10-13-2005, 04:27 PM | #661 | |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
For example, in California, when my husband-to-be and I filled out the wedding license application, he filled out the section under some MALE description (I forget exactly what) and I filled out the section under "spinster" which is an unmarried FEMALE. When the illegal gay marriages were taking place in San Francisco, they had to ALTER the official form (which is illegal to do), because while one guy could fill out the male section, the other guy couldn't qualify as a spinster; and an unmarried lady could fill out the spinster section, but the other lady couldn't qualify to fill out the male section. It was illegal to alter the form, but they did it anyway, and so people decided that a specific law needed to be passed. I don't quite see your point - until recently, there was no law against me marrying my son, either, but it was illegal in the same way that 2 guys or 2 women marrying was illegal.
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! Last edited by Rían : 10-13-2005 at 04:29 PM. |
|
10-13-2005, 04:36 PM | #662 | |||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
Quote:
Of course the way you have sex matters Quote:
I'll have to post more later - we have houseguests coming, and I have to get going!
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
|||
10-13-2005, 04:42 PM | #663 | ||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Perhaps the male side of the marriage form said "bachelor"?
I hate the word "spinster". The reason I hate this word, and its use in modern language, is because it originally existed to denote an unmarried woman, and because she was unmarried, she somehow failed at life, and would grow old alone and be a burden on her family. The male equivelant, "bachelor" simply meant a man who had not yet wed. Edited to add: There was no equivelant for a young woman who had not yet wed IIRC. Older women were expected to be married, and if they weren't, they were spinsters. Of course, none of that is all that relevant in today's society IMO. These words are from an era when defining people by their marital status actually made sense. I don't know about you guys, but I don't really give two craps whether someone is married or not. I fail to see why this is enshrined in law (in at least one state). (Then again, because of all the people's action stuff or whatever it's called California has some bizarre laws. But that's another thread. ) R*an, I didn't know you lived (or at least, were married in) California. Coolies. Now... back to the topic at hand... well, I don't know about American marriage laws I must admit. Does the Bill of Rights have anything to say about marriage? For Canada, the Charter doesn't say anything about marriage, but it does say a lot about equality. Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, discrimination because of gender or sexuality is not okay. This is largely why marriage laws, which are provincial/terrirorial, are being changed. (Some provinces are faster than others.) It's important to note that while marriage laws are up to the provinces and territories, the Charter ensures that no law that discriminates or violates people's rights can exist. This is why marriage laws are now being changed - they violate the Charter. (I could go on and on about how much I love the Charter. I love the Charter.) Most people who don't support gay marriage still don't want people to screw with the Charter. *cough* Stephen Harper *cough* And screwing with the Charter is the only way you could actually make gay marriage illegal again. Well, that's Canadian marriage in a nutshell. What's American marriage in a nutshell? I believe these laws are also formed by the states. edited for spelling and clarity
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Nurvingiel : 10-13-2005 at 05:01 PM. |
||
10-13-2005, 04:57 PM | #664 | |||||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Cross-posted with you there R*.
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe this point doesn't apply to the gay marriage issue as much as I thought though, since that issue is "with whom". We can move on from this one. I think my original post missed the point on this matter. Quote:
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
10-13-2005, 05:00 PM | #665 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
"marriage" has existed outside both the church and the state for much longer than it has existed within them if civil unions are okay, it is also okay to call them "marriage"... neither religion nor gvernment own that terminology incest is not considered okay in any form, so is irrelavant to the conversation... unless you want to argue that civil unions involving incest are okay as long as they do not use the term "marriage" the point is that the act of incest is illegal... homosexual acts are not bigomy is more of a gray area... it is not illegal for a man to live with three women, or three men to live with one woman... so, in theory, they should be allowed to marry... and in fact are allowed in some parts of the world... my guess is that even in the US it is probably not illegal to "marry" multiple spouses in a purely ceremonial sense... but it is illegal in the civil sense
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
10-13-2005, 09:26 PM | #666 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Quote:
When the populace has voted, I believe you said that established morality. So the issue is resolved in Missouri, is it not?
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |
|
10-13-2005, 10:55 PM | #667 | |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 421
|
Quote:
|
|
10-14-2005, 12:35 AM | #668 | |||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Quote:
(Not that I think law always equals morality.)
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
10-14-2005, 08:47 AM | #669 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
it would be like telling non-christian heterosexuals that they could no longer call their union a "marriage", it had to be a "civil union" i can not think of any other example in US law where a practice is okay, but a terminology is outlawed to some, but not all... i'd be interested to hear some other examples if you have some
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
10-14-2005, 02:59 PM | #670 |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
but, like you said (and I agree), marriage is not all about sex.
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
10-14-2005, 03:13 PM | #671 | |||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Quote:
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
10-14-2005, 03:24 PM | #672 |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
... and groups cannot get married because ...
(it comes down to what we each think is right)
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
10-14-2005, 03:40 PM | #673 | ||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
To put it another way, I was looking for a connection between the two statements:
1. marriage is not all about sex 2. (the apparent conclusion) gay people cannot get married. I just don't see where 1 leads to 2; that was my original question. To address why groups can't get married, in Canada anyway, is because there hasn't been a lobby to change the marriage laws with this respect. I don't think there actually are a lot of groups of people who do want to get married, therefore they haven't started petitioning the government or anything. I do have two issues with group marriage: 1. the possibility of abuse. A lot of abusive cults (I'm sure there are plenty of perfectly nice cults operating right now, they just never make the news) already have group marriages, in which some of the participants are isolated, abused, or forced into the marriage. 2. This might be done simply for tax purposes. This outlines why I don't think there should be tax breaks for married couples. Common law marriage is an even more stupid law, that needs to be scrapped. But I digress. I don't think that polyandrous or polygamous marriages would occur for reason 2, but I think group marriages might. However, it's really reason #1 that makes me leery about group marriages.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||
10-14-2005, 08:40 PM | #674 |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 421
|
Some people want to have it both ways, and I am talking of some of the straight ones.
One one hand, they say that we should not just have same-sex marriage but a new way of regulating all affection=based relationships, including old ladies living together... On the other hand they say that they can't possibly accept same-sex marriage because it leads to polygamy. I just think that these people are getting desperate and in their discriminatory intent they disregard logical coherence. Anyway, I don't see why people want to talk about polygamy when we talk about same-sex marriage. Otherwise, there is only one safe way to avoid the slipper slope, and that is to abolish marriage all together. Personally I am favourable to reviewing the whole family-marriage-interpresonal law, but I don't think that it is a good idea to put on hold same-sex marriage until the whole rethinking can be done. |
10-17-2005, 01:55 PM | #675 | |
Quasi Evil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Maryland, US
Posts: 4,634
|
Quote:
__________________
"People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." |
|
10-17-2005, 02:27 PM | #676 |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
ideally, i would like to see "marriage" removed entirely from the civil realm... as nurv has said, tax breaks should not exist... you can associate them with income or dependents... but whether or not two people under the same roof are also "married" should make zero difference in terms of taxation
and as far as the other legal issue go (death, inheritance, parental rights), they can and are already taken care of by our legal system whether two people are married or not so give marriage back to the people and back to religions 100%... and let them do whatever they want with it... even if it be "group marriages"... people can live together as this kind of group as it is, they can just not be married to one another under civil law
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
10-17-2005, 06:09 PM | #677 | |||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Quote:
The possibility of abuse exists everywhere. I could walk up to some random person and punch him/her in the face; that would be abuse too. I think we should look at different scenarios where there would be a higher chance of abuse and avoid them/stamp them out. Instances where abuse does exist should, of course, also be stamped out. I'm completely for allocating a lot of resources to that end. I could go on, but I think group marriages aren't that much of an issue. I don't think a lot of people want to have this form of marriage. If this ever changes though, I'm sure there will be a lengthly Entmoot thread about it.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Nurvingiel : 10-17-2005 at 06:09 PM. Reason: clarity |
|||
10-17-2005, 08:31 PM | #678 | |
Quasi Evil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Maryland, US
Posts: 4,634
|
Quote:
Ive actually seen you make good arguments against that kind of flawed thinking when we are talking about gay marriages yet you apply the very same thinking to group marriages? If marriages between Italians results in 8% more abuses then marriages between Canadians does that mean we should ban all Italians from marrying? Frankly, I think you could make the argument that theres more opportunity for abuse when its one man living alone with one woman. No witnesses. No one to stick up for anyone. Who knows what kind of attrocities could happen behind closed doors. Does that mean we should ban marriage? No.
__________________
"People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." |
|
10-18-2005, 12:04 AM | #679 | ||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Hm...
Well, you've certainly given me something to think about IR. On the one hand, there isn't any significant difference in abuse between gay couples and straight couples. On the other hand, my logic on group marriages still doesn't appear to stand up to scrutiny. Fortunately, each new proposition to changing marriage laws stand on their own; gay marriage is still a good and positive thing.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||
10-18-2005, 01:26 PM | #680 |
Quasi Evil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Maryland, US
Posts: 4,634
|
Agreed.
__________________
"People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II | Spock | General Messages | 971 | 12-04-2015 03:49 PM |
Homosexual marriage | Rían | General Messages | 999 | 12-06-2006 04:46 PM |