LGBTQ+ Rights and America

Tom, I don't have statistics right in front of me but I am pretty sure that research has found no correlation between divorce rates and whether a marriage is "traditional" or "civil". The main correlation is between divorce rates and the social stigma against divorce. All you're doing then is forcing people to stay in unhappy, abusive relationships.

I also categorically dispute the notion that people get married primarily for the financial benefits. A slightly privileged tax position and the ability to get cheaper insurance coverage is not worth the hassle of putting up with a face I can't stand for the rest of my life.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

The point of tax benefits for marriage is to encourage particular family units, which for western society, is the nuclear family. Under the same concept, it is still useful for gay couples because they can adopt children.

So overall, marriage is still useful as a civil concept.

@Black Humor: The one that has been authorized to make that call, obviously.

Why should government endorse certain kinds of personal relationships? Government's got no business in people's personal lives/lifestyles.

edited 25th May '11 8:16:36 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

But it does have such business, as a matter of current law. While it has such interests, it should apply them in a nondiscriminatory manner.

Actually, the raising of children, the adjudication of property rights, taxation, medical consent, power of attorney, and inheritance are all civil matters with which the government has a compelling interest. How exactly would you plan to separate those from marriage without creating a new institution identical for all intents and purposes?

edited 25th May '11 8:21:07 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

About the medical issues and power of attorney, the patient's wishes should be all that mattered to make such a call.

"You know this guy? Friend'o'mine. Trust him more than my folks, let him handle it." should be a call that people were entitled to make (for medical decisions/visitation/etc).

The people who make calls about your life/death should be those you've authorized to do so, that simple.

As for tax breaks, hand them to partnerships. A traditional marriage, a straight couple living together or a gay couple living together, or a poly group, are not fundamentally different, and I don't think teh gubbermint has any business favoring some'o'them at the expense of the others.

edited 25th May '11 8:25:05 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

So what happens when the patient is unconscious and can't make that call, and doesn't have a will or such?

And I'd be interested to hear what you think on what to do with couples from different countries.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Then have a will. If you don't have a will, your family takes care of it.

Essentially, you're signing the authorization to deal with your medical affairs when you're incapacitated to your spouse when you marry. You might choose to bestow that responsibility on other person for other reasons.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Savage Heathen, can we talk about what is rather than what you think should be? Clearly we don't live in a libertarian society so it's unrealistic to talk about it in those terms, unless you have a practical plan to more or less completely overthrow the current governmental system. Fear the oncoming libertarian revolution! I think not.

Hmm, missed a few posts.

You've just done exactly what I said before: taken the word "marriage", changed it to "partnership", and applied the same set of benefits. And for the record, I have nothing against polygamies or other nontraditional unions, any more than I do against gay marriage. It's just that it's rather unrealistic to talk about it in today's political climate.

edited 25th May '11 8:28:47 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

You've gotta admit, having way less government oversight over private and personal matters would be much better than the current situation: Not only on marriage/gay marriage, but also on every single other personal issue.

Between the current situation and recognized gay marriage, I favor gay marriage. But I won't pretend that state-regulated marriage is a good idea. State-regulated personal stuff is always wrong unless proven otherwise.

edited 25th May '11 8:29:11 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Ideology is fantastic Savage, or maybe not, but all the things you so readily discount is law built up over centuries. You throw it out without considering what the point of any of it was over a libertarian or anarchist view that "Hey if the government is doing it, it must be bad". Why?

Power of attorney. When someone is ill, disabled or becomes mentally incapable of making decisions, what happens then? Only the parents? What if the guy specifically doesn't want his parents to make the decision? What if instead it is supposed to be the spouse? What if instead it is supposed to be the kids? Law determines what society thinks is the norm for this.

Medical rights. Insurance plans. The list goes on very long. You can't just throw it out without suitable replacements that end up being the same thing as marriage in the first place.

Except that most people don't have wills or similar legal documents until they're in their 40s at the youngest, plus it requires extra money to hire lawyers and such.

...or you could spend a few bucks on a marriage license and a ceremony with a justice by the peace and get all these legal benefits with your SO in one tidy package.

edited 25th May '11 8:30:05 AM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Why should law determine who gets to make that choices, instead of being each person's call?

It's their life, surely it must be their business.

I'm on my 20s and I've got a living will. If there's a serious chance that I might end up crippled or severly disabled, don't plug, don't reanimate, don't do a single thing. Just lemme die, dammit!

And I've specifically awarded the ability to make medical decisions to a friend of mine: I'm quite paranoid, my family might choose my survival even if I'm gonna come back crippled. Dude won't: If it's time to unplug, he won't hesitate to do so.

Odds are my family would be able to fight that decision in court and probably win, then have me plugged and jury-rigged back into not-quite-working condition against my will. Why, pray tell, should they be able to do that?

You shouldn't have to get married to be able to choose who makes medical decisions if you're incapacitated, or to decide who gets to see you at hospital and who doesn't.

edited 25th May '11 8:35:32 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Tradition, for one thing, as stated above. But also because history has demonstrated that, in the absence of explicit regulation, you get acres of conflicting laws, traditions, and customs that come into conflict when you start dealing with groups of more than 100 people. One of the purposes of government is to apply uniform standards to these things so people can get past the "shooting at those deviant bastards across the fence" stage and accomplish stuff together.

Your libertarian ideals are great for a frontier society where you're as liable to shoot at the human varmints across the lawn as talk to them, but in a world of seven billion people (or whatever the figure is now) crammed into cities like sardines, you have to establish common ground and that has to be done by a body with legal authority. A modern integrated society must have common rules in order to function.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Worst case scenario: They don't know what to do with you. They use default procedure.

Best case scenario: You've stated your intent and, since it's about your own affairs, it's binding.

I have no political problem with gay marriage: I've got a problem with people having to enter such an institution to stop their parents having any capacity to make important choices for them. It's not just gays who are denied freedom of choice over their own medical stuff: Single people are fucked, too, and gay marriage doesn't solve the issue.

edited 25th May '11 8:40:47 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

As soon as one person decides to Screw The Rules I Have A Gun, your ideal society falls apart. I have no interest in having to deal with my neighbors under the presumption that any dispute could turn into armed conflict. And this is now going completely off topic, so let's nudge it back.

Okay, lots of stuff being ninjaed:

You can set up a living will and power of attorney in the absence of being married, and that's a voluntary choice. However, the majority of people won't make that choice unless pressed, and it's reasonable to have some established legal defaults. Get married = spousal privilege. No muss or fuss required.

Nice in theory, but good luck getting people to vote that into law.

edited 25th May '11 8:41:47 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

"Apply the same benefits to another word" does disentangle the legal and religious institutions both termed "marriage", though.

Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?

Because it is simply encouraging it not mandating it?

At least that COULD be the arguement, but that rapidly shades into arguements about force and government, so lets not go there.

edited 25th May '11 8:42:20 AM by JosefBugman

@Fighteer: You can set up a living will... In principle. In practice, if you're unmarried, your family can challenge it in court and get to do as they want in a frightening amount of cases.

Hell, it even happens with spousal privilege! Remember all those euthanasia cases with family/spouse keeping the human vegetable plugged while they squabbled in court?

edited 25th May '11 8:45:10 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Mostly because of libertarian attitudes in the first place, where they suggest that anybody has as much power as anybody else, so it ends up being a huge litigation matter.

@Savage Heathen

You don't have to get married to grant legal connections of various kinds, it just makes it a hell of a lot easier and cheaper. There's many, many stories of all the expensive and lengthy legal hoops gay couples have to go through to try and gain the same legal benefits that a simple signing of a marriage certificate grants automatically, and there's still some benefits that are just impossible to gain via other methods.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Those are issues to be resolved in the current laws, not by throwing them out entirely. Anyway, how does it relate to gay marriage? Right now, gays are often denied the legal privileges you mention simply by virtue of the law not allowing them to get married. If you take away the civil institution of marriage, you still need to deal with these issues.

Ha, I love it. Actual sanity? Bet a bunch of fanatical groups splinter off from them.

edited 25th May '11 8:50:49 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

The Focus on the Family CEO is reading the writing on the wall.

Edit. Not that much sanity actually, heh. He goes on to say:

Here's the full interview.

edited 25th May '11 8:59:58 AM by Fish1

@OP: Depends onwhat you mean by "marriage".

If it's in the legal sense- an official document of the state verifying that two individuals re bound to each other- then I don't care. As long as they're consenting adults let them all marry and have equal rights; just don't get butt-hurt if it's called a civil union or something similar.

If it's marriage in the religious sense, then it needs to be left op to the churches. If religion X says marriage is between a man and a woman, so be it; if you don't like it, leave.

@Jeysie: I'm not in favor of bureaucratic hoops either. It's just that, on principle, people should be able to choose which responsibilities they assume towards other people.

I don't think the State should endorse some relationships at the expense of others. Still, as long as we're going to have State-sanctioned marriage, gays should be entitled to it. I don't oppose gay marriage: If the choices are gay marriage or no gay marriage, I'm fully in favor.

I just simply think that state-sanctioned marriage is not a good idea. After all, it's in the sphere of private matters: On principle, I think the government should have no oversight on those at all.

.

edited 25th May '11 9:11:45 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Well, the concept of marriage and law is the only thing that makes the will you write worth more than toilet paper in the first place. So no matter what you have government backing you. If you think it should be a "private matter", then it means you have default rules which are always superceded by a written will. That would be the law in your state. It's still the government backing it.