Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i'm saying most states did not define marriage in terms of male/female until very recently...

Because man/woman was required by the various state regulations. The only reason that laws are being passed now is because people are trying to get around the regulations/statues.

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.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The Hypothetical religion thing wasn't meant to be analytical, but to pose a moral question in a neutral way. (I'm not saying your views are archaic by this story.)

No, I didn't think you were. My point was that if you think elements of a religion CAN become archaic, then you must think that that particular element no longer reflects reality.

Your post makes a lot of sense to me. I would probably react the same way. After all, the way you have sex doesn't really matter, does it?

Yes, it does - the ways that you listed were acceptable to both of us. Here's some unacceptable ways - husband and wife visiting their son's kindergarten class and deciding to "get it on" in the middle of storytime ; husband later on that week forcing himself on his wife who is sick with the flu and keeps asking her husband to please wait for the next day; etc. etc.

Of course the way you have sex matters

But, you raise a good point about your own views. Why isn't it religious? I thought that you are not okay with gay marriage because of religious beliefs.

not in the sense that the non-religious people here use the term.

I'll have to post more later - we have houseguests coming, and I have to get going!

[Nurvingiel]

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. )

RÃ*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

[Nurvingiel]

Cross-posted with you there RÃ*.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, I didn't think you were. My point was that if you think elements of a religion CAN become archaic, then you must think that that particular element no longer reflects reality.

I do agree that some aspects of religion can become archaic. There is the oft-cited example of slavery being okay in the Old Testament. Obviously Christianity no longer condones this - such an attitude would no longer reflect reality. Sadly, slavery still exists, but it is by no means okay by any Christian ideal/law/belief/whatever.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, it does - the ways that you listed were acceptable to both of us. Here's some unacceptable ways - husband and wife visiting their son's kindergarten class and deciding to "get it on" in the middle of storytime ; husband later on that week forcing himself on his wife who is sick with the flu and keeps asking her husband to please wait for the next day; etc. etc.

Of course the way you have sex matters

Those examples aren't the way you have sex, that's where and when! I agree that all your examples are inappropriate places/times to have sex, but I still think the way you have sex doesn't matter. Obviously both people have to consent.
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.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

not in the sense that the non-religious people here use the term.

I'll have to post more later - we have houseguests coming, and I have to get going!

I'm looking forward to the rest of your post. I'm going to lump myself in with the non-religious people, just to make your life more difficult. I'm really not very religious at all; I'm not just making that up to annoy you.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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.

the point is that tradition is no basis for an argument on gays using the word "marriage"

"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

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the point is that tradition is no basis for an argument on gays using the word "marriage"

"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

So, BJ, when the state laws are stating that marriage is between one man and one woman, wouldn't that make gay "marriage" illegal? We have such a law in Missouri. So the point is that the act of homosexual marriage is illegal in Missouri (and several other states).

When the populace has voted, I believe you said that established morality. So the issue is resolved in Missouri, is it not?

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

"spinster" which is an unmarried FEMALE.

Not true. I can be a bitter spinster too and I am a male (I guess; last time I checked)

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

When the populace has voted, I believe you said that established morality. So the issue is resolved in Missouri, is it not?

What if people in Missouri decided to legalize gay marriage later?


(Not that I think law always equals morality.)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

So, BJ, when the state laws are stating that marriage is between one man and one woman, wouldn't that make gay "marriage" illegal? We have such a law in Missouri. So the point is that the act of homosexual marriage is illegal in Missouri (and several other states).

When the populace has voted, I believe you said that established morality. So the issue is resolved in Missouri, is it not?

the issue i see, from an equality point of view, is the idea that something is legal as long as certain terminology is not used... most if not all in this thread have said the homosexual relations should not be illegal, and even "civil unions" should be allowed... the rub is calling them "marriages"

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

[Rían]

but, like you said (and I agree), marriage is not all about sex.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

but, like you said (and I agree), marriage is not all about sex.

And thus, gay people cannot get married because....?

[Rían]

... and groups cannot get married because ...

(it comes down to what we each think is right)

[Nurvingiel]

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.

[The Wizard from Milan]

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.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

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.

But of course the very same "possibility of abuse" exists in "traditional" marriages you realize.

[brownjenkins]

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

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But of course the very same "possibility of abuse" exists in "traditional" marriages you realize.

Yes, I know. But I think there's a higher possibility of abuse in group marriages. I think it would help create a scenario where abuse would be easier, for example in some extreme cults.
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.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Yes, I know. But I think there's a higher possibility of abuse in group marriages.

And therefore they should be banned? you do realize of course that you are making the very same argument that the antigay folks use against gay marriage. that it doesnt matter that its consenting adults, its still too "dangerous" for people to be involved in gay marriages therefore we need to keep them from getting married for their own good and for the good of society in general.

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.

[Nurvingiel]

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.

[Insidious Rex]

Agreed.