept under "choose to disclose".

[Ithekro]

Most of it comes down to money. Who gets the house....who gets the kids...are you allowed to visit in the hospital....insurance....loans....taxes...social security. All sorts of things that are covered under "Marriage". But are all these things able to be covered outside of "marriage"? Is Civil Union enough? Does it require more steps to get things done? Is there a advantage or disadvantage to the idea of not being married but just living and loving together? That seems to be the questions asked when things aren't about religion. When it comes to religion....well things get pointed and sometimes fire and brimstone are invoked.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Most of it comes down to money. Who gets the house....who gets the kids...are you allowed to visit in the hospital....insurance....loans....taxes...social security. All sorts of things that are covered under "Marriage". But are all these things able to be covered outside of "marriage"? Is Civil Union enough? Does it require more steps to get things done? Is there a advantage or disadvantage to the idea of not being married but just living and loving together? That seems to be the questions asked when things aren't about religion. When it comes to religion....well things get pointed and sometimes fire and brimstone are invoked.

Tell those religious nuts to call louder for the fire and brimstone to fall from the sky, maybe their god is asleep.

I once read in Time Magazine that civil unions are getting popular in US instead of marriage as the couple see no need to get married - most of these CUs even have kids; most people in the religious groups are simply a bunch of sheep being led to believe absolute definitions of right and wrong and totally forget about what individual rights everyone has. It is something called the freedom of choice, natural consequences arising out of it are no doubt borne by the choice-makers themselves unless it directly affects someone else who hadn't made the choice themselves.

Hence my stand is that let "CU between the same gender" and marriage be simply just legal/political terms.

No idea what the real demographic is like now. Need sauce.

[DonQuigleone]

Let the gays have their unions, let the church's define such unions as a sin, if they like.

Plenty of other "sinful" behaviour is legal. In fact, sin is much more between the individual and god, than between the individual and the state.

In principle, if that person's sin does not affect anyone but himself, the state should allow him to doom himself to an eternity in hell, that individual has already recieved the warnings.

So long as the state doesn't endorse the unions, I don't see what the problem is. You can allow people to do stuff while still saying that doing so will doom you to an eternity in hell.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Let the gays have their unions, let the church's define such unions as a sin, if they like.

Plenty of other "sinful" behaviour is legal. In fact, sin is much more between the individual and god, than between the individual and the state.

In principle, if that person's sin does not affect anyone but himself, the state should allow him to doom himself to an eternity in hell, that individual has already recieved the warnings.

So long as the state doesn't endorse the unions, I don't see what the problem is. You can allow people to do stuff while still saying that doing so will doom you to an eternity in hell.

Well, the definition of "sin" is defined in their own perspective and words. Note that if money is the root of all evil, why are they asking for it at the church?