Same-sex Marriage, thoughts?

A good point. Seriously, this one would be more than ok to leave "marriage" out of civic law entirely and just go with something like designating someone as one's life parter. That is, someone another person trusts with their life, limb and finances (the thickest point, heh) and so grants all privileges and responsibilities associated with marriage. While marriage as religious institutions recognise it has validity only for said institutions, and gets one zero benefit from state.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Here in New Zealand, Civil Unions are permitted for same-sex couples and I fully support that.

I don't buy into the whole fucking about with semantics wherein a "Civil Union" is supposed to be different from a "marriage" - that was merely how it was pitched to shut the ignorant bigots up. In all real senses - legal obligations and protections for those involved and official "recognition" of the relationship.

OK, the slightly earlier amendments to our "Matrimonial Property Act" gave the same protections/responsibilities to de facto couples that were afforded to legally married couples and the wording was such that same-sex de facto couples were equally covered, but the Civil Union Act gave same sex couples the same right to apply for a licence and have a formal, officially recognised, civil ceremony.

Personally, I don't think it goes far enough - multiple marriages (with appropriate checks and balances to ensure all involved are consenting and informed) should also be permitted. And not just the limited "one man with multiple wives" form of polygamy as described in the bible.

Two gays can "marry", so why should a bi not be able to have two partners (if (s)he so desires)? Or three gays or three straights or any combination of any number of people?

I'm going to quote Kinky Freedman on this one:

"I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us."

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."

There is nothing ethically wrong with multiple marriage, but it would be way too easy to game such system as a means of getting a financial benefit. Such as all people working in the same company getting "married"=)

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

But the thing is, it's not. It might be in some cases, but in many countries, civil unions have a inferior status. In Finland, same sex ocuples can't adopt. Hell, internal adoption (new partner becoming the legal guardian of the other's child) only became legal in 2009.

In many cases, hospital visitation rights,inheritance etc. are not equal, and having heterosexual and homosexual marriages as seperate entities makes this possible. It's like saying women shouldn't get to vote, but get a "civil participation poll" where the votes are worth 70% of a man's vote.

the statement above is false

@Beholderess: it's Off Topic so I'll be brief: I dare say there would be checks and balances to prevent that sort of fraud.

Back to the topic at hand. I have to agree that there should be no compulsion for various religions to acknowledge or perform same-sex marriages - the marriages would be purely secular unless a given church freely chooses to acknowledge them (and some would).

The churches have their right to their beliefs - no matter how much I or others may disagree with those beliefs.

But same-sex couples also have the rights to the legal protections and responsibilities (or misery) as different-sex couples.

@Jethro: I don't know about other places, but here (AFAIK) Civil Union affords all the same rights as any marriage (church, civil celebrant or Registry Office) - the name is merely a bit of semantics and the only difference I can see is that a "Marriage Licence" is only for different-sex couples and "Civil Unions" are for any couples, no matter what the sexes.

but I may poke fun but I can't think of any good reason not to recognise same-sex marriages. I hate to use the cliche but there is a clear and unjustifiable 'Double Standard' if you're allowing two consenting mentally competent adults enter into a legally binding contract but not the another pair.

edited 16th Jun '11 3:54:00 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Exactly. There is a double standard. Even those who think that the main purpose of marriage is having children (this one does not think so, but might agree with an argument that it's having child that puts the most strain to the couple and so that's why the legal benefits of marriage are needed. It's not like state is obliged to help any two people who like each other and want to live together.), but if it is so, then why is an infertile heterosexual couple allowed to marry?

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

This would imply that couples which are sterile for whatever reason (medical conditions or old age) should not marry. Which, by the way, is also my standard answer to "gay marriage is wrong because gay people cannot have children" objection.

EDIT: Ok, you said exactly the same at the end of your post. I really should read better before I post.

edited 16th Jun '11 1:00:35 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

There's a lot more to the rights and responsibilities afforded by marriage/civil union than provision for kids - "next of kin" status, hospital visitation, role of default executor if required and so much more. And then there's the whole "what happens if they break up" thing.

True. And again, that's why I think that same-sex people should be allowed to marry. These rights should be given to the person one trusts and loves, not to some default family member.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

@Beholderess What if they no longer trust their spouse?

I personally don't understand why all these benefits are tied to marriage anyway; how are single people supposed to access these rights?

There's no justice in the world and there never was~

These are rights that are usually not usable by a single person: You can't inherit from yourself, or visit yourself at the hospital.

edited 16th Jun '11 6:47:50 AM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

That's why divorce is necessary. It's not like it doesn't happen with heterosexual couples.

As for the single people, as the poster above said - most of it is simply not useable by single person. Can't inherent to oneself, can't add oneself to one's health plan (would be rather redundant), or visit oneself in hospital and so on...In a way, single persons already posses all these rights, all that marriage does is let them share and combine in with other.

edited 16th Jun '11 7:23:57 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Also, if you don't trust your spouse, but still want to remain married, you can give the Power of Attorney to somebody else, and state your wishes in it.

If you don't do that, then, yes, the law will assume otherwise, but that's the whole point of marriage, getting a lot of assumptions.

edited 16th Jun '11 10:58:52 AM by blueharp

I am of the camp that the government should not recognize heterosexual marriage.

though in all honesty why you'd marry someone you don't trust escapes me.

"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"

Several reasons, ranging from "For the children" to "hey, we're drunk and in Vegas, woo-hoo!" but I was talking about no longer trusting, which does happen in marriages. Including sometimes where a person loses mental capacity.

Which usually means their rights are lost, but it'd be better to have paperwork.

I think it's something that happens with Catholics, they can't get divorced, but they'll be damned if that (son of a)bitch get's a cent when they kick the bucket!

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

You could have trusted them once but no longer. People make mistakes, and people change.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

"though in all honesty why you'd marry someone you don't trust escapes me."

1. Arranged marriage

2. Convenience marriage

3. For the kids

4. You might have once, and you changed/grew apart.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Ah, I can maybe see staying in a marriage, and I hadn't intended to include Arranged marriages but through poor wording I did. I apologize.

It just seems like poor planning to go into it knowing you don't trust them, but *ahem* this is off topic.

"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"

Previous page, there has been an identified gene which causes homosexuality. But only in males. In females, it causes higher fertility rates, if I'm not mistaken.

Anyway, I'm very much of the "consenting adults entering into a contract with each other" variety, and this includes polygamous/polyamorus marriages as well. Denying marriage to gays also runs afoul of the Establishment Clause, at least here in america.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

I don't think It's a CAUSE so much as an indicator of possibility.

"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"