Same-sex marriages: Let it be!

[Raxus]

They don’t need a civil marriage license. Gay couples are not capable of the contributions to society that heterosexual couples are. There are legal protections they can ask for already that accomplish what they complain about not having.

The fact is, so-called “gay marriage” hurts society and children. It doesn’t need to exist, and society would be better off without it.

 

[frobert]

They don’t need a civil marriage license. Gay couples are not capable of the contributions to society that heterosexual couples are. There are legal protections they can ask for already that accomplish what they complain about not having.

The fact is, so-called “gay marriage” hurts society and children. It doesn’t need to exist, and society would be better off without it.

You didn’t understand anything that I said. Regardless of what you imagine gay couples not contributing or what civil marriage is, you don’t have to wait for the government to do away with civil marriage, you can do it yourself by not participating and still retain your right to a civil marriage but if you don’t want a civil marriage license the government won’t force you to get one.

 

[frobert]

We don’t yet have “marriage equality” for all, though that is the logical conclusion of the trend.

Under many existing civil laws, a man can marry a woman, a man can marry a man, a woman can marry a woman, but that’s not full marriage equality. Marriage equality requires that anyone be able to marry anyone else:

You are confusing “marriage equality” with “marriage equality under state law.”

Do you know of any legal marriages in the US in which:

A man can marry many women (at once)?
A woman can marry many men (at once?)
A brother can marry his sister? (No sex need be involved?)
A sister can marry her sister?
A brother can marry his brother?
Five siblings can marry one another?
A man can marry many women (at once)?
A woman can marry many men (at once?)
A brother can marry his sister? (No sex need be involved?)
A sister can marry her sister?
A brother can marry his brother?
Five siblings can marry one another?
A daughter can marry her elderly mother?

Since no one can in the above cases can enter a legal marriage in the US, it is marriage equality.

And on the other hand, without regard to sex and assuming they are consenting adults:

Business partners can marry for the tax benefits.
Roommates of either sex can marry for convenience.
Two widows can marry each other.

Since any two adults can consent to be married in the US it is marriage equality.

 

[JimG]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that of the cases I itemized, some can marry currently but some cannot. But if some are excluded, we do not yet have marriage equality.

It is currently limited to two persons, and possibly may not include siblings, but I’m not sure. The limitation would be a limit on marriage equality.

And once we do have full marriage equality—anyone can marry anyone—marriage will have been rendered fully meaningless.

 

[frobert]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that of the cases I itemized, some can marry currently but some cannot. But if some are excluded, we do not yet have marriage equality.

It is currently limited to two persons, and possibly may not include siblings, but I’m not sure. The limitation would be a limit on marriage equality.

And once we do have full marriage equality—anyone can marry anyone—marriage will have been rendered fully meaningless.

You are still confusing “marriage equality” with “marriage equality under the law”

If NO ONE within a category can marry then its marriage equality. If ANYONE within a category can marry it is marriage equality. In either case there is NO discrimination under the law.

If you are ornery enough to carry the banner for what you imagine are discriminatory you will end up disappointed.

As I wrote in a previous post anyone who doesn’t like civil marriage you dosn’t have to participate.

 

[XndrK]

Even before the passing of civil recognition of same-sex relationships as marriage, anyone over a certain age (depending on the state) could marry; they just couldn’t marry whoever they so desired.

That said, the purpose of civil recognition of marriage (and the tax breaks and welfare benefits that implies) was to reward people for starting stable families with children, since families produce children and stable families produce better-adjusted children than, say, single parents (statistically). Since the Sexual Revolution and the adoption of no-fault divorce in particular, this makes no sense anymore, so we have two options:

1. Undo all this social change, which requires a long-term project if not a complete reset of Western civilization, or
2. Stop having the state give tax benefits for people who want to have sex with each other.

 

[Rau]

Stop having the state give tax benefits for people who want to have sex with each other.

Some jurisdictions provide tax benefits to families with children, not to people able to produce a marriage certificate. They target more sensibly.

 

[XndrK]

See, that makes a lot more sense. Just make the requirements

1. have a child in the household and
2. have parents with an s.

Then let the church decide what counts as marriage and the state can continue on its merry way.

 

[frobert]

Stop having the state give tax benefits for people who want to have sex with each other

Not so fast! Are you aware that many people who marry actually have a tax penalty?

Understanding the Marriage Penalty and Marriage Bonus>

One unintended feature of the United States’ income tax system is that the combined tax liability of a married couple may be higher or lower than their combined tax burden if they had remained single. This is called the marriage penalty or marriage bonus.

Marriage penalties and bonuses have a significant impact on the combined tax burden of couples. Marriage penalties affect taxpayers at very high and very low incomes, and marriage bonuses affect many middle-income couples with disparate incomes. Taxpayers with children also face large penalties and bonuses for marriage. While it is possible to eliminate the marriage penalty and bonus, which would make the tax code more neutral with respect to marriage, it would take a significant change to the United States’ income tax code. As a result, lawmakers may opt for smaller marriage penalty reliefs as they have in the past.

Then let the church decide what counts as marriage and the state can continue on its merry way.

Do you really want to under a theocracy?

 

[XndrK]

No, I don’t want a theocracy; I want the state to get out of the marriage business altogether because I see no reason why it should have the right to regulate it, and since if you’re article’s right – that the state is punishing marriages – then that’s reason enough.

 

[Rau]

I want the state to get out of the marriage business altogether because I see no reason why it should have the right to regulate it

In cases where a marriage breaks up, what process should control the division of assets? The responsibility for children and financial arrangements for their support etc?

 

[XndrK]

The systems of government that handle arbitration between, say, siblings who share a household and then split up.

 

[Rau]

The systems of government that handle arbitration between, say, siblings who share a household and then split up.

That won’t do. Eg. A sibling likely has no responsibility for care of his/her sibling’s children. One sibling rarely if ever takes the role as breadwinner while the other foregoes income to raise children, etc. Perhaps you are envisaging a system that would not recognise these things.

 

[frobert]

No, I don’t want a theocracy; I want the state to get out of the marriage business altogether because I see no reason why it should have the right to regulate it, and since if you’re article’s right – that the state is punishing marriages – then that’s reason enough.

You really don’t understand. You personally, ARE NOT COMPELLED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOUR RIGHT TO A CIVIL MARRIAGE, yet you insist on wanting to prevent others from taking advantage of their civil rights because of an irrational belief or idea that the state does not have regulatory powers regarding marriage.

 

[Ordinary]

OP、Are you Catholic?

 

[Rau]

You really don’t understand. You personally, ARE NOT COMPELLED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOUR RIGHT TO A CIVIL MARRIAGE, yet you insist on wanting to prevent others from taking advantage of their civil rights because of an irrational belief or idea that the state does not have regulatory powers regarding marriage.

Will the Church witness marriage without performing the civil paperwork??

In many jurisdictions, the legal framework that is civil marriage attaches simply by virtue of cohabitation for a period of time.

I don’t think the poster is wanting to prevent anyone from availing themselves of a civil right. I think their wish was that the State should not create a legal right that is inappropriate.

 

[frobert]

Will the Church witness marriage without performing the civil paperwork??

I don’t think the poster is wanting to prevent anyone from availing themselves of a civil right. I think their wish was that the State should not create a legal right that is inappropriate.

Inappropriate for whom?

Case in point:

[In 2014] Holy Covenant’s denomination, the United Church of Christ (UCC), along with ministers of other Charlotte area congregations including a rabbi, filed a lawsuit challenging state marriage laws for restricting ministers’ free exercise of religion. The UCC is also seeking preliminary injunction that would allow ministers to choose whether to perform a religious marriage.

Prior to SC’s ruling the UCC, as well as other Christian demonstrations, preformed marriage blessings for same sex couples that of course, had no civil recognition at that time. So again if someone thinks that present the day civil right to marriage is inappropriate no one is compelling them to take advantage of their civil right.

 

[Rau]

Inappropriate for whom?

Inappropriate for anyone who understands marriage to be a sexual relationship. I cannot conceive of how a sexual relationship between 2 men is an appropriate thing for the State to recognise as marriage.

It is one thing when the UCC proposes and insanity, and other when the State - our collective ‘State’ - proposes the same thing. We get a say in the latter though not the former.

 

[Thorolfr]

frobert:

Inappropriate for whom?

Inappropriate for anyone who understands marriage to be a sexual relationship. I cannot conceive of how a sexual relationship between 2 men is an appropriate thing for the State to recognise as marriage.

It is one thing when the UCC proposes and insanity, and other when the State - our collective ‘State’ - proposes the same thing. We get a say in the latter though not the former.

Even if it is understood that marriage is a sexual relationship, why should this exclude two men? Married gay men have sex with their spouses. Not everyone believe that sex is only for the purpose of reproduction.

 

[Rau]

Even if it is understood that marriage is a sexual relationship…

Do you feel one makes a concession to admit it?

Not everyone believe that sex is only for the purpose of reproduction.

Agreed. But something about the body of man and woman is suggestive of its proper venue.