LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Certainly, just like any other political institution. It happens, and it happens more readily when there's shitloads of money involved — my own denomination is no exception. These days the Anglicans have made a lot of steps I greatly respect, but when discussing the soap operas of the 1700's you have to be able to look at things honestly and academically.

Card, I know what Starship said. Read my last paragraph.

DP, I already said gay marriage should be legal. And while I have my personal reservations about legalizing polyamory I am all about exploring different options. So your points on that is invalid.

I know I am not the only one with experience in law in this thread. I am not a student of it but I have had my share of experience with it. The state cannot regulate who can or cannot participate in something, basically what is or is not abuse or illegal without defining it. For you to enforce underaged or incapacitated people to not get married, you have to first define what marriage is. If marriage is without legal structure, you cannot do it. We can enforce not letting 14 year olds marry because we have a legal acknowledgement of what marriage is. If we remove marriage, as long as they are celibate we can't stop it by your definition. That is not something I am willing to sacrifice just because someone doesn't like it is an institution.

And no, divorce should not be just another breakup. How many in this thread know a bad relationship where it ended with one side completely fucking over the other? As someone who has and continues to live with legal frustrations from my son's biological father ibdont think you realize the implications of keeping divorce secular.

Do some people get screwed even in divorce proceedings? Yes. But not near as many as those who have just plain breakups. Without marriage and a legal divorce, people don't havea lot of chance of getting help in these cicircumstances. Again you can argue for civil proceedings but that would still nessicitate having legal definitions of what certain relationships were so that a fair decision can be made.

And marriage is completely optional. It does not mean everyone has to do it, but most people do because they want the security that marriage provides. They deserve that right. If you don't want to get married then don't. Do it on your own and hope for the best.

But marriage needs to stay a legal matter. You can have your own private ceremony or whatever you want. But the option of a legal marriage has to stay there for the protection of many couples, their assets, and their children.

I wouldnt even mind if part of mandatory entrence counselling was writing a prenup. That would be fine with me, as well as the other reforms i suggested.

But you have said nothing to make me feel that the good of getting rid of legal marriage would outweigh the massive negatives it would cause.

I know, I'm saying he already agreed with that.

Then don't make it underage marriage what's illegal. Instead, make a) underage sex illegal and b) controlling and abusive relationships illegal (which are already illegal even if the relationship is not marriage). I mean, not only do we already regulate relationships that are non-legally recognized, be these marriages or not, and we don't make people marrying and not registering with the government, and, thus, not getting the legal benefits of the marriage, illegal, so we aren't, exactly, defining marriage at all, but, instead, what marriages are "legitimate" or not.

It's not just that we can do it. It's that we actually do it already. It is just as illegal for someone to beat his/her girlfriend/boyfriend and his/her wife/husband. It is just as illegal to have sex with someone who is 11 who is not married to you as who is married to you. We enforce those laws already.

Even as it is now, someone can have a non-legally recognized marriage, eg one where a priest marries them, but they do not get any benefits from, without anything about it being illegal. As the law is now, as long as they are celibate, can we stop someone overage and underage from doing that? There's no law on the books that makes having a marriage like that illegal, nor should there be any. Even if there were, as the law is now, as long as they are celibate, can we stop someone overage and someone underage from dating? The answer to those is kind of. If the relationship is abusive and controlling, that would be illegal. If the underage person is not allowed to leave, that's kidnapping. There's laws on the books to deal with these sorts of non-legally recognized relationships that are abusive or controlling already.

By this logic, everyone should marry their SO because a divorce would screw them over less than a break up, despite it being a complex legal process that often requires hiring lawyers and going to court, unless you're going to divorce cleanly, in which case things are just like a break up anyway in that the people mutually agree how they will go their separate ways then go their separate ways.

And people who are willing and able to get married are given preferential treatment, no matter what circumstances led to them not being able to or not want to marry.

Having legal marriage be a thing prevents us from coming up with better ways to do those protections. By having marriage be how the courts determine who gets or gives child support, we are hobbled in having people who had non-marriage relationships give child support. By having marriage be how we determine who can visit others in hospitals, we are necessarily discriminating against people who aren't married when they want to see their loved ones in the hospital. I'm not saying we should get rid of those protections that legal marriage generally provides. I'm saying we need to come up with a way to have them apply more broadly, without people being forced to register their relationships with the government.

DP I don't think you realize that our abuse laws don't cover as much as you are assuming they do. Most if it us wrapped up in marriage laws.

I will never, ever agree to anything that makes underaged marriage regardless if both of the parties are underaged or not, in any way acceptable, legal or otherwise. Never.

And again, you keep going back to simple things like just expanding marriage.

My boyfriend and I are not married. We do not live together. But I have signed neat little papers so he can make any decision as if he is my husband on my behalf. Its not hard. You just have to care enough to get them. They were free too.

Marriage is like full coverage insurance. No one gets into one expecting to use it. Instead they just work together and enjoy their meager discounts on their other insurance and taxes. However if something does go wrong, its there is all its capacity to help both parties.

You don't have to get married. There are legal ways to achieve the same effect without the license. I am glad that we are working towards marriage equality. But its stupid to say it shouldn't be there. Make it equal sure. But make it go away and you are depriving an option and life choice from many people who willingly embrace it for no greater reason than your own personal quick.

If they don't, they bloody well should, regardless of whether or not we keep marriage as a legal construct!

Well, even with marriage as a legal construct, people are still, with no repercussions, able to have non-legally valid marriages that just don't give them the legal benefits of marriage. People can have marriages like that with underage people with just as much repercussion and just as much acceptability as if marriage was done away with as a legal construct. As a matter of fact, those marriages wouldn't change in the slightest and no person with even a modicum of sense who wants to do a marriage with an underage person would do it in the legally binding way rather than in the way I just described.

So, since one can get marriage-esque rights without getting married in the manner you just described, why not do that with all the protections that marriage provides, then eliminate marriage as a legal construct?

Perfect. The legal construct for providing legal protections like with marriage if marriage is no longer a legal construct already exists so we don't have to create it when we get rid of marriage as a legal construct. We can just, you know, use those instead of marriage to provide those protections.

But we aren't saying that people should be deprived of the option of marrying. We're just saying that, while people should be given the option to marry, it shouldn't be something that has anything to do with the state nor should it be required for any of the benefits now enjoyed by married people. People would still be able to go to church and have a priest marry them. People would still be able to buy each other wedding rings and have marriages. But, from a legal perspective, nothing would change. They would still have all the benefits from before marrying, which would be just the same as those which are currently enjoyed by married people. People would be able to file taxes together if they sign a form. People would be able to have people who hospitals would count as family, if they fill something out. The people wouldn't have to be married for those things to happen, either.

^that makes sense to me.

DP

You don't seem to get it. Never have I said people had to get married and I have been very clear in what reforms I would like to see with the institution. I notice you have completely over looked them all.

I have only said that marriage should stay in the legal sphere. Have all the ceremonies you want, but the license needs to stay an option for those who want it. And I am all for keeping the institution of marriage special with levels of perks and consequences.

We don't eliminate drivers licenses just because there are some who drive without one. There is no reason to ditch marriage just because some people abuse it.

Hell, I would be happy to have degrees of marriage. You want just a basic relationship, fine. But if you want a more traditional marriage with all the insurance, inheritance, and other obligations, you get a different level license. Much like the difference between a covenant marriage and a regular marriage.

Make certain levels require certain things like mandatory alimony to the stay at home parent or a mandatory prenup if you want a higher obligation license. Give people well constructed options to help them choose which if any is best for their needs.

But everything you are wanting can be achieved while maintaining marriage. So why throw out the baby with the bathwater?

...I never thought you had, nor have I said anything that indicates I thought you had. I don't know where you got the idea that I thought that from.

Because a) they don't get rid of the fundamental problems that my solution would fix and b) the problems they do fixed would be fixed by my system.

Which I have disagreed with because I think the benefits conferred should not be done through the institution of marriage, should not be restricted to married people, and, with many of them, shouldn't have to be restricted to people in a relationship (filing taxes together is an example of something I don't think should be restricted to people in a relationship).

Why? I mean, all the benefits it would provide would be provided under my system, but mine wouldn't have any favoritism towards any particular relationship type and would be easier to dissolve, without having to go through the complicated legal process or divorce or even going to court.

I'm not. I'm for it being treated equally under the law to other relationship forms. It's about equality, to me.

I don't want to ditch marriage because some people abuse it. I want to ditch marriage because I think it's a horrendously stupid way to organize things and to grant people the benefits it grants.

...Which is similar, but not the same as my system. In my system, the different benefits granted to marriage are separate and can be applied for by anyone. Any two people can fill out a form allowing them to file taxes together. Any two people can fill out a form that allows them to have insurance together. Any two people can fill out a form that says that they have a sexual relationship with the chance of babies so, if babies happens, child support would have to be paid.

But they don't need marriage to be achieved and I think they could be achieved better without it.

Because, to me, marriage is the bathwater, and the benefits provided are the baby, so I'm throwing out the bathwater and keeping the baby.

It would also allow for a much broader group of people to gain those benefits and for people to only gain the benefits they want. The forms don't need to be long, though. It could be writing down both your names, some relevant information (such as social security numbers for filing taxes together), and both people signing. That would take maybe a minute for a couple to do.

All in one form, then?

What would you call that institution, if not marriage?

edited 26th Apr '13 6:06:11 PM by Haldo

Non married partners can file taxes together. That's not an issue. Neither is anything else.

Look some people want to be married. And they deserve that choice.

Ask Polar or any other gay couple. I bet they have worked all the loopholes to have the partnership they want as much as possible. And some would be happy with that.

But for those who do want marriage I am willing to bet it is more than just legality. If that was the case they would just take their civil unions and be done with it

I would like to consider marriage for myself eventually.

Marriage is just another tool to help a family. And to deny people the right of marriage is just as selfish as any other denial of rights.

I believe DP wants gay marriage to be legal, but he doesn't want marriage to come with legal benefits.

He doesn't want marriage at all.

So... how about that homosexuality and religion?

Not necessarily. They would be on different forms, but the forms would each be extremely short and not require you to do much. This allows for increased flexibility.

Not marriage. Marriage implies a bunch of things that shouldn't be attached to those. For example, I'd want people who have no romantic or sexual relationship to be allowed to file their taxes together, even if they don't take the other rights currently attached to marriage, and they would definitely not be married and they shouldn't be consider to be married.

If the benefits marriage give are not the issue, then what's the problem with making it just a social thing and giving those benefits separately.

And those people won't be stopped from marrying. They just won't be granted any special rights not granted to non-married couples as a result of that marriage. I have never suggested otherwise. In fact, I have explicitly stated this several times.

But, the thing is, with civil unions, they'd become separate but equal, which history has taught us isn't equal in the slightest. In addition, it would be too easy to word things, even accidentally, to exclude civil unions and include marriages.

And you'll be able to get married. You'll just not gain any new rights when you do. Instead, you'll be able to have the rights traditionally associated with marriage at an earlier or later date. You'll be able to get each of them when you want them and only the ones you want.

How so?

No one's right to marry will be denied. All I want is a decoupling of marriage and the rights associated with it as well as the government to no longer take part in marriage.

Wrong. I don't want marriage as a legal construction that grants special benefits, but people would be able to marry if they want. Straight people will be able to marry. Gay people will be able to marry. Poly people will be able to marry as many times as they want. The government wouldn't stop anyone's marriage, nor would it grant any of those marriages any of the special rights that marriage currently bestow on people. Each of those rights will be able to be taken at your leisure whenever you want. They wouldn't need to come together, and could be taken separately or some not at all. Many wouldn't require any sort of romantic or sexual relationship to be taken (such as visitation rights, inheritance rights, sharing parenting, and filing taxes together). You would be able to take some with one person and others with other people. You'd be able to file taxes with your roommate and have your boyfriend as the legal parent for your child, even if they are separate people.

But then what's there to stop someone from marrying a minor?

As someone who has gotten married - and then divorced - I can see the merit in the State getting out of the marriage business. Relationships (and ending them) are hard enough work as it is; bringing the law into matters just makes everything harder. On one level, letting people decide their own love affairs without interference from the law makes a good deal of sense.

That being said...children do result when two people decide to start having sex, at least sometimes. They are people too, and deserve protection under the law - as well as a stable house in which to live. So, how do we provide for the needs of children without legislating who can and cannot cohabitate?

Also, I think we're venturing far afield from the topic.

Obviously we need to expand laws about abusive relationships to extend to non-marriage relationships, where they don't already, which is something we need to do even if we keep marriage as a legal construct, and relationships to minors would usually fall under that. Other than that, there's age of consent laws.

However, there's nothing currently stopping someone from performing a marriage ceremony and becoming married to a minor, without gaining the legal benefits, of course, as long as they remain celibate until the minor passes the age of consent. Anyone with any modicum of sense who wants to have a relationship with a minor would go that route, so they would be completely unaffected by this change.

In addition, there's nothing currently stopping someone from entering into a relationship with a minor, as long as they remain celibate, since laws about abusive relationships apparently don't extend to non-marriage relationships (which is horrible).

So, to answer your question, age of consent and an expansion of laws on abusive relationships to cover non-marriage relationships, but that's no less than what exists now for non-marriage relationships with minors and non-legally recognized marriages to minors, and, in fact, more than what currently exists now for those relationships.

I already covered that. Parenting would be something that can be filed for and there would be forms that would require child support money or help with parenting if children come of a sexual relationship. The second would be more protection than currently exists for kids from non-marriage relationships, be equal to that from marriage relationships, and require much less to start and end than marriages, but would require foresight, though, to be fair, so does marrying for potential kids, and the first allows for there to be parenting and stuff done without as much foresight.

edited 26th Apr '13 7:54:17 PM by deathpigeon

@ Deathpigeon,as much as you mean well, what you're proposing is actually very much against what is best for most children. I know you're all about anarchy and all about freedom and loose social bonds but there is a big reason why those options have not been successful:

It's not as emotionally and mentally satisfying or healthy to the general population. That's why marriage is important and needs to stay.

Honestly I would not want marriage if it was as you describe it. It would be useless and wouldn't be special. And yes, marriage is special because of how hard it is and the consequences of leaving it. It's a challenge that people can rise to and enjoy. Most of us homosexual couples want it because we want to prove to ourselves, our opponents, and the world that we can take marriage and make it as beautiful and fulfilling as any other couple.

I look forward to the day when I can marry my girlfriend. I want the license. I want the legal responsibility. I want the works. Yes, we have lived together for several years and are happy. Yes we are happily raising four children, well...as much as possible with her on the other side of the world. And I know I will die with that woman. But I want to die as her wife.

For many reasons, but particularly because of statements like this, I couldn't find the will to oppose gay marriage. If two people are that much in love, who am I to stop them?

edited 27th Apr '13 6:28:57 AM by Wildcard

A Christian?

And I want same sex marriage because I want to be as in love as Polar is some day. (And because it's unjust that it isn't legal.)

edited 27th Apr '13 10:15:47 AM by Haldo