posted
I guess we don't state it often enough. The belief is that Adam and Eve were married by God in the Garden of Eden and commanded them to go forth and multiply. I think there was also a bit about leaving father and mother to cleave unto each other, so it was also love.
The interesting part about that, and it's in Genesis 2, is the implication that Adam had parents. I dunno. One possibility this brings up is that the "creation of man" was actually the divine institution of the marriage covenant among homo sapiens. Just one way out there interpretation.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If those who are anti-SSM want to convince the agnostics/atheists, they'll have to show that it will cause harm. I don't think it'll turn anyone gay, but, even if it does, so what? Monogamy prevents the spread of disease. Whether that's gay or straight monogamy makes little difference to the spread of disease. I also seriously doubt that SSM will substantially reduce the birth rate. Plenty of lesbians, like Melissa Etheridge, have chosen artificial insemination.
Demonstrable harm. You have to show it.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, and it may be that no one is convinced. Within Mormonism there are plenty of people who are confused between charity and tolerance and the law, and whether we should accept these changes. Perhaps we should, but what people need to understand is that for the church, marriage between a man and a woman is as important for salvation as baptism by immersion.
Thinking further on it, I don't know that it was marriage per se that God imposed on Adam, but a choice between two commandments (don't partake of the fruit vs. multiplying and replenishing the earth). This is fairly specific to Mormonism, and Gene Roddenberry if you recall the first Star Trek pilot. Between freedom and peace, humans choose freedom. It makes the end of that story, when Pike's life gets crappy so he returns to the garden, problematic. I guess it worked because Spock had to break the law to make it happen, so it was still cool.
Another creation myth is that of Prometheus, Epimetheus, and Pandora. Prometheus creates man, Epimetheus creates all the animals (as Adam named them). Pandora's curiosity releases every imaginable evil into the world, save hope. The reason this parallel is not often seen is that in the Greek myth, Prometheus and Epimetheus are brothers. This is not a problem for Mormon cosmology. Prometheus gives man fire, and for this suffers eternally.
Anyway, what it comes down to is whether one believes men and women are interchangeable. Whether it should be law is a matter of demonstrable harm. How one defines demonstrable harm is pretty subjective. I consider it harmful that women will increasingly be denied the opportunity to marry through this governmental course. Is it a greater harm than homosexuals consider they suffer by not being permitted to marry? I don't suppose so.
Getting back to the parallel to interracial marriage, which was once considered unnatural, given the opportunity to "marry up", I think we'll find a lot of men will choose men.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I consider it harmful that women will increasingly be denied the opportunity to marry through this governmental course.
Do you think that there are loads of women out there lining up to give gay men the opportunity to marry them?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I consider it harmful that women will increasingly be denied the opportunity to marry through this governmental course. Is it a greater harm than homosexuals consider they suffer by not being permitted to marry? I don't suppose so.
Getting back to the parallel to interracial marriage, which was once considered unnatural, given the opportunity to "marry up", I think we'll find a lot of men will choose men.
If you assume that equal proportions of men and women are both gay, then I don't see why it wouldn't end up a wash. Wouldn't the same number of women, given the opportunity, choose women?
But then, that's not taking into account the legions of anti-SSM folk who think that gays should enter into heterosexual marriages, have kids, and just suck it up and live with it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Getting back to the parallel to interracial marriage, which was once considered unnatural, given the opportunity to "marry up", I think we'll find a lot of men will choose men.
As you brought it up again ...
quote: Hmm. I've thought of a result along these lines but had no idea the effect already existed. Mostly, I think gay marriage is going to wind up badly for women. I'm pretty sure there is also such a marriage squeeze that affects Asian men.
Interrracial divorce appears to be 10 percentage points more likely (41% to 31% by this survey). They call this "not hugely so" but I guess it depends on how serious you find "marital disruption" as a social ill. There are some findings that multiracial children are more likely to suffer mood disorders (this link disputes the matter) and some say if it is the case, it is society's fault, not the family structure. Well, we've had 40 years to sort out the society end of things.
Of course, being biracial, I suppose I have made the choice to inflict these same problems on my children. The thing is, I'll at least name it for being a challenge rather than insist that the rest of society pretend we're normal, and call anyone who believes otherwise evil.
... is a bit reminiscent of the "I'm a democrat and I think they suck" school of legitimizing criticism we've seen from time to time.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:"this rule change helps to fundamentally change the social functions of marriage in society
You have the "conservatives" argue that gay people should be able to screw with each other as much as they like, as long as its outside marriage.
And you have the liberals argue that ideally the highest level a romantic/sexual relationship can take is a marriage.
Only one of these attitudes show respect for the institution of marriage, and it's not the "conservative" one. It's the liberal one.
So, yes, Scooter, same-sex marriage may indeed be changing the role of marriage in society, by increasing its value and putting it on a higher pedestal than it has been so far.
quote:the burden is still on pro-gay marriage advocates to show how such changes would help society more than it could hurt society
I don't know what our common grounds are here, Scooter, so I'm not certain at which level you want me to begin the discussion. For example: I feel that a self-accepting homosexual is in general healthier than a closeted self-loathing one. I don't know if you agree.
Given that initial assumption, I think it makes an easier more productive environment for gay people if society accepted (not merely "tolerated") homosexuality.
And I see marriage equality as a fundamental way for society to so accept homosexuality.
On the other hand if you feel that acceptance of homosexuality in one's self is a bad thing, then obviously we don't have that initial common ground and all the following arguments are reversed.
That's why on some level I think it's meaningless to argue with OSC on this matter : me and he are fighting for different civilizations -- he's fighting for a Christian civilization in which homosexuality is a sin and a blemish before God, and I'm fighting for a secular humanist civilization in which human beings strive to find their own way towards happy productive lives.
As far as your claims about what conservatives and liberals approve of, that is just one way to spin it--and a way to favor your opinion. To spin it another way, conservatives want to maintain the institution of marriage AND give people the right to privacy about their sex lives. Liberals have historically been more antagonistic toward government's role in marriage, and toward marriage in general (at least compared to conservatives), but all of a sudden think it is such a great thing now that SSM-has become so PC. The very people who have called marriage oppressive are now championing it as the highest commitment one can made and should thus be extended to all. I'd say liberals don't care about marriage nearly as much as they care about legitimizing homosexuality.
As you say, such legitimization can be viewed as positive or negative. I don't think it is a good justification either way for social policy, however. I think the religious thrust behind Prop 8 if due mostly to the legitimization issue, and they throw out some of the legalese to mask some of it (though I think some of it is legitimate). For me, this legitimization is inevitable anyway, but it is the shift in the functions of marriage on a societal level that concern me the most.
It is very possible that widespread SSM could strengthen marriage in some way, and it is at least as likely that it will weaken it. I think the case for weakening it has already been demonstrated with the way it has been evolving toward unpackaging sex, children, and marriage. SSM is a huge shove down that staircase. some hospitals are changing birth certificates from father and mother to parent 1 and parent 2. It is the domino effect that these policy changes create that are the biggest causes of concern, not if Martha and Janet down the road make marriage vows.
As for comments from other posters, if people cannot see a difference between a heterosexual and homosexual relationship, this conversation will continue to be in vain. Are there similarities--of course, but the inherent differences are so profound that overshadowing them by the similarities to justify a major social policy change is very unwise, in my opinion.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:To spin it another way, conservatives want to maintain the institution of marriage AND give people the right to privacy about their sex lives.
Um....How are you defining "conservative" here? Because it's traditionally thought, for example, that laws in states which ban sodomy or restrict the purchase of sex toys are "conservative" ones, and there's definitely no "right to privacy" being asserted there.
quote:Are there similarities--of course, but the inherent differences are so profound...
You know, I would never describe my genitals as being particularly "profound." And yet the genitals involved are pretty much the only difference guaranteed to exist between these relationships.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I am fortunate to live in a FREE Country where I can be a gay man if I so choose. It seems that with every election, my countrymen and women get further and further from the basic principals that this country was founded on, so many years ago.
Freedom, Liberty, and Justice for all.
What? Seriously?
I'm sorry... I could be totally wrong, but...
Isn't that from the Superfriends?
Sorry...
I disagree with OSC very much on this issue. The pursuit of hapiness is one of my rights as a gay man, and is was guaranteed to me before there was any mention of marriage under Federal law.
However, I find it funny that people would stop reading his wonderful books because they don't like his articles. Instead, they continue to read his articles while boycotting his books, and then comment about how horrible his beliefs are on his website.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I might be turned to supporting homosexual marriage if it also meant repealing no-fault divorce. No more pre-nups, and make it next to impossible to get a divorce, like it used to be. Also, if a single woman gets pregnant, the man must be forced to either marry the woman or pay substantial child support or face severe penalties. If he's already married, he goes to prison. Would that be an appropriate compromise?
Concerning the OP; I'm a Christian, but I love listening to King Diamond. He's an "ordained priest of Satanism," but holy cow that's good metal. Same for Dimmu Borgir. Why must one agree with ones beliefs to appreciate and enjoy ones art? Tell me someone whose art you love, and I guarantee there's something about them you dislike or disagree with.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think I might be turned to supporting homosexual marriage if it also meant repealing no-fault divorce. No more pre-nups, and make it next to impossible to get a divorce, like it used to be. Also, if a single woman gets pregnant, the man must be forced to either marry the woman or pay substantial child support or face severe penalties. If he's already married, he goes to prison. Would that be an appropriate compromise?
I wouldn't support that at all, but I'm curious, did you mean to be gender specific there, or would the entire onus of marriage punishment fall on men?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I should say that if a woman wanted a divorce, she would still have to prove some wrongdoing that would allow her to receive the divorce. But that is implied by my suggestion to repeal no-fault divorce.
Why wouldn't you support my hypothetical?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A half dozen reasons off the top of my head, but hey, I'll toss thing you said in there that I like too:
1. Next to impossible to get a divorce? Some people just shouldn't be married. For a lot of reasons. Maybe they got married and discovered they can't live with each other. Should they be forced to live together forever? What if they have kids and their fighting is tearing the house apart? My parents fought a lot when I was younger, and their divorce was probably the best thing that ever happened to our family. Perhaps mine is a special circumstance, since most of my friends when I was growing up took about two years to realize my parents were even divorced because they were on such good terms. But sometimes a divorce can drastically improve a situation, and maybe sometimes parents should stick it out, but making it nearly impossible to get divorced I think does service to no one at all. You're either potentially making the couple suffer needlessly, or making an entire family suffer with no exit. Who are you trying to help?
2. On your single woman gets pregnant thing: Ridiculous. What if the woman doesn't want the baby but the man does? It's not just about the man being forced to do something. Would the woman be forced to marry him as well? What if she wanted to walk away, would she have to pay the same "substantial child support" payments or face severe penalties? And I'll repeat a theme here: how does this better serve society? Two people that might have nothing in common or any desire to see each other again in a few days would be forced to spend a life together and raise a child?
3. Your punishment of already married men seems totally counterintuitive. If he's already married he goes to jail? Okay, so who is paying your "substantial child support" payments of this guy is in jail and without a job? You could possibly be stranding not one but TWO families with such an automatic punishment. How is society served not only by having two families only half funded, but by ALSO having society pay to incarcerate the same guy who isn't paying for his families? It's a double whammy!
4. What about if a woman cheats on a man? What if a woman cheats on a man and gets herself pregnant with another man's baby? Off to jail with her? Can she have the baby first? Does the other guy have to go to jail too? Would the other guy have to pay child support to the actual husband, OR, would the husband actually have to pay child support to the real father after the wife went to jail and he took custody?
5. Let me sum up: What's your point? What would you be trying to accomplish with such a dramatic government intrusion into the lives of the citizenry, and for that matter, how do you reconcile such an intrusion with a supposedly conservative personal ideology? It seems to be conservatives want government's hands out of the wallets and in their bedrooms. Personally I'd rather they take my money and build a bridge rather than tell me who I can and can't marry.
The thing that I like? No more pre-nups, or at least, a restructuring of the way pre-nups work. While I think on the one hand it's fair to protect your assets under certain circumstances, I think that if you really don't know the person you are marrying all that well, maybe you shouldn't be getting married. But that's just a gut reaction to the issue. In reality I recognize the possible need for some sort of legal apparatus to do what pre-nups do, I'm just not sure I like them as they stand.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 1. Next to impossible to get a divorce? Some people just shouldn't be married. For a lot of reasons. Maybe they got married and discovered they can't live with each other. Should they be forced to live together forever?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The thing that I like? No more pre-nups, or at least, a restructuring of the way pre-nups work. While I think on the one hand it's fair to protect your assets under certain circumstances, I think that if you really don't know the person you are marrying all that well, maybe you shouldn't be getting married.
*blink* And those two stands don't strike you as a tiny bit contradictory?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, let me say that I came up with all that (as per usual) as I was writing it. But (as per usual) let me try to defend my hypothetical anyway. I'll get to How This Serves Society at the end.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: A half dozen reasons off the top of my head, but hey, I'll toss thing you said in there that I like too:
1. Next to impossible to get a divorce? Some people just shouldn't be married. For a lot of reasons. Maybe they got married and discovered they can't live with each other. Should they be forced to live together forever? What if they have kids and their fighting is tearing the house apart? My parents fought a lot when I was younger, and their divorce was probably the best thing that ever happened to our family. Perhaps mine is a special circumstance, since most of my friends when I was growing up took about two years to realize my parents were even divorced because they were on such good terms. But sometimes a divorce can drastically improve a situation, and maybe sometimes parents should stick it out, but making it nearly impossible to get divorced I think does service to no one at all. You're either potentially making the couple suffer needlessly, or making an entire family suffer with no exit. Who are you trying to help?
Ok, not next to impossible, but no-fault is out. If you both parties can agree that they should no longer be married and can arrange a suitable deal, then it should be easier. If only one is seeking the divorce and he or she can show that everyone would be significantly better off if a divorce is granted, then good. If children are involved, their welfare must be take priority. If one of the spouses wants a divorce and his or her reasons have to do with simply being unhappy, or falling out of love with the other, or wanting to marry someone else, too bad. If it's because the other cheated and this can be proven, divorce is granted but mandatory sentencing for adultery. More on that later.
quote:2. On your single woman gets pregnant thing: Ridiculous. What if the woman doesn't want the baby but the man does? It's not just about the man being forced to do something. Would the woman be forced to marry him as well? What if she wanted to walk away, would she have to pay the same "substantial child support" payments or face severe penalties? And I'll repeat a theme here: how does this better serve society? Two people that might have nothing in common or any desire to see each other again in a few days would be forced to spend a life together and raise a child?
In all circumstances marriage is agreed upon by both parties, and this was so obvious to me that I neglected to say so. If the man doesn't want to marry the woman, he must pay a substantial portion of his income to the mother of his child. If he is willing but she is not, then he does not have to pay as much, maybe just enough to cover half the costs of the child's expenses, starting with a base amount and taking into account both parents' income. If she has the baby but doesn't want it and the man does, she pays child support. And if they didn't want to face the prospect of having a baby and a life together, they shouldn't be having sex.
But he used a condom, and she was on birth control! Oh well, you take your chances in life sometimes.
quote:3. Your punishment of already married men seems totally counterintuitive. If he's already married he goes to jail? Okay, so who is paying your "substantial child support" payments of this guy is in jail and without a job? You could possibly be stranding not one but TWO families with such an automatic punishment. How is society served not only by having two families only half funded, but by ALSO having society pay to incarcerate the same guy who isn't paying for his families? It's a double whammy! [quote] Adultery should be a crime punishable by a substantial fine and/or a goodly amount of time in jail. Don't wanna pay the fine or do the time? Don't do the crime. Sucks for everyone involved, but punishment should be a deterrent. This serves society by lowering the overall instances of infractions resulting in out-of wedlock children who are much more likely than average to grow up poor and uneducated, thereby continuing the accelerating cycle.[quote]
4. What about if a woman cheats on a man? What if a woman cheats on a man and gets herself pregnant with another man's baby? Off to jail with her? Can she have the baby first? Does the other guy have to go to jail too? Would the other guy have to pay child support to the actual husband, OR, would the husband actually have to pay child support to the real father after the wife went to jail and he took custody?
If a married woman cheats and gets pregnant, that is grounds for divorce. The husband is not responsible whatsoever for the child, and I don't know why you thought he might be. The man who got her pregnant is guilty of adultery if it can be proven he knew she was married and is punished. If she keeps the baby, she avoids jail. If she gives up the baby to the father and he accepts it, he avoids jail (she doesn't, though she may get off with a fine.)
quote:5. Let me sum up: What's your point? What would you be trying to accomplish with such a dramatic government intrusion into the lives of the citizenry, and for that matter, how do you reconcile such an intrusion with a supposedly conservative personal ideology? It seems to be conservatives want government's hands out of the wallets and in their bedrooms. Personally I'd rather they take my money and build a bridge rather than tell me who I can and can't marry.
Other than wanton, reckless, consequence-free promiscuity, can you identify any substantial contributing cause of out-of wedlock children who likely grow up in poverty, receive little education of value, are more likely to resort to crime, and end up filling our courts and prisons and costing taxpayers WAY more money than any of the complaints you made above? This is in spite of the millions of abortions performed in this country every year. This is not an invasion of privacy. If you don't want the government involved, don't get let them get involved. Don't file the required paperwork. If you want that guy to pay and he wont marry you, then I guess you better make a report. And if you committed adultery, well, you probably shouldn't have done that.
I'm not suggesting Sharia Law here. I'm just saying some accountability should be instituted.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 1. Next to impossible to get a divorce? Some people just shouldn't be married. For a lot of reasons. Maybe they got married and discovered they can't live with each other. Should they be forced to live together forever?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The thing that I like? No more pre-nups, or at least, a restructuring of the way pre-nups work. While I think on the one hand it's fair to protect your assets under certain circumstances, I think that if you really don't know the person you are marrying all that well, maybe you shouldn't be getting married.
*blink* And those two stands don't strike you as a tiny bit contradictory?
I don't think so. He thinks divorces should be easy to obtain, but if you're getting married in the first place, you shouldn't be able to state right from the get-go that you don't think it's gonna work out in the long run and so let me protect myself with a pre-nup. You might want to rethink the whole thing in that situation. "This woman annoys me the way she always picks at her toenails on the couch, so I'm divorcing her. But I'm rich and I don't want to give her half." Well you shouldn't have married someone if you're so fickle about your taste in women!
Besides, if you earned all your money while you were married to her, why shouldn't she get half, especially if you're the one seeking the divorce? If you were rich beforehand, then she only gets half of your earnings since the start of the marriage anyway. At least, that's the way I understand it to work; I could be wrong about that.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if you committed adultery, well, you probably shouldn't have done that.
This still doesn't address the core problem submitted to you about this proposal: in the event that a married man cheats on his wife and impregnates someone else, you now have two single-parent households and a father who, while incarcerated, has no way to pay support to either.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: If one of the spouses wants a divorce and his or her reasons have to do with simply being unhappy, or falling out of love with the other, or wanting to marry someone else, too bad.
I think that this would probably lead to an increase in spousal murders. More to the point - this wouldn’t actually lead to less marriage break-ups. You don’t have to get a divorce to leave a partner and family in order to go and live with someone else.
I wouldn’t be surprised if removing the possibility of relatively easy divorce lowered the marriage rate hugely anyway. After all, one of the reasons that some couples live together for many years before marriage is that they don’t want to make a mistake which then leads them to a potentially expensive divorce. Making divorce nearly impossible would almost certainly encourage more people to take this route instead of the traditional one espoused (sorry) by most Christians.
quote: If she keeps the baby, she avoids jail. If she gives up the baby to the father and he accepts it, he avoids jail (she doesn't, though she may get off with a fine.)
So - aside to the problems with this already pointed out - instead of worrying about the welfare of the child, the couple (both terrified of prison) fight over the custody of the baby in order to escape a criminal record. How many women would reasonably rather go to jail than raise her kid? Especially considering that not only would she lose her freedom, but would also perminantly damage her employment and educational prospects? So it would, in most cases, be the dad in jail.
As for fining the mother while jailing the father - what has the father done in making this baby that is worse than her part? As my mother likes to say, it takes two to tango.
Have you considered the impact this would have on the child - knowing that by their very existence, they had blighted the life of at least one of their parents, and that the other one might only be raising them so that they don't get banged up?
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: He thinks divorces should be easy to obtain, but if you're getting married in the first place, you shouldn't be able to state right from the get-go that you don't think it's gonna work out in the long run and so let me protect myself with a pre-nup. You might want to rethink the whole thing in that situation.
Then I think both you and Lyrhawn are seriously uninformed about the range of prenups. Not all of them have to do (solely or even primarily) with money; not all of them have to do with what happens if the couple divorces. Some are specifically to encourage the couple to avoid a divorce.
Also, you get car insurance if you plan to drive. Maybe you just shouldn't drive if you're that insecure about your driving.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Getting back to the matter of demonstrable harm, I don't know if the government should be based on "An ye harm none, do what ye will."
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 1. Next to impossible to get a divorce? Some people just shouldn't be married. For a lot of reasons. Maybe they got married and discovered they can't live with each other. Should they be forced to live together forever?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The thing that I like? No more pre-nups, or at least, a restructuring of the way pre-nups work. While I think on the one hand it's fair to protect your assets under certain circumstances, I think that if you really don't know the person you are marrying all that well, maybe you shouldn't be getting married.
*blink* And those two stands don't strike you as a tiny bit contradictory?
No not really. The first statement covers a wide, wide range of possible situations. Maybe everything seems right when you get married at 20 but when you're 40, you've grown apart and should be allowed to get divorced. It doesn't automatically mean you shouldn't have gotten married to begin with or that you didn't know each other well enough, it means people change, and people sometimes fall out of love, and sometimes people find they aren't cut out for the mechanics of marriage.
In fact, I think those two stances complement each other in this way: Some people probably shouldn't get married, but that's all the more reason to allow them to divorce afterwards and not force them to stay together. I think the opposing argument is that people just won't get married if they know they'll be stuck together, but I absolutely don't trust to that threat. People make such mistakes all the time regardless of the threat, and I think actually going through with the threat often does more harm than good.
quote:Originally posted by Resh: Other than wanton, reckless, consequence-free promiscuity, can you identify any substantial contributing cause of out-of wedlock children who likely grow up in poverty, receive little education of value, are more likely to resort to crime, and end up filling our courts and prisons and costing taxpayers WAY more money than any of the complaints you made above? This is in spite of the millions of abortions performed in this country every year. This is not an invasion of privacy. If you don't want the government involved, don't get let them get involved. Don't file the required paperwork. If you want that guy to pay and he wont marry you, then I guess you better make a report. And if you committed adultery, well, you probably shouldn't have done that.
Do you have any data to back up the multitude of assertions you just made?
I don't have any on hand, but to bring back a point you didn't address earlier, how are you solving anything if you're jailing cheating husbands and wives left and right and yet claim that their financial contributions are going to solve the problem? You're taking two families and reducing their income by half. Plus the taxpayers are on the line for the cost of incarceration, which is a massive cost. Explain to me how the math adds up there as a net gain for these children. Now they don't get ANY child support and they have a parent in jail!
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: He thinks divorces should be easy to obtain, but if you're getting married in the first place, you shouldn't be able to state right from the get-go that you don't think it's gonna work out in the long run and so let me protect myself with a pre-nup. You might want to rethink the whole thing in that situation.
Then I think both you and Lyrhawn are seriously uninformed about the range of prenups. Not all of them have to do (solely or even primarily) with money; not all of them have to do with what happens if the couple divorces. Some are specifically to encourage the couple to avoid a divorce.
Also, you get car insurance if you plan to drive. Maybe you just shouldn't drive if you're that insecure about your driving.
Car insurance is an interesting analogy, but I think you tagged the wrong end of it. I'm not particularly worried about my driving, I'm worried about everyone else. The connection there being, maybe you know yourself, but you don't really know the person you're marrying (which is sort of where the analogy falls apart I think, but it's still not a bad one).
But that's really neither here nor there. While I freely admit that my knowledge of prenups is not far reaching, Resh didn't really nail down my argument correctly. My problem with prenups is really an extension of my problem with how divorces tend to settle assets in a marriage, and thus my problem with prenups I guess is more a problem with a specific category, rather than the practice as a whole. Besides, he was for a wholesale ban on them, I just wanted to take a look at them for a possible fix. Before I'd suggest any specific change, I'd want to get into facts and figures and how it actually works. Perhaps I overstated myself earlier.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr, if you think it is ever possible to really know another person to the extent that there is no way, no how that a divorce might be the best option 20 years down the line, you are living in a fantasy world. There are no guarantees.
Also, people who think car insurance is only about the other guy are generally guilty of overconfidence.
All this leaves aside the fact that I can see no legal justification for the government to stick their fingers in what types of prenups are allowed (except for the restrictions that exist on any contract).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there any social or scientific evidence that homosexuality is harmful to society? Or is it just based on the Bible and the Qu'ran?
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: Is there any social or scientific evidence that homosexuality is harmful to society? Or is it just based on the Bible and the Qu'ran?
Get the people of the world to agree on one fundamental of a "good society" and you might be able to answer that question.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Lyr, if you think it is ever possible to really know another person to the extent that there is no way, no how that a divorce might be the best option 20 years down the line, you are living in a fantasy world. There are no guarantees.
I don't know where you got that from. Did you not read this:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Maybe everything seems right when you get married at 20 but when you're 40, you've grown apart and should be allowed to get divorced. It doesn't automatically mean you shouldn't have gotten married to begin with or that you didn't know each other well enough, it means people change, and people sometimes fall out of love, and sometimes people find they aren't cut out for the mechanics of marriage.
posted
Not a blanket ban, no, I'm not. Now that I've thought about it more, my concern has far less to do with prenups than it does with how assets are allocated in a divorce, which is also something I don't know enough about to suggest policy changes, I'd have to get more into it.
But even if I was, what's your point?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Either you think divorces should never happen, or you realize they sometimes do and insure yourself against that possible eventuality.
As for the allocation of assets, there are 50 states, and the rules are different in each. Not to mention the discretion of the court and the difference a good attorney (for some value of "good", anyway ) can make.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My thought is, if you married somebody that you can't have an amicable divorce with, without attorneys, that says something about your ability to pick a spouse. To some degree, I think it has to, right?
My ex and I certainly didn't use attorneys. She downloaded a sample agreement off a website, we both signed it, and that was that. We're still friends, 7 years later.
Seriously, I don't understand marrying someone, then going ape and trying to take every penny, the house, the car, etc., or trying to withhold everything from them. I don't know.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Either you think divorces should never happen, or you realize they sometimes do and insure yourself against that possible eventuality.
What is the percentage of married people that get a prenup before they get married? Do you think that everyone should get one? Why not do away with them and just sell marriage insurance?
quote:As for the allocation of assets, there are 50 states, and the rules are different in each. Not to mention the discretion of the court and the difference a good attorney (for some value of "good", anyway ) can make.
Yeah, that's part of why I don't want to tangle with it, as it varies so much, and because the rules seem to matter a lot less than how a judge is feeling that day and how much money you have to spend on whatever level of lawyer you can afford. But again, I have mostly anecdotal experience with the whole thing, and much of my experience by way of others has been very, very bad. I'm sure I'll learn all about it if I ever get to law school, but until then, I'm not exactly writing my congressman about it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Do you think that everyone should get one?
Actually, yes. Again, I'm not just talking about division of assets; I'm talking about explicit agreements about custody, steps agreed to before a divorce (such as counseling), etc. Many religious and other groups push specific prenups as part of premarital counseling.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Why not do away with them and just sell marriage insurance?
Firstly, I'd like to see an insurance company that is willing to take that kind of risk.
But more importantly, it wouldn't do the trick. Because the prenup ought not to be just about the money.
quote:Originally posted by steven: My thought is, if you married somebody that you can't have an amicable divorce with, without attorneys, that says something about your ability to pick a spouse. To some degree, I think it has to, right?
Yup. If you'd picked someone who absolutely refuses to get a divorce, no matter what, you wouldn't be getting a divorce.
Not all divorces with lawyers are non-amicable. There are in fact lawyers that specifically have philosophies and practices that promote working with the other party, rather than oppositionally. Using a moderation service often means three lawyers (yours, mine, and ours), but is often useful. There's quite a long way between so-buddy-buddy-everyone-wonders-why-the-divorce and cannot-be-in-the-same-room-without-clawing-each-other's-eyes-out.
In many states, a child or children mean that divorce-from-a-kit is not an option (unless one parent is completely willing to yield all parental rights, and often not even then). And in any case involving real estate or other significant financial assets, getting a divorce without an attorney's advice is just plain stupid.
A large part of the reason I am on good terms with my ex is because of my lawyer and the moderators we used.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Firstly, I'd like to see an insurance company that is willing to take that kind of risk.
But more importantly, it wouldn't do the trick. Because the prenup ought not to be just about the money.
I was kidding about divorce insurance. You figure half if slightly less than half of all marriages end in divorce, that all the successful marriages would pay for the failed ones with a little set aside for profit. I'm just trying to think of a catchy title for the insurance company.
quote:Actually, yes. Again, I'm not just talking about division of assets; I'm talking about explicit agreements about custody, steps agreed to before a divorce (such as counseling), etc. Many religious and other groups push specific prenups as part of premarital counseling.
Actually, I agree with that, wholeheartedly.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I believe the heart of the problem lies directly in the defition of marriage. I would wager a majority of those against same-sex marriage are against it because of their personal beliefs of what marriage means. This is further complicated by the issue that most religions have their own rules regarding marriage, and the government is trying to define it in purely secular terms.
Until there is a unifying definition of marriage, this topic will always have people on all sides of the issue.
I think one of the 'best' solutions would be along the lines of a civil union. Each religion could define marriage within their own terms, but for legal issues (inheritance, medical decisions, etc), you would be required to join a civil union as defined by the government. A civil union would be stricty an agreement between you, your partner, and the community. Keep in mind that this is a free country, and some may disagree with your decisions, but you have the right to them.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really, I think that's most of what the religious opponents to marriage are looking for. They use the word marriage in a specific way that means specific things, and they want to be able to use their language to pass their beliefs and culture on to their children. A public policy, applicable to everyone in the country, that redefines the language puts an obstacle in their way, and makes the survival of their culture that much harder to achieve.
If the word "marriage" were reserved for individual subcultures to use and define as they wished, and if the government used a separate, sterile term for the rules and contracts that it makes available to all, then I think everyone would have most of what they want, and the debate would move on from "what should the law allow?" to "what are our religious and philisophical disagreements about what each of us is calling 'marriage'?" which will still be a hotly-contested topic, but no one will be "the injured party" anymore, some urgent emotions might calm down a bit, and we might be able to make some fruitful progress in the discussion.
On the polygamy thing, while I can't directly support gay marriage OR polygamy because of my religious convictions, I really do have trouble seeing the difference, legally, between the two. Why one deserves tolerance, and is fought for so vehemently, while the other is held in contempt by the same people.
The whole "counting penises versus counting heads" argument is annoying, first of all, because you could just as easily say "counting Y chromosomes", but "counting penises" artificially makes your opponent's position sound ludicrous by tapping into readers' fourth-grade "giggle factor" about the word "penis". Come on.
But seriously, though. I know my reasons for disagreeing with both gay marriage and polygamy, but I don't understand how most of the arguments in favor of gay marriage don't also apply to polygamy. Historically, polygamy has been tolerated by human societies much more often than homosexual marriage. If the genders of the participants in a marriage ought to now be treated as arbitrary and irrelevant, then why are numbers still so terribly important?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A public policy, applicable to everyone in the country, that redefines the language puts an obstacle in their way, and makes the survival of their culture that much harder to achieve.
You'll have to forgive me, but I find the idea of there being any doubt as to the "survival of their culture" utterly laughable.
I get your argument, but come on, Christianity, to say nothing of religion itself, has been around for 2,000 years. It's not going to anywhere because gays can get married and actually call it married. A semantic achievement isn't going to undo the fabric of Christian life in this country.
I'd buy that argument if you were railing against the moral decline in pop culture, and given the steep downward spiral of the last decade, you might even be able to pull me on board that one, maybe. But the government isn't there to enable parents to better indoctrinate their children.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the government isn't there to enable parents to better indoctrinate their children.
The government isn't there to enable it, but it also isn't there to hinder it. "Indoctrinating" children with culture is one of the most important processes in mankind's survival strategy. Human society survives and evolves as those cultures with the strongest survival value succeed in passing on their cultural values to their children. Making the decision to hinder one culture's ability to pass on their values should not be taken lightly.
Already, cultural beliefs or practices that exclude gay marriage are difficult to articulate in many places without getting shouted out of the room. Within a couple of generations, I suspect that the only cultures that survive in America will be those that either accept gay marriage, or have other mechanisms that allow them to thrive in the midst of vehement opposition. Whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing, it is a destructive thing for those cultures affected, and you can't fault them for resisting it. You certainly can't fault them for wanting the government not to forcibly perpetrate it.
And it isn't Christianity, specifically, that I'm talking about. "Christianity", as a name, will probably survive for millenia more. But it will mean different things in different centuries, and not every change will be for the better.
quote:I'd buy that argument if you were railing against the moral decline in pop culture, and given the steep downward spiral of the last decade, you might even be able to pull me on board that one, maybe.
Who says I'm not? This bulletin-board topic has a fairly limited scope.
In any case, the problem with artificially hindering a culture's ability to promulgate itself is similar to the problem with altering an ecosystem. You can't be certain, always, if the thing you're changing had some important survival value that, with your limited knowledge, you were unable to predict and compensate for.
I think it is a much more prudent course for the government to leave in place the tools that both conservative religious cultures and secular liberal cultures need to replicate themselves, and let them survive or not based on their own merits.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the real perceived difference between polygamy and homosexuality is that there doesn't appear to be anyone whose sexual identity is defined as "only attracted to a number of people at once." Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that and the fact that we're only roughly 58 years out from polygamy and the depictions of the practice from that time are hardly appealing, to say the least. Plus, the people that do get caught in the practice today do not tend to be very sympathetic.
I suppose that its possible that this could be a result of unfair sampling and so I'm willing to sit on the fence on this one.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The government isn't there to enable it, but it also isn't there to hinder it.
I don't accept that as an absolute. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, equality for all under the eyes of the law; all of those things make it harder to parents to imprint their children with a specifically desired set of ideas and beliefs. Those things are a hinderance, but they're also protected more than anything else in our society, and we fight wars to protect them here and abroad. I believe that government shouldn't actively hinder parents' efforts, but sometimes it can happen anyway as a consequence of their main role, which is guarantor of our freedoms.
What do you do when the very basis of your government enables the evolution of your culture into something you might not like? The answer seems to be a peaceful albeit aggressive political push back. And I don't have a problem with that. Maybe some of the rhetoric is a little strong, and some people might have a problem with the tactics, but they're going about it constitutionally, and when they lose, they don't riot, they don't call for revolution, they just lament what they lost and work harder. There's something admirable in that.
quote:Who says I'm not? This bulletin-board topic has a fairly limited scope.
Well, you're certainly free to, I just didn't hear you make that argument specifically.
quote:I think it is a much more prudent course for the government to leave in place the tools that both conservative religious cultures and secular liberal cultures need to replicate themselves, and let them survive or not based on their own merits.
That's a complicated idea. It might sound simple, but given America's history and the way our government is set up and our culture was founded. And for that matter, I don't think either side is willing to die a slow death based on the argument that they just weren't good enough to survive.
And for that matter, the paragraph quoted above can mean two things to two different people. I think you'd intend for it to be a laissez-faire government approach to culture, but the other side might easily see those tools as their avenue to further their cultural ideas. Both sides are using those tools, and thus the government, to try and protect and promulgate their cultures where they meet resistance.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow Puppy, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Actually, it's very close to my own beliefs... well, except for the fact that I don't have any particular moral problems with gay marriage or polygamy.
Still, we're supposed to live in a country with a separation of church and state. This is JUST as important to the preservation of church as it is to the preservation of state. (History shows us that quite often when this division was not in place, politics took a very active role in religion!)
Marriage, in a legal sense, is nothing more than a contract that can often be terminated with less hassle than it takes to chance cell phone companies. This is not what ANY religion I know of has ever intended for the word marriage! In fact some churches (including the church I grew up in) refuse to acknowledge civil divorces, and will not allow divorced spouses to remarry (other people) within the church.
So why not make it simple and take the world "marriage" out of the civil code altogether, just like you suggested. Then everyone could go on to their happy little homes and define marriage however they want. If your beliefs and culture allow you to marry men or women, so be it. If you're allowed to have ten wives (or ten husbands) then so be it.
I was absolutely shocked when I discovered that Polygamy laws (at least in Texas) can be applied even when there is only one LEGAL marriage. I was appalled that the law could prosecute men for having a religious leader pronounce them married to multiple women (who they SUPPORTED) even if they didn't ask for civil protection of the union. (I'm not commenting here on any of the age issues associated with this.) I mean, if a man goes around poking himself into a different woman every night, the law says nothing - but if he has a dozen that he calls wife, and shelters, then he's a criminal? There's something seriously wrong with that picture, and I think it all has to do with semantics.
I wonder, what would happen if someone actually put forth a bill to remove the world "marriage" from family law. Who wants to try it? After all, there is president. The word "idiot" has only recently been removed from the legal codes of many states!
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: Polygamy is much easier to prove demonstrable harm with.
Edited for spelling.
I'd be interested to hear how. I understand the problems it has created in the form of underaged marriage, and other despicable acts. But that's not a problem specific to polygamy. In fact, I would feel comfortable wagering there are far more cases of that activity outside of polygamy. Arguably it's the secrecy involved that leads to these problems. Polygamy can easily be legalized without legalizing the more nefarious aspects associated with the practice. It seems to me that it is hypocritical to be in favor of gay marriage and not polygamy.
That said, I personally have no opposition to either. Religiously, I believe the only marriage sanctioned by God is between a man and a woman and nothing more. But legally, I do not believe either should be hindered.
Also, to the original post, if someone chooses to protest, that's their business. I didn't agree with what OSC said, but I also don't think his comments caused any fear or panic. Is there any actual evidence his words have elicited fearful or panicked response? It seems to me it is a simple matter of differing opinion.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the real perceived difference between polygamy and homosexuality is that there doesn't appear to be anyone whose sexual identity is defined as "only attracted to a number of people at once."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You figure half if slightly less than half of all marriages end in divorce, that all the successful marriages would pay for the failed ones with a little set aside for profit. I'm just trying to think of a catchy title for the insurance company. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Polygamy is much easier to prove demonstrable harm with.![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
