I'm still of the mind that it's not the place of government to regulate or mandate marriage or the sexual behavior of adults. Of course I oppose common law marriage laws as they are currently held by the courts, sodomy laws, laws against (adult) prostitution, anti suicide laws, drug regulations, and basically any victimless crime.Amen, brother. If I were in charge there would be only a few things that were actually illegal: murder, theft, rape, battery, attempted murder.
Colorado's common law marriage laws make my freaking head want to explode. If I want to open a joint account with my SO or even a female friend to take care of my bill while I'm working remote EH&S jobs we are common law married if we share an address.
I wonder what happens to army buddies who share an off post apartment if they share an account to look after each others bills when their friends are deployed. If we change the current definition of marriage do the three of them become married? Do they then get thrown out of the army for being "gay married"? If only two of them become common law married which two is it? Does the Army have to recognize the common law marriage?
I find a lot of this absurd, but how long would it take these issues to be sorted out in the courts?
It seems to me it would be a lot more rational for the government to just butt out.
I'm still of the mind that it's not the place of government to regulate or mandate marriage or the sexual behavior of adults.
Of course I oppose common law marriage laws as they are currently held by the courts, sodomy laws, laws against (adult) prostitution, anti suicide laws, drug regulations, and basically any victimless crime.
OK...
A woman spends 30 yesrs married to a guy. She works full-time as a waitress while he goes to school and gets a Phd. She stays at home and raises their four children while he works. The house is in his name because he pays the bills. She has no job skills because she was being the homemaker. After their fourth child becomes eighteen he dumps her for some 18 year old hottie.
1. Does the fact that she worked to put him through school not give her a right to some of his income when he decides to just walk out?
2. Does the fact that when they shared the parental responsibilities she took the primary caregiver role (because he had the great job thanks to her) she gave up the opportunity to develop a career not entitle her to some of his income when he renigues and walks out?
I have no problem with there being well-defined benfits and responsibilities to a marriage. I'm glad they exist. I object to the government declaring someone to be married to their roommate if that was never the intent, or conversely to tell them they can't marry someone on the basis of that person's race or gender.
I have no problem with there being well-defined benfits and responsibilities to a marriage. I'm glad they exist. I object to the government declaring someone to be married to their roommate if that was never the intent, or conversely to tell them they can't marry someone on the basis of that person's race or gender.
The government doesn't tell people they can't marry. They can marry whomever they want. That is what different churches do.
The government doesn't recognize some unions as marriages with respect to the laws it has on the books because it does not have a need to apply those laws to those unions. Those are the only "marriages" it performs because that performance is strictly limited to those laws. That performance is the recognition of application to those laws.
I'm still of the mind that it's not the place of government to regulate or mandate marriage or the sexual behavior of adults.
Of course I oppose common law marriage laws as they are currently held by the courts, sodomy laws, laws against (adult) prostitution, anti suicide laws, drug regulations, and basically any victimless crime.
OK...
A woman spends 30 yesrs married to a guy. She works full-time as a waitress while he goes to school and gets a Phd. She stays at home and raises their four children while he works. The house is in his name because he pays the bills. She has no job skills because she was being the homemaker. After their fourth child becomes eighteen he dumps her for some 18 year old hottie.
1. Does the fact that she worked to put him through school not give her a right to some of his income when he decides to just walk out?
2. Does the fact that when they shared the parental responsibilities she took the primary caregiver role (because he had the great job thanks to her) she gave up the opportunity to develop a career not entitle her to some of his income when he renigues and walks out?
I would tend to think so, but why not put it into a pre-nuptial contract rather than have some inept judge and social service contractor decide?
Having the government make these decisions by force on the basis of perceived social benefit creates a huge number of real life problems. Fundamental injustice is the biggest one in my mind, but there a lot more practical failings as well. The current system hasn't served a lot of men women or children vary well.
I can think of about a dozen examples of men who were granted joint custody and the woman fled the state with the kids. If the husband tries not to pay child support so he can see his kids (and I've seen this go on for 5+ years) he is in contempt and can be jailed or garnished etc. I've never seen anything close to that in consequences happen to the mother who fled across state lines in direct violation of the courts ruling. I'm sure we could both cite dozens of examples where the judge gives the person who caused the divorce custody and screws the relatively innocent party.
Government "help" in the realm of families may well cause more problems that it solves at enormous cost to the taxpayers.
I have no problem with there being well-defined benfits and responsibilities to a marriage. I'm glad they exist. I object to the government declaring someone to be married to their roommate if that was never the intent, or conversely to tell them they can't marry someone on the basis of that person's race or gender.The government doesn't tell people they can't marry. They can marry whomever they want. That is what different churches do.
The government doesn't recognize some unions as marriages with respect to the laws it has on the books because it does not have a need to apply those laws to those unions. Those are the only "marriages" it performs because that performance is strictly limited to those laws. That performance is the recognition of application to those laws.
Isn't that argument a bit circular?
What if the law recognized, say, christian marriages and secular marriages but not Jewish or pagan marriages? Wouldn't that be the very definition of state discrimination?
I have no problem with there being well-defined benfits and responsibilities to a marriage. I'm glad they exist. I object to the government declaring someone to be married to their roommate if that was never the intent, or conversely to tell them they can't marry someone on the basis of that person's race or gender.The government doesn't tell people they can't marry. They can marry whomever they want. That is what different churches do.
The government doesn't recognize some unions as marriages with respect to the laws it has on the books because it does not have a need to apply those laws to those unions. Those are the only "marriages" it performs because that performance is strictly limited to those laws. That performance is the recognition of application to those laws.
Isn't that argument a bit circular?
What if the law recognized, say, christian marriages and secular marriages but not Jewish or pagan marriages? Wouldn't that be the very definition of state discrimination?
Did you read my post that started this discussion?
The state recognizes that society pigeonholes men and women into different roles that creates a tendency for a dangerous power discrepancy. The laws are in response to this.
People do not live in a vacuum. whether Christian, pagan, Jewish, nondenominational, or atheist, men and women will still be subjected to overarching societal treatment that often pigeonhole men and women into specific roles. These societal influences transcend orders because we interact with everybody. Those unions comprising the same sex do not receive different societal pressures (with regards to the laws passed) because they are the same sex. They may receive different presssures for different reasons but that does not mean that it rises to the level to necessitate government interference on those counts.
Further women bear children and men don't. That is another fundamental difference in the unions that make the unions not the same thing with respect to the issues being tackled by the laws.
Procreation is intrinsic to the marriage between a man and a woman. Even in states with the most strict divorce laws, refusal to have children and infertility can be grounds for a divorce because the state recognizes the desire for a person to procreate.
My wife and I have been happily married for years, and haven't had kids. Should the state step in and divorce us because of our "refusal or infertility?"
G-MAN: "Mr. and Mrs. Gersen, you have passed the 5-year limit and lack children. Because procreation is intrinsic to marriage, you are hereby put on probationary status. Pop a kid or your state-mandated divorce will become effective in 300 days. That is all."
Marriage can be a useful or even essential social and economic partnership. Should that not legally be allowed or recognized? I obviously feel that it should.
I have no problem with there being well-defined benfits and responsibilities to a marriage. I'm glad they exist. I object to the government declaring someone to be married to their roommate if that was never the intent, or conversely to tell them they can't marry someone on the basis of that person's race or gender.The government doesn't tell people they can't marry. They can marry whomever they want. That is what different churches do.
The government doesn't recognize some unions as marriages with respect to the laws it has on the books because it does not have a need to apply those laws to those unions. Those are the only "marriages" it performs because that performance is strictly limited to those laws. That performance is the recognition of application to those laws.
Isn't that argument a bit circular?
What if the law recognized, say, christian marriages and secular marriages but not Jewish or pagan marriages? Wouldn't that be the very definition of state discrimination?
Did you read my post that started this discussion?
The state recognizes that society pigeonholes men and women into different roles that creates a tendency for a dangerous power discrepancy. The laws are in response to this.
People do not live in a vacuum. whether Christian, pagan, Jewish, nondenominational, or atheist, men and women will still be subjected to overarching societal treatment that often pigeonhole men and women into specific roles. These societal influences transcend orders because we interact with everybody. Those unions comprising the same sex do not receive different societal pressures (with regards to the laws passed) because they are the same sex. They may receive different presssures for different reasons but that does not mean that it rises to the level to necessitate government interference on those counts.
Further women bear children and men don't. That is another fundamental...
Your previous argument is reasonable and well articulated, but to me it just seems like social engineering of a different kind. I believe the government is simply too involved in everything that we do, so you and I are going to have very different ideas of when government intervention is acceptable. Government involvement, however well intentioned is going to have unintended consequences. Benign neglect on the part of the government is also going to have unintended consequences, but at least those things won't be forced on us by an intrusive and inept state. I simply believe that when there is any question a free society should err on the side of less government coercion.
Procreation is intrinsic to the marriage between a man and a woman. Even in states with the most strict divorce laws, refusal to have children and infertility can be grounds for a divorce because the state recognizes the desire for a person to procreate.My wife and I have been happily married for years, and haven't had kids. Should the state step in and divorce us because of our "refusal or infertility?"
G-MAN: "Mr. and Mrs. Gersen, you have passed the 5-year limit and lack children. Because procreation is intrinsic to marriage, you are hereby put on probationary status. Pop a kid or your state-mandated divorce will become effective in 300 days. That is all."
Marriage can be a useful or even essential social and economic partnership. Should that not legally be allowed or recognized? I obviously feel that it should.
I guess some clarification is in order...
From the top of my previous post:
Note: In the following wall of text I often speak in generalities and recognize that there are exceptions. Furthermore, I recognize that many of the situations described are not prevalent to the extent that they were when many laws were passed.
So, yes I do recognize that their are exceptions. And although that would strictly preclude the ability to procreate as being a qualifier for meeting the criteria defined as "marriage" it is still an intrinsic part of a marriage regarding the laws associated with it which is what I was referring to:
An important aspect to look at as different is that of procreation. Procreation is intrinsic to the marriage between a man and a woman. Even in states with the most strict divorce laws, refusal to have children and infertility can be grounds for a divorce because the state recognizes the desire for a person to procreate. If a third party becomes essential to procreation (due to ovarian cancer for example) then a divorce will allow procreation without a third party becoming involved by allowing divorce. A union between two men can only have a child through adoption from a second set of parents or a female third party with one of the two males. A similar (vice versa) set of circumstances occurs with two women in a union.
The context of the paragraph denotes that it is in reference to the laws regarding marriage. If your wife changed her mind and wanted to get pregnant and you didn't oblige her then that would be grounds for a divorce because the state recognizes the right to reproduce. Vice versa is also true.
Removing recognition of your marriage if you choose to not procreate would be the government sticking its nose in your business. The government is not doing that. So, it is a moot point.
The government will allow for divorce in the case of the two parties disagreeing on procreation because it recognizes the importance of that to individuals.
Marriage can be a useful or even essential social and economic partnership.
Can a marriage be a useful or even essential social and economic partnership? Yes, I never said otherwise and I implied no such thing. I stated that in same sex unions there was not the same tendency for a power discrepancy that led to volatile and dangerous situations (resulting from society pegging the two people into two different and specific holes) as there is in a marriage between a man and a woman.
Should that not legally be allowed or recognized? I obviously feel that it should.
It is allowed. I did not know that we were under the impression that it is not allowed in the United States.
Recognition is a different story. I have given reason for marriage to be recognized. I accept for a limited set of those laws to be applied to civil unions. I still have not seen reason for full recognition to be allowed. So, why should it? What matches the reasoning (the "impetus") given for the government to intrude into the lives of others besides some people want it to?
I have no problem with there being well-defined benfits and responsibilities to a marriage. I'm glad they exist. I object to the government declaring someone to be married to their roommate if that was never the intent, or conversely to tell them they can't marry someone on the basis of that person's race or gender.The government doesn't tell people they can't marry. They can marry whomever they want. That is what different churches do.
The government doesn't recognize some unions as marriages with respect to the laws it has on the books because it does not have a need to apply those laws to those unions. Those are the only "marriages" it performs because that performance is strictly limited to those laws. That performance is the recognition of application to those laws.
Isn't that argument a bit circular?
What if the law recognized, say, christian marriages and secular marriages but not Jewish or pagan marriages? Wouldn't that be the very definition of state discrimination?
Did you read my post that started this discussion?
The state recognizes that society pigeonholes men and women into different roles that creates a tendency for a dangerous power discrepancy. The laws are in response to this.
People do not live in a vacuum. whether Christian, pagan, Jewish, nondenominational, or atheist, men and women will still be subjected to overarching societal treatment that often pigeonhole men and women into specific roles. These societal influences transcend orders because we interact with everybody. Those unions comprising the same sex do not receive different societal pressures (with regards to the laws passed) because they are the same sex. They may receive different presssures for different reasons but that does not mean that it rises to the level to necessitate government interference on those counts.
Further women bear children and men
Your previous argument is reasonable and well articulated, but to me it just seems like social engineering of a different kind. I believe the government is simply too involved in everything that we do, so you and I are going to have very different ideas of when government intervention is acceptable. Government involvement, however well intentioned is going to have unintended consequences. Benign neglect on the part of the government is also going to have unintended consequences, but at least those things won't be forced on us by an intrusive and inept state. I simply believe that when there is any question a free society should err on the side of less government coercion.
Fair enough.
The context of the paragraph denotes that it is in reference to the laws regarding marriage. If your wife changed her mind and wanted to get pregnant and you didn't oblige her then that would be grounds for a divorce because the state recognizes the right to reproduce. Vice versa is also true.
The ultimate no-fault divorce: "I wanted another kid and she said no."
Luckily, I don't think it works like that.
|
I'm still of the mind that it's not the place of government to regulate or mandate marriage or the sexual behavior of adults. Of course I oppose common law marriage laws as they are currently held by the courts, sodomy laws, laws against (adult) prostitution, anti suicide laws, drug regulations, and basically any victimless crime.Amen, brother. If I were in charge there would be only a few things that were actually illegal: murder, theft, rape, battery, attempted murder.
Don't forget fraud and being from New Jersey.
Don't forget fraud and being from New Jersey.
My first roommate was from Parsippany and drove an IROC. He turned out to be a hell of a decent guy, though. Maybe rehabilitation can work for them?
Don't forget fraud and being from New Jersey.I'm still of the mind that it's not the place of government to regulate or mandate marriage or the sexual behavior of adults. Of course I oppose common law marriage laws as they are currently held by the courts, sodomy laws, laws against (adult) prostitution, anti suicide laws, drug regulations, and basically any victimless crime.Amen, brother. If I were in charge there would be only a few things that were actually illegal: murder, theft, rape, battery, attempted murder.
Diane heard me laughing looked over my shoulder and joined me!
We've gotta go shower, drink beer and shoot pool. Later!
A lot of stuff
I feel the need to clarify something. The state's primary reason for regulating marriages has very little to do with the division of labor between men and women, and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with who has the ability to get pregnant. Its primary purpose is to determine what rights and responsibilities legally married couples have to each other, and what rights they have to things like children, property, taxes, insurance, etc. Without a legally binding definition of marriage, the state would have no way of knowing whether a spouse has the rights to things like social security survivor benefits, child custody, and/or hospital visitation rights in the event that a legal will does not exist.
The truth of the matter is, denying same sex couples the right to marry does nothing except deny them federal legal protections. Yes, there are domestic partnerships available in many states, but domestic partnerships recognized in one state are often not recognized at all in another. Also, depending on which state a couple lives in, they may not qualify for things like joint medical insurance plans, they may have no right to bereavement leave if a partner dies, they may have no legal right to make medical decisions in the event that a partner becomes ill, and they may have no legal protections in the event of divorce or domestic abuse. Since none of these issues have anything to do with child rearing, the argument that preserving marriage between a man and a woman for that purpose seems somewhat strained.
The context of the paragraph denotes that it is in reference to the laws regarding marriage. If your wife changed her mind and wanted to get pregnant and you didn't oblige her then that would be grounds for a divorce because the state recognizes the right to reproduce. Vice versa is also true.The ultimate no-fault divorce: "I wanted another kid and she said no."
Luckily, I don't think it works like that.
You miscontrue what was stated, I believe.
If it is "another" kid within the marriage then procreation has already occurred and is intrinsically part of it.
Is there a different point being made?
I feel the need to clarify something. The state's primary reason for regulating marriages has very little to do with the division of labor between men and women, and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with who has the ability to get pregnant.
Incorrect.
It has everything to do with WHY these things are done.
Equitable division of assets has been around for a very long while and is an enormous part of every marriage.
I guarantee that the reason it came about was because legislators saw poor women who had been dropped by their husbands. Husbands who held the high paying jobs and had the houses in their names. This is a direct result of division of labor. I explained how and gave examples and nothing has been given to disprove it. I explained how becoming pregnant affects a woman's ability to produce income. Thus it is directly related to the division of labor and is thus directly related to division of marital assets.
Its primary purpose is to determine what rights and responsibilities legally married couples have to each other, and what rights they have to things like children, property, taxes, insurance, etc. Without a legally binding definition of marriage, the state would have no way of knowing whether a spouse has the rights to things like social security survivor benefits, child custody, and/or hospital visitation rights in the event that a legal will does not exist.
Why does a spouse have rights to property such as listed above? I already answered this. The reason is paramount in a union between a man and a woman because of the tendency for a power disparity to occur and necessitate the state's intervention. It doesn't matter if some extras get caught so long as the important need of a significant portion of the population is met: those in such a predicament. Deciding to change the rules to deliberately include some because some others were inadvertently included is not a good reason. It does not match the reasons for which the rule was created.
Why does a spouse result in a tax benefit? Because the state realizes that in the marriage between a man and a woman society often pushes the man into the role of breadwinner and the female into the role of primary caregiver. The distinct roles are a result of society's pressures into the division of labor. Again, I guarantee that Suzy homemaker was what lawmakers had in mind and it was because of the division of labor.
Why does the spouse receive survivor benefits? Because it is most likely that the husband was the primary supporter of the wife (society, pregnancy, see above) and loss of his income will be a severe hardship to someone who has not been a primary breadwinner. Men die earlier than women and men are far more often the older in the marriage. In a same sex union there is not the societal tendency that is described above to create this disparity which needed to be addressed.
Now about insurance? There are laws in place to benefit the spouses. Why? Because the legislators knew that women would most often not be in the best position to initially have insurance and with the tendency to become the primary caregiver after birth they would be more likely to lose it if they had it to begin with. In a same sex couple, each is equally likely to have insurance. The only way for one to lose it due to pregnancy is for a third party to be involved in some shape or form. In that case, there are already safeguards in place to keep the third party responsible. It is unfair (to the employer) for an employee's spouse to deliberately bypass holding a third party responsible for a child so as to bring it into the union and then to expect the employer to be responsible for contributing in a share of the child's insurance. That share should be paid by the third party in the relationship, i.e. sperm donor or surrogate mother.
Marriage is not necessary for determining child custody. Child custody cases happen all the time outside of marriage. It goes either to the biological parent(s) or adoptive parent(s). If you wish to argue for more inclusive adoptions to be allowed for homosexuals then you have my agreement. If a couple (same sex) breaks up then the custody will already be determined by the adoption. Marriage is not needed.
Hospital Visitation Rights I cede that it would be good to give them to same sex couples. This falls under a civil union being something less than a marriage with respect to a state's involvement but still entitled to some of the state's interference.
I explained all this before (in more detail) and it was whitewashed without being addressed. It was dismissed with a hand waving argument.
The point with the above is that the post being responded to listed WHAT the state uses its power for but not the reasons WHY it feels obliged to do so.
The truth of the matter is, denying same sex couples the right to marry does nothing except deny them federal legal protections.
Agreed to an extent. But, it is less denying them protections and more that protections are being asked for to cover problems they were not legislated to address and do not rise to the same level of importance. This is state as well as federal.
And to reiterate, I have explained that the REASON the "state" endeavors to include these protections is because it recognizes that society pushes men and women into separate holes and that leads to a power discrepancy. I guarantee that is what was being addressed when these bills were passed.
Explicit case in point
When survivor spouses were allowed to collect social security it was because the legislators had pictured in their minds a poor old widow who spent her whole life as Suzy homemaker and now had to find a way to support herself after her husband's death since he was always the provider. This is doubly true after adding in the husband probably being older and dying at a younger age.
The same argument can be made for equitable division of marital assets. and on and on.
This post being responded to delineates what the "state" does with its laws and refuses to address why it sticks its nose into a private matter between individuals. I addressed why it does and why it does not.
Also, depending on which state a couple lives in, they may not qualify for things
The constitution delineates what are state powers and what are federal powers. Don't expect a states laws to apply in another state. In some cases they do. In others they don't. That is why states are given that freedom. You can choose to live with the laws that you want.
and they may have no legal protections in the event of divorce or domestic abuse.
They do have legal protections in the case of domestic abuse. Everyone has protections against abuse regardless of being in a relationship or not. Is it possible that a married man and woman may have more "protections" in the form of laws than just anybody? I guess so but that leads to ask the question "Why?" The answer is because the state recognizes that because of the power discrepancy tendency in a union between a man and woman that the woman is more susceptible to being bullied with physical force and financial well being and with her role as primary caregiver. I guarantee that what legislators were picturing when passing such statutes was a woman with a black eye or worse. Sure, it covers men too but that is not what they were voting to stop. Do others (same sex couples) face abuse? Yes, but they are not inherently in a relationship that leads to the dangerous power disparity.
No legal protections in the case of divorce? See above for why those protections are in place. It has to do with the power discrepancy tendency I have repeated over and over as well as explained in detail within the quote which was referred to as "a lot of stuff".
Since none of these issues have anything to do with child rearing, the argument that preserving marriage between a man and a woman for that purpose seems somewhat strained.
Odd summation.
I never stated that child rearing was an argument for preserving marriage as between a man and a woman. In fact, I have explicitly repeated in this thread and others that I am for adoption by homosexual couples.
I stated that procreation was intrinsically related to the laws regarding marriage. Why do survivor's collect social security? Because they were thinking of Suzy homemaker who spent her time in the house INSTEAD of working because she was raising the kids. Why would a non blood related wife/husband have visitation rights that are not overstepped by the parent of the hospitalized spouse? The children share the blood of the parents is a good reason although most certainly NOT the only one. Why distribute the wealth "equitably"? Because the wife would most likely lose income generation from being pregnant. Why allow divorce for infertility? Because procreation is important. It is everywhere in one form or another.
Note: numerous edits
Incorrect.
It has everything to do with WHY these things are done.
Equitable division of assets has been around for a very long while and is an enormous part of every marriage.
I guarantee that the reason it came about was because legislators saw poor women who had been dropped by their husbands. Husbands who held the high paying jobs and had the houses in their names. This is a direct result of division of labor. I explained how and gave examples and nothing has been given to disprove it. I explained how becoming pregnant affects a woman's ability to produce income. Thus it is directly related to the division of labor and is thus directly related to division of marital assets.
While I agree that the purpose of marriage is to provide for the equitable division of assets, I think you would have a very difficult time proving that it was designed to help poor women. That said, it's hardly relevant to the discussion at hand.
Marriage, like all things, has evolved over time, and what has been true for couples historically is not true for couples today. After all, it wasn't even until the 18th century that love was considered a legitimate reason for a couple to marry. Before that, marriage was seen primarily as a business arrangement between two families. So even if you are correct, and marriage was traditionally intended to address historical inequities between men and women, I think it not only ignores the tremendous strides women have made both in society and the workforce, but also the fact that marriage today is defined primarily as the ultimate expression of love between two consenting adults. With that definition in mind, I think that denying same sex couples the right to marry not only says that their rights are not equal to that of a heterosexual couple, it also says that their love is not equal either.
Incorrect.
It has everything to do with WHY these things are done.
Equitable division of assets has been around for a very long while and is an enormous part of every marriage.
I guarantee that the reason it came about was because legislators saw poor women who had been dropped by their husbands. Husbands who held the high paying jobs and had the houses in their names. This is a direct result of division of labor. I explained how and gave examples and nothing has been given to disprove it. I explained how becoming pregnant affects a woman's ability to produce income. Thus it is directly related to the division of labor and is thus directly related to division of marital assets.
While I agree that the purpose of marriage is to provide for the equitable division of assets, I think you would have a very difficult time proving that it was designed to help poor women. That said, it's hardly relevant to the discussion at hand.
Marriage, like all things, has evolved over time, and what has been true for couples historically is not true for couples today. After all, it wasn't even until the 18th century that love was considered a legitimate reason for a couple to marry. Before that, marriage was seen primarily as a business arrangement between two families. So even if you are correct, and marriage was traditionally intended to address historical inequities between men and women, I think it not only ignores the tremendous strides women have made both in society and the workforce, but also the fact that marriage today is defined primarily as the ultimate expression of love between two consenting adults. With that definition in mind, I think that denying same sex couples the right to marry not only says that their rights are not equal to that of a heterosexual couple, it also says that their love is not equal either.
I did not say that the purpose of the institution of marriage was to help poor women.
I stated that is the reasoning behind the laws being passed to regulate that (and results of the power disparity in general), again and again. I stated that explicitly, again and again, and I cited evidence to support that specific claim again and again.
I do not appreciate this continued mischaracterization, apparently so as to avoid addressing them.
If you wish to argue that these laws are no longer needed for this purpose then you are arguing for the removal of government regulation again and again.
Further, regarding this statement to which I added the emphasis:
but also the fact that marriage today is defined primarily as the ultimate expression of love between two consenting adults.
Again, this is simply not true. It is primarily defined as the union between a man and a woman from what I have witnessed. Is there dispute over this? Yes. But, I expect you to stop passing things off as fact when they are not a fact. I have explicitly kept my discussions to the definition that was being used when the laws were written (without delving into whether or not a particular definition is used more frequently than others or should be the definition) because that is key to determining what the individual laws were addressing.
Further, no one is being denied any rights. I have explained that again and again.
Same sex couples can go through what their church considers a wedding if they so choose. The state does not offer recognition of these unions as a marriage because the laws were passed with the intention of addressing power disparity problems in a union between a man and a woman brought about by society pushing men and women into particular roles within the union (and without). I have stated that again and again with substantial supporting evidence. It still stands and has not been addressed. A contract defined as the union between a man and a woman is NOT the same as a contract defined as a union between two men is NOT the same as a contract defined as the union between two women. I have stated these differences again and again and have provided example after example of the differences between them.
So I would appreciate the cessation of the claims that this opinion means a belief that the love of a homosexual couple is not equal and that their rights are not equal. You are claiming bigotry and are not backing it up despite an avalanche of evidence to counter your claims that you have refused to address.
With respect, your insistence as to what the intent of marriage benefits supposedly was, and in your mind remains, is backed up with nothing but what appear to be your own arguments (which are all that constitute this "avalanche of evidence" you mention) -- however neatly formatted and selectively bolded they may be. Your personal reasoning as to what the intent seems to you to have been holds no more weight than any other story used to explain any other set of observations -- Kipling's "Elephant's Child" is another example. Simply repeating selected bits of this story ad nauseum does not make those bits any more convincing; neither Dove Arrow, nor anyone else, is compelled to accept the validity of these claims.
With respect, though, your insistence as to what the intent of marriage benefits supposedly was, and in your mind remains, is backed up with nothing but what appear to be your own arguments (which are all that constitute this "avalanche of evidence" you mention) -- neatly formatted, bolded, and repeated as needed. Neither Dove Arrow, nor anyone else, is compelled to accept the validity of these claims.
Oh really now?
First, what still stands is that he misportays my logic regarding the reason the laws were passed as me saying that is what defines marriage. I have repeatedly and explicitly made certain what I was referring to through bold faced words and then some. The principle of charity has limits.
Secondly, the idea that marriage is the union between two people as opposed to between a man and a woman was pretty sparse if it existed at all. So, it is blatantly obvios that this is the specific union that was being referred to.
To determine whether or not another union should need the same laws one should determine what was being addressed by those laws.
If you wish to argue that not wanting women to be left destitute with their children is NOT the reason that the equitable division of assets laws were passed then that can be disagreed with.
But, I have not received that disagreement from Dove Arrow. Dove Arrow took my stating the reasoning for the law was (to help poor women in trouble as a result of the societally enforced power discrepancy in the union) and stated that he agreed that "that the purpose of marriage is to provide for the equitable division of assets" (which is something I did not state) and he did not challenge my reasoning for WHY the laws regarding equitable division of assets were passed which is something that I have explicitly stated again and again. Then he used that "purpose of marriage" as unimportant to the discussion and dismissed it without addressing my claim about the reasoning in any form.
In fact, in the post being responded to I stated the following:
The point with the above is that the post being responded to listed WHAT the state uses its power for but not the reasons WHY it feels obliged to do so.
The above statement is in bold (in the post being responded to) and is in a line by itself.
Further,the fact that I am discussing WHY has been repeated over and over with varying amounts of detail in explaining how and why this particular "why" is important to my point. This has not been disputed but has instead been ignored or portrayed as if I am trying to make an entirely different point that can be dismissed.
I do not appreciate this continued mischaracterization, apparently so as to avoid addressing them.
I'm sorry that you feel that way. I certainly wasn't trying to misrepresent your comments. You mentioned that legislators created marriage laws to help poor women who were dropped by their husbands. I was simply trying to counter your argument. I was also trying to argue that while marriage can be between a man and a woman, limiting it to that ignores more modern sensibilities and issues in much the same way that forced arranged marriages once ignored more modern sensibilities of marrying someone for love.
In any event, my intent was not to anger you. Unfortunately, from the sound of your indignant responses, it appears that I have. As much as I care about these issues, and as much as I enjoy discussing them with others, perhaps it is best that we end the conversation here. At the very least, until tempers have calmed down.