B
blessedtoo
Guest
Oh joy! Good to see you!
- Status
R
RobbyS
Guest
The homosexual rights movement is an assault on nature. As if reproduction were not essential to any society. Freedom of this sort is in fact no more than the freedom of a comfortable prison, and like any other animal trapped in such prisons, men/women lose the desire to reproduce themselves. Modernity seems to deny the body except as a means of pleasure.
M
Mirdath
Guest
If I’m reading this right, you’re saying that exercising the option not to reproduce is innately wrong? What does that say about a celibate priesthood?
R
RyanL
Guest
Let’s see what your definition permits, shall we?
- Same-sex marriage (got that one )
- Polygamous marriages
- Expressly made marriages of convenience
-----3a. Marriages between friends for medical benefits
-----3b. Contracted marriages for green cards, etc.
-----3c. Any other previously viewed “sham” marriage
If you would indulge me, I have a few questions for you on this proposed definition…why can’t closely related people get “civil unions”? Say a couple of male first-cousins want to get hitched - why are you denying them this basic civil right? Why are you discriminating? Seems arbitrary and capricious to me. There’s no chance of reproductive anomalies…why are you so closed minded? Why so intolerant?
God Bless,
RyanL
M
mvinca
Guest
You seem to get a kick out of twisting people’s words around. Priests don’t deny the body except as a means of pleasure, they actually give up any “pleasure” in the physical sense. They are on two different ends of a spectrum.If I’m reading this right, you’re saying that exercising the option not to reproduce is innately wrong? What does that say about a celibate priesthood?
O
Other_Eric
Guest
It’s tempting to do as RyanL has and ask you the reason why you would put any limit on this civil union at all. As I see it, this definition is designed to encompass as many different types of consenting relationships as possible. Let’s examine the implications of your definition and attempt to see what it would mean in practice.
I imagine that your reference to “persons” rather than simply saying “two people” was an indication that you would open this civil union of yours to allow relations between three or more individuals. If we are going to define the limit of two as needlessly arbitrary, then I fail to see how any limit we could put on the number of people in this relationship would be justifiable.
This means corporate union. Due to the current laws allowing for equality amongst the genders, this has the potential to turn civil unions into vast corporate arrangements spanning several states. As the union grows to encompass more and more people, it becomes impossible to obtain the consent of every single party to the acceptance of another potential member. This makes the union contractually unstable. It would render civil union useless since as the “family” grows there would be no point in any attempt to regulate the sexual relations between any of the members as it could grow to encompass the entire population of a locality. It also begins to contradict the potential unions of offspring from this “family unit,” as the pool of people they would be “closely related to” would be huge.
If a civil union is meant to be a true contract, then it follows that the parties involved be of legal age to enter into a contractual arrangement and that they do so with full consent, or freedom from duress and undue influence. However, this also implies that this would be an arrangement that would be subject to civil penalty if one party attempted to get out of the contract against another party’s will. If this is meant to be a true contract, then there can be no equivalent to no-fault divorce.
So, now that we have our contractual arrangement of a group of individuals who wish to be considered a family unit and have a desire to live together, the next thing we must establish is why the government has any interest in providing this arrangement with any type of preferred taxation or other benefits. Indeed, the inheritance benefits alone constitute one large logistical nightmare. Since the government is not in the business of showering benefits on arrangements that the government itself is not going to see any return from, we run right back into the meat of the initiative mentioned in this thread: procreation.
It seems that unless you intend to make some modifications to your definition, then your “civil union,” as proposed, is unfeasible in the extreme.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Yes, it does, and intentionally so. This is a civil definition, not a religious.Let’s see what your definition permits, shall we?
- Same-sex marriage (got that one
- Polygamous marriages
- Expressly made marriages of convenience
-----3a. Marriages between friends for medical benefits
-----3b. Contracted marriages for green cards, etc.
-----3c. Any other previously viewed “sham” marriage
Even I consider Singer a nutjob
As for bestiality, the matter of consent closes that off completely. This begs another question though – say intelligent aliens showed up. Should humans be allowed to marry them? I’d say yes.
Kissing cousins are okay by me – it’s even legal already in most states, and the 24 with laws on the books only prohibit first-cousin marriages.
J
Jennifer123
Guest
There are a few legitimate reasons for a heterosexual married couple to not reproduce. They may be sterile, they may under extreme circumstances, have experienced such abuse as to warrant prudent caution and counseling before embarking on parenthood.If I’m reading this right, you’re saying that exercising the option not to reproduce is innately wrong? What does that say about a celibate priesthood?
But it is my understanding that even in these circumstances that they remain chaste within their marriage and even possibly practice NFP in oder to offer the gift of their sexuality to God as a way to offer sacrifice, to bear their cross. Certainly as they are in this state, they are called to offer their time and talents in ways that couples with children can not.
But fertile couples who consciously choose not to reproduce and share those blessings for the sake of having more material goods or resources, or entertainment, may be acting out of selfishness and the Church rightly condems this behavior.
U
urban-hermit
Guest
M
Mirdath
Guest
Which, since religion can’t seem to make up its mind about which one is correct and why everybody should think one way, doesn’t particularly involve religions. This is about the government.
Yes, this is what I’d like to see implemented for civil unions. Details need to be worked out, obviously, and the tax code would have to be rewritten to take some elements into account – but really, it’s high time that got done anyway
Their idea of marriage. I’m talking civil unions here. You can exclude anyone you want from your church, but religions should not have jurisdiction over who can get a marriage license from the government.
Perfectly serious. I’ll admit to being highly amused at the back-and-forth antics among Catholics (who should have one unified opinion on the subject, yes?) over the proposed legislation earlier, but I really do stand behind everything I have said in this thread and believe it can be of great benefit to society.
I wasn’t joking about the space aliens either.
R
RyanL
Guest
Mirdath,
Your idea is ridiculously bad. Absurdly bad. It’s one of the worst ideas I’ve heard as to how to “fix” modern society.
God Bless,
RyanL
Your idea is ridiculously bad. Absurdly bad. It’s one of the worst ideas I’ve heard as to how to “fix” modern society.
- If you would like, we can start a new thread on how polygamy is bad for children and terrible for women. Or, you could take my word for it. This is a terrible solution.
- You are allowing full rights conferred by anyone. Need a green card? Pay a homeless guy $100 and you’ve got one. What? You said you’re a terrorist? No sweat, because Midrath’s Law says you’re cool now and entitled to full citizenship. And a passport. Enjoy.
- Legal immigration…why bother? Just “marry” someone and get divorced right after. You’re free to contract, and why not contract here. Heck, you don’t even need to consummate the union! Just imagine trying to define “consumation” for a lesbian relationship - best of luck getting agreement on that! Oh…but no need for the INS anymore. I guess that will save some tax-payer dollars. Good, 'cuz we’ll need 'em (see below)!
- So you’re a single mom and the single mom next door has a kickin’ health plan? Why not get “unionized” and now you’re entitled to full medical coverage on her employer’s dime. This will drive up prices of goods and services, but you’ve saved some money in #3 so it’s all good. Don’t worry about adultery, BTW, because this is a fraudulent “marriage” anyway. Keep ushering dates through the doors…this won’t affect your kids idea of relationships at all, or render it nearly impossible for them to have a healthy monogamous life-long relationship.
- Wait…you were “married” to your single mom neighbor but now you’ve met a guy you want to actually marry? Fine, but now your neighbor/union-spouse lost her job and wants half your stuff, plus alimony for the next 15 years. “It was just a sham,” you say? Tough. Danger of contract, buyer beware. Oh, your kids? Yeah, tough for them, too.
- Hey, you know what would be really neat? If our whole frat decided to get “married”! Right on! All 40 of us! They can’t stop us, and we get a tax break!
- You’re still discriminating against cousins. Bigot. Why are you so closed minded? You must be incest-o-phobic.
God Bless,
RyanL
M
Mirdath
Guest
I’d just love to see what you’re bringing to the table that doesn’t date from the Middle Ages or before.
Polygamy (which includes polyandry, by the way) isn’t a ‘solution’, it’s allowable under my proposition.
What? Where did I say anything like that? Where did I say just anybody off the street has the right to grant a marriage license, green card, doctorate, or anything of the sort?
Marriage doesn’t get you citizenship here in America. It may influence a judge’s decision, but it’s only one of many factors.
Consummation is whatever they say it is, and you don’t have to consummate a civil union anyway. The government has better things to do than watch through bedroom windows with binoculars; don’t you?
Sure! Wouldn’t it be to the benefit of the children to have better medical care, having two parents to split child care and household duties, and so on? People get married for convenience and better insurance right now. Why should that be limited to male-female?
Again, you’re putting words in my mouth. It’s a contract. There are penalties for violating contracts.
Pretty much. Happens every day right now anyway. Divorce hurts, regardless of the sexes of the parents.
Go ahead! It’d be a pretty complicated contract, though.
Are you even reading my posts? Apparently not – I said there’s no reason to ban marriages between indirect relatives.
Do you see yet how dumb this idea is or should I keep going? I could, if you really need it.
God bless indeed
You’re going to have to keep going if you want to show that my idea is at all worse than the status quo. So far none of your objections pass any reasonable scrutiny as long as one actually reads what I wrote.
B
blessedtoo
Guest
WE understand this discussion to be about the goods of marriage as a social institution - having NOTHING to do with religion. I believe you are the one who is confusing things.
Now you can call your plan “civil union”, but no matter what name you give it, it offers no benefit to society. The state is not interested in simply handing out benefits to any couple, or in your scenario, group that wants to call itself a family. The state wants more citizens. It want moms and dads to marry, have babies, raise them in a stable environment with values and morals, educate them, teach them how to function and send them off into society where they will produce in some capacity for the state. How on earth could such a goal be accomplished with your ridiculous plan?
It is understood that children raised by a mother and father who are married is the best environment. Even the homosexual activists will not attempt to dismantle this truth. Instead, they compare their best case scenarios with heterosexual wost case scenarios (happily “married” gay couple with children compared to unhappily married straights). A legitimate comparison would involve either the best of both or the worst of both. With this in mind, how could any of your constructs provide any benefit to society? If raising children within marriage is the best possible environment, shouldn’t all the state’s efforts go into strengthening this contract rather than chipping away at it with all types of mutations?
F
Friend_Of_Rome
Guest
The way I see it, married couples show their love through the creation of life, the conception of a child. Marriage was created to merge two beings into one, for the purpose of loving one another. Marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. Fr. Corapi once said, “It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!” Gay couples, however celibate or practicing, cannot naturally conceive. Gay people need to remain ever chaste in their life, and never succumb to their desires. Heterosexual people are called to marriage, homosexual people are called to chastity. Now, where does this leave us with the issue of children? First of all, look at the parrents of Saint therese of lisieux-The were celibate for years, never once even trying to conceive. Their parish priest found out, and told them to, “Get Busy.” Well, twenty years later, they had a daughter famous througfhout France, and the others in convents. Children are not required, but they are wanted. It’s the purest and simplest form of showing love for others and God.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Apparently I tried so hard to make myself clear I turned opaque.
How is it of no benefit to society? Is a childless heterosexual marriage now ‘no benefit’? Then why are you not supporting WA-DOMA?
Hospital visitation and inheritance aren’t benefits, they’re rights. Things like that are more what I’m concerned about.
Quite easily. If I had to guess, it’d be with slightly more frequency than happens now. Heterosexual unions would probably stay at about the same level. Homosexuals wouldn’t generally have produced children anyway. And since we’re dragging this in, polygynous marriages would add to the number of children.
Not when one is merely trying to prove the best of A is better than the worst of B. Let me make a car analogy: would you prefer to drive a boring little sedan formerly owned by an old lady who only drove it to church and kept it well-maintained, or a beat-up lamborghini that’s been in three wrecks and keeps running on spit and duct tape?
Marriage isn’t all about the children.
R
RyanL
Guest
.Who gives you the right to determine how close is “indirect relatives”?
Why not direct relatives? Two brothers want a civil union - why are you so closed-minded as to deny them? Why are you against equality? Why are you so intolerant?
What if I cloned myself (an ever approaching reality) and wanted a self-civil-union? Would you deny me that as well? Can’t get any closer a relative than that…
OR…will you only deny “direct relatives” the freedom to “marry” if there’s the possibility of procreation? Wouldn’t that simply be flip-flopping discrimination?
Ooooooh, the arrogance of modernity.
People have been thinking about the law and society for several thousand years. Why on earth would you think that the only good idea is one that dates from the last 20 minutes?!?
I’m only a second year law student, so I’m not as familiar with this law as you are. Would you please enlighten me as to what other factors a judge (as opposed to a legislative body or process) uses to determine whether or not someone gets a green card?
Couple more questions, my enlightened amigo:
- What can your “civil union” idea get you that various other legal contracts cannot? (I.e, wills, powers of attorney, etc.)
- Why should the government provide these un-get-able things to anyone and everyone who asks? This is to say, what is the ***state ***interest in providing these benefits?
- What was the original purpose for the government recognizing marriage in the first place?
- Why is (3) no longer a factor, or (alternately) how can we ensure that (3) will still be protected with your new law?
God Bless,
RyanL
M
Mirdath
Guest
No right but a dictionary.
I did say consenting, remember? Among immediate relatives, true informed consent can never be guaranteed.
Care to answer my less-ridiculous question about intelligent aliens?
No, because I don’t base my definition of marriage on the possibility of procreation.
Ooooooh, the arrogance of modernity.
Times have changed, peoples’ needs, abilities, and wants have changed. Who we are now is vastly different from who we were a century ago, let alone millennia in the past. We’ll be different in the future too, and we’ll have different rules for society then. The best (not necessarily ‘only good’, but best) ideas for how to run a society come with that society in its current state.
Relatives already in the country, ability to work, criminal record, etc. If you’re in law, you should be able to look it up – actually, you should already have a general knowledge.
Joint filing of taxes without having to incorporate, and hospital visitation rights (non-family members can be denied). Those are the big two. Other than that, nothing – it’s just all in one convenient package. If the government exists to serve the people (hint: it does), why shouldn’t it make things as convenient for them as possible?
As I said above, the state is in the service of the people. It is not their lord and master, it is their servant. The people are interested, therefore the ideal state is.
As the state provides services and ensures rights and responsibilities connected with marriage, it has to keep track of them. It’s a matter of recordkeeping, not theology.
Should be obvious. Since the state’s concern with marriage is records, merely expanding the definition of ‘who can get married’ is no threat to those records.
B
blessedtoo
Guest
Now I know you are “stirring the pot”. Why on earth would you say this?
You think that aliens are more conceivable than clones?
If you read the transcript of the decision in this case that I posted 7,000 posts ago, you will see that the government doesn’t either. You are purposely avoiding a direct response to the questions that have been posed.
Unbelievable arrogance. What other laws and social mores shall we change now that we are so “enlightened”?
Not an answer.
All possible with the proper legal paper work. If the government is here to serve me, then why shouldn’t it just give me whatever I ask for? It’s purpose is to represent the people and provide for the continuation of civilization. If it caves to any request in the name of service, how does that advance civilization?
Representatives. And the people who are interested are a tiny 4% of the population. Indeed, in the recent initiatives in 7 states, 6 states voted against homosexual marriage. What more evidence do you need that the state is respresenting the people?
Absurd. Again, way back about 500 posts, I included a link on what the state’s interest is in marriage and it did not include RECORDKEEPING. Are you serious?
R
RyanL
Guest
Ok. You’re actually trying to answer. I’ll lay off a bit.
Mirdath:
Where on earth (specifically, at law) did you get this idea? I can contract with my brother for any number of things. Is this the “one thing sacred” where I categorically cannot consent? Justify, please.
Similarly, morals do not change but people’s opinions about morality does. In Saudi Arabia, it’s immodest for a woman to wear less than a burka. In the U.S., it’s immodest for a woman to go topless. Both societies value modesty (the underlying moral), but the opinion about how this is best expressed has changed. Modesty hasn’t changed, merely the opinion about modesty.
And I would assert that foregoing modesty (an ancient concept) is not the correct answer. Same goes for chastity, tolerance, prudence, etc. We are no “different” than our ancient counterparts, but our culture is.
So now you’re down to one. Tax breaks.
Again - what you’re fighting for explicitly is a tax break, which is actually a penalty if you and your would-be-spouse earn the same amount of money.
Did you get that?
If both of you are employed, it’s worse off for you to get married.
The tax break for married couples has its maximum benefit when one of the partners is not employed.
Care to speculate as to why that is?
…cont’d…
Two grown men cannot give informed consent (you’ve now introduced a new principle to your definition, BTW) simply because they’re “closely” related.
Where on earth (specifically, at law) did you get this idea? I can contract with my brother for any number of things. Is this the “one thing sacred” where I categorically cannot consent? Justify, please.
Please refresh my memory.
So there’s no longer a ban on marrying your first cousin (or your sister), provided there’s informed consent? Do you really think this is a good idea for the state to buy off on and (in some cases) encourage through tax incentives?
is vastly different from who we were a century ago, let alone millennia in the past. We’ll be different in the future too, and we’ll have different rules for society then. The best (not necessarily ‘only good’, but best) ideas for how to run a society come with that society in its current state. You’re confusing culture with nature. Culture changes, human nature does not. To give a less-than-adequate analogy, cars change but internal combustion does not. A Model-T still operates using the same principles as a Chevy S-10. The style has changed, but the automobile has not.
Similarly, morals do not change but people’s opinions about morality does. In Saudi Arabia, it’s immodest for a woman to wear less than a burka. In the U.S., it’s immodest for a woman to go topless. Both societies value modesty (the underlying moral), but the opinion about how this is best expressed has changed. Modesty hasn’t changed, merely the opinion about modesty.
And I would assert that foregoing modesty (an ancient concept) is not the correct answer. Same goes for chastity, tolerance, prudence, etc. We are no “different” than our ancient counterparts, but our culture is.
Green cards is not a course offered at my university.
Actually, you can get a hospital authorization form which gets you visitation rights for non-blood-relatives.
So now you’re down to one. Tax breaks.
So get a packet of forms together and have people sign them. It’s not that hard. I can e-mail you the forms if you’d like.
Again - what you’re fighting for explicitly is a tax break, which is actually a penalty if you and your would-be-spouse earn the same amount of money.
Did you get that?
If both of you are employed, it’s worse off for you to get married.
The tax break for married couples has its maximum benefit when one of the partners is not employed.
Care to speculate as to why that is?
I’m afraid I didn’t understand your last sentence. Would you please rephrase?
…cont’d…
R
RyanL
Guest
…cont’d…
The state can keep records without providing a tax break. You’re not getting to the heart of why the state recognized marriage in the first place.
Why did the state originally afford tax breaks to married couples?
Here’s a hint: any able-bodied man should be able (in principle) to impregnate any able-bodied woman. Why didn’t the state offer tax breaks for promiscuity or simply for childbirth?
Another hint: The answer is not based on theology.
God Bless,
RyanL
recordkeeping, not theology. Wait…you said that tax benefits were one of the benefits of marriage, and now you say that the state’s sole interest is in recordkeeping. That doesn’t logically follow.
The state can keep records without providing a tax break. You’re not getting to the heart of why the state recognized marriage in the first place.
Why did the state originally afford tax breaks to married couples?
Until you lock in on (3), your answer to (4) is going to be a bit off.
Here’s a hint: any able-bodied man should be able (in principle) to impregnate any able-bodied woman. Why didn’t the state offer tax breaks for promiscuity or simply for childbirth?
Another hint: The answer is not based on theology.
God Bless,
RyanL
- Status