Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

[Greylock Crescent]

What? If people aren't married, then they still have ways of dividing up custody of their children and possessions through legal channels.

Legal. You mean, as in, laws? From whom do these laws come?

 

[sonak]

Nonsense. Maybe you don't think marriage should involve government benefits, but it does, it always will, and it's not just about the government rewarding "good behavior." So no, gays don't have the same basic rights as everyone else, and I'm not even bringing up issues not purely involving marriage such as hospital visitation, adoption, etc.

It's very convenient to decide that government shouldn't have a role in marriage only at the moment that another group wants equal access to it and the benefits it brings.

not all arguments that say that there's a reason that heterosexual marriage should be privileged by the government are incoherent, hypocritical, or based on prejudice. You could say that the whole REASON that marriage involves government benefits was because government wanted to encourage stable relationships that lead to procreation. And the "not all heterosexual marriages lead to procreation, so that's b.s." no more invalidates the CONCEPT of why governments do it than the "some people use spoons to hang from their nose as a trick" means that spoons aren't meant to be eating utensils.

I don't really have a dog in the fight. I'm not gay, I support gay rights and I think society's verdict on gay marriage is in, I just don't think that ALL arguments against gay marriage are a result of bigotry.

(although to be clear, a lot are. OSC's certainly seems to be.)

That's fascinating. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote, but fascinating nonetheless.

your post and his addressed marriage and government benefits as a result of it. It is not my problem if reading comprehension is a weakness of yours.

 

[DalekJim]

You mean, as in, laws? From whom do these laws come?

I think the government should be involved in child custody disputes, not marriage. One strikes me as incredibly necessary, the other as frivolous.

 

[BillJ]

You mean, as in, laws? From whom do these laws come?

I think the government should be involved in child custody disputes, not marriage. One strikes me as incredibly necessary, the other as frivolous.

Have you ever been married?

 

[Sindatur]

There still has to be laws that allow for the dissolution of that coupling.

Well, here we come to our core philosophical difference. I don't think the government should handle the joining and dissolution of sexual partners. I don't see why there has to be a law there. Have laws for child custody, for property ownership, for whatever other issue you'd LIKELY name but don't get involved with the union and dissolution of couples. That's what I'd like.

I really do think this hit it right on the nose...

Well, I think you've been paying absolutely zero attention if you feel that way and I see no reason to engage you in further discussion if you're just going to sling irrelevant abuse and allegations my way.

You're right, for simply sexual partners, yea, nobody should be involved, you go into a room, take off your clothes and have a good time, there should be no need for anything. However, in a long term relationship, where you build a life together, maybe raise kids or buy a home and car and business, you need to involve the Legal system which is Government

 

[DalekJim]

Have you ever been married?

I evidently never plan to marry.

However, in a long term relationship, where you build a life together, maybe raise kids or buy a home and car and business, you need to involve the Legal system which is Government

I agree, I just don't see why married couples should be treated better by the government than non-married in regards to all those activities. I'd like to have kids and a home with one or more partners I'm committed to, I just don't wish to marry.

 

[BillJ]

However, in a long term relationship, where you build a life together, maybe raise kids or buy a home and car and business, you need to involve the Legal system which is Government

Which is exactly why this is an important issue. Much of the worlds economy is built on credit, it's easier to get credit and buy large ticket items when married.

I evidently never plan to marry.

Which is your choice. But I think it's a bit early in your life to say "never".

 

[BillJ]

I agree, I just don't see why married couples should be treated better by the government than non-married in regards to all those activities. I'd like to have kids and a home with one or more partners I'm committed to, I just don't wish to marry.

It's not just about the government. Lenders believe there is a better foundation for repayment when lending to a married couple, especially if both work.

 

[DalekJim]

Which is your choice. But I think it's a bit early in your life to say "never".

Possible, that's why I used the word "plan". Every married couple I've known get married during my lifetime is now divorced though and I just don't think it's for me. I think I'm gonna die a lone wolf .

 

[Sindatur]

Have you ever been married?

I evidently never plan to marry.

However, in a long term relationship, where you build a life together, maybe raise kids or buy a home and car and business, you need to involve the Legal system which is Government

I agree, I just don't see why married couples should be treated better by the government than non-married in regards to all those activities. I'd like to have kids and a home with one or more partners I'm committed to, I just don't wish to marry.

One more time, and then I'm done with this.

if you take Tax Benefits out of it, and you allow anyone to marry (A Government backed Contract between the two of you spelling out you are committed to each other and grant each the rights you would grant to the most important person in the world to you) how is that any different than A Contract (Which would be backed the Government) between the parties? Why are you for one, but, not the other, to me they look exactly the same, because you keep saying "laws" which means you really don't mean you want Government out of it.

Why is your Contract preferable. You would have to go through exactly the same amount of effort for the Marriage Contract or the "Commitment" contract

 

[BillJ]

Which is your choice. But I think it's a bit early in your life to say "never".

Possible, that's why I used the word "plan". Every married couple I've known get married during my lifetime is now divorced though and I just don't think it's for me. I think I'm gonna die a lone wolf .

It's easy to feel that way, especially when you're in you early- to mid-20's (which is kind of what I peg your age as being).

I just think is dangerous to think because there's a social apparatus that I don't use, that the apparatus itself is useless.

 

[DalekJim]

Why are you for one, but, not the other, to me they look exactly the same, because you keep saying "laws" which means you really don't mean you want Government out of it.

To re-iterate, and I really am honestly trying my best to explain, I don't think married couples should get special rights, or be recognised as superior or more legitimate by the government.

I think the government should still be involved in custody battles, property ownership disputes and all the stuff we've previously mentioned, I just don't think married couples should be treated better than non-married couples. That is my view and I don't see why it inspires so much loathing as from my point of view, it sincerely strikes me as the fairest way of doing things.

It's easy to feel that way, especially when you're in you early- to mid-20's (which is kind of what I peg your age as being).

That's about right. I also live in Britain where the divorce rate is incredibly high. As I said, with no hint of exaggeration, I've been to a shitload of weddings in my lifetime. Absolutely none of those marriages still exists.

 

[BillJ]

To re-iterate, and I really am honestly trying my best to explain, I don't think married couples should get special rights, or be recognised as superior or more legitimate by the government.

I think you're just flat wrong here, honestly. I don't know of any "special rights" (beyond direct estate rights/control of medical care for an incapacitated spouse) we have received and I don't think the government sees us as any more superior or legitimate than the unmarried couple next door.

The tax breaks are nice, but they wouldn't break us if they didn't exist.

Your just grossly misinformed about marriage I believe.

 

[Ryan8bit]

I don't think married couples should get special rights, or be recognised as superior or more legitimate by the government.

Married couples only get privileges, not rights, and they aren't recognized as superior, that's ridiculous. They aren't recognized as any more "legitimate" than somebody who has a driver's license.

 

[Sindatur]

Why are you for one, but, not the other, to me they look exactly the same, because you keep saying "laws" which means you really don't mean you want Government out of it.

To re-iterate, and I really am honestly trying my best to explain, I don't think married couples should get special rights, or be recognised as superior or more legitimate by the government.

I think the government should still be involved in custody battles, property ownership disputes and all the stuff we've previously mentioned, I just don't think married couples should be treated better than non-married couples. That is my view and I don't see why it inspires so much loathing as from my point of view, it sincerely strikes me as the fairest way of doing things.

You are making no sense whatsoever, if everyone is allowed to be married, and there are no tax benefits, and the Government still enforces marriage that is exactly what you are saying when you say you want Government out of and it should be a Contract between two people. Marriage already is exactly what you want, except Gays (And multiple Partners and different species) are banned from the club, and the ones allowed in the club get tax benefits.

You're not for Government out of marriage, you're for getting rid of the Tax benefits and allowing everyone to join the club. If Marriage didn't have the Tax benefits and allowed anyone to marry, it makes absolutely no sense to create a different contract, other than so you can say you're against marriage

@Ryan8Bit, The Right of Medical Determination and visitation and the Right to Co-Ownership of the Marital Estate as well as any children are absolutely Rights, not privileges. Their claim on those Rights is the institution/Contract of Marriage

 

[DalekJim]

You're not for Government out of marriage, you're for getting rid of the Tax benefits and allowing everyone to join the club.

I'm for completely abolishing marriage as a legal institution, as I don't think they should be part of the government's business. I've justified my views to excruciating detail throughout this thread and am now pretty burned out on this discussion. I might return, but right now I wanna get some writing progress done, as I've been pretty lazy today lurking on here and discussing something I never even plan on doing.

 

[Sindatur]

You're not for Government out of marriage, you're for getting rid of the Tax benefits and allowing everyone to join the club.

I'm for completely abolishing marriage as a legal institution, as I don't think they should be part of the government's business. I've justified my views to excruciating detail throughout this thread and am now pretty burned out on this discussion. I might return, but right now I wanna get some writing progress done, as I've been pretty lazy today lurking on here and discussing something I never even plan on doing.

You keep saying you want something different, but, everything you say you want out, you want in, and haven't answered what you want different, other than wanting Government out of it, which you don't want, because you keep talking about Government's role in your alternative.

 

[DalekJim]

You keep saying you want something different, but, everything you say you want out, you want in, and haven't answered what you want different, other than wanting Government out of it, which you don't want, because you keep talking about Government's role in your alternative.

I don't want any alternative. I just don't want government legislated marriage. I don't think two people should gain new titles and privileges for performing a romantic ritual. I find that unfair and archaic, whether they be straight or gay. These aren't rights I want taken away, they're special privileges that wouldn't exist in a fair world.

Marriage is a promise two people make to each other. It shouldn't have anything to do with the law or taxes.

 

[Nagisa Furukawa]

No, of course it's not OK, but Marriage is a method of declaring you are committed and what's yours is theirs, there are times when you need absolute proof. You can't just make it a free for all when any old Tom Dick or Mary comes in off the street and makes claims. It doesn't need to be called Marriage, but, there has to be some undeniable Legality for the person you've chosen to give those rights to, if people don't avail themselves of it (When not locked out) how can they prove it?

Sorry, I see no problem making it a free for all when any old Tom, Dick or Mary can come in and say whatever they want, whether they're married or joined or symbiotically bonded in the light of R'hllor, so long as the government doesn't then say, "Okay, because you've found a romantic partner, we're going to give you shit we're not giving straight people or romantic couples that haven't done a ceremony."

Here is how I see it: you tap dance because you don't believe homosexuals deserve the same treatment under current laws. You obfuscate because you know there's absolutely no chance that current marriage laws will ever be repealed.

So you can claim to take the moral high-ground while being comfortable in the knowledge that some people are denied rights that are available to others.

Noooo, it can't be because he actually believes what he says; it's those damn ulterior motives again...

So. Do they deserve the same treatment under current laws?

He is refusing to answer you that bluntly because he doesn't think the "current laws" are fair. He thinks all romantic couples, heterosexual or homosexual, should deserve the same treatment: to be able to love one another as they see fit but without the government giving them benefits they don't give to non-married people. How is that not abundantly clear from his posts?

 

[Sindatur]

No, of course it's not OK, but Marriage is a method of declaring you are committed and what's yours is theirs, there are times when you need absolute proof. You can't just make it a free for all when any old Tom Dick or Mary comes in off the street and makes claims. It doesn't need to be called Marriage, but, there has to be some undeniable Legality for the person you've chosen to give those rights to, if people don't avail themselves of it (When not locked out) how can they prove it?

Sorry, I see no problem making it a free for all when any old Tom, Dick or Mary can come in and say whatever they want, whether they're married or joined or symbiotically bonded in the light of R'hllor, so long as the government doesn't then say, "Okay, because you've found a romantic partner, we're going to give you shit we're not giving straight people or romantic couples that haven't done a ceremony."

So, if a woman is raped in an alley and beaten to a bloody pulp and put into a coma, the rapist should be able to go to the hospital, and claim to be the woman's lover and be granted full access, just like someone who's been married for 20 years? Isn't that kinda dangerous for the patient?

And no, I'm not suggesting they know the man is actually the rapist, I'm saying he could simply pose as her lover, with no back up, and the hospital wouldn't know any different, because everyone should be treated the same, so, there is no method of judging someone's legitimacy