Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Definitions of Marriage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    It was a question. So you recognise that there is no good reason.
    I went to the trouble of providing a fairly sizeable list of good reasons. So it wasn't a question, since your answer is to restate your policy position.

    But I'll try one more time. The good reason for legal marriage is because it satisfies an overwhelming public demand, and simplifies the majority of all interpersonal legal preferences. It's one of those legal conditions that, if it didn't exist, would be invented almost immediatly, for reasons of utility.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by phank View Post
      I went to the trouble of providing a fairly sizeable list of good reasons. So it wasn't a question, since your answer is to restate your policy position.

      But I'll try one more time. The good reason for legal marriage is because it satisfies an overwhelming public demand, and simplifies the majority of all interpersonal legal preferences. It's one of those legal conditions that, if it didn't exist, would be invented almost immediatly, for reasons of utility.
      You said that "I don't know if I can give you a good answer."

      The reasons you bring up: do they benefit society? Or is it just a matter of maintaining convention? Would there be much public demand for the legal benefits if there hadn't been a history of providing benefits?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
        You said that "I don't know if I can give you a good answer."
        My bad. I meant to say "an answer which you will find satisfactory."

        The reasons you bring up: do they benefit society? Or is it just a matter of maintaining convention? Would there be much public demand for the legal benefits if there hadn't been a history of providing benefits?
        I don't know if I'm reading this question correctly. Marriage laws are a great help in oiling a lot of points of potential friction in society, so I'd say they are beneficial. Consider the legal benefit of not having to testify against your spouse in court. Is there a demand for this benefit? Sure, since married couples refuse to do this even on penalty of contempt charges. Consider the benefit of the surviving spouse keeping the joint property by default. This saves what would surely be terrible legal battles if the govenment tried to confiscate half of what had been shared property - and saves most couples the nuisance of crafting a will saying this same thing. I think you can go down each of the benefits individually (and there are potentially thousands) and say "if this weren't the default, it would cause excessive, unnecessary, and unpopular conflicts."

        Comment


        • Let's unpack the Phankisms in his main soliloquy, heartfelt as they may be hollow.

          It seems to be an aspect of human nature that, as adults, many of us find joy and comfort being part of a hopefully long-term, emotionally committed 2-person bond.
          Not one song was ever written about "a long-term, emotionally committed 2-person bond." More songs than can be counted are sung about a woman's beauty and sweetness and a man's strength and talents. Nobody wants or realizes the abstraction till they've had it for a long while inside a felt reality.

          And this seems true regardless of the nominal reason why we enjoy such bonds - perhaps for companionship, and for sex, maybe to raise children, possibly for financial benefits, and out of a deep respect for and understanding of the other person.
          The word 'person' is the most perniciously stupid and willfully dumb term to use when talking about marriage, and using that word as the descriptor inside a relationship where the great majority of men and women are looking for specific and incompatible things from the other is appallingly foolish.

          Most of these bondings are between opposite sexes, and a few are between people of the same sex, pretty much matching the incidence of different sexual orientations in the population as a whole. But from a distance, this is incidental, and certainly less important than the fact of the bond itself, and what it brings to those who commit to it.
          When does an atheist start talking about a constant mystical bond between peoples?

          And because this is so ingrained in human nature, so cross-cultural and part of what we are, governments have bowed to the necessity to recognize and accommodate them - or at least most of them.
          A rather backward view of history-the earliest forms of government were often much less 'bowing to the necessity of the pair bond' than 'ensuring that the pair bond between any tribesman and his woman wouldn't be violated by any Roissys in the camp when some men went off to hunt, gather, or plow.' Real hardship and work against a background of actual human needs and wants tends to bring this form of social organization to the realization of everybody, while it takes an over-civilized population to treat marriage as an abstraction first.

          The existence of common-law marriages illustrates that even without government accommodation, people are willing to make and keep these emotional commitments. So most of the thousand and one laws, regulations, and legal precedents which together define and embody "legal marriage" are legal recognitions of what people are going to insist on doing (or not doing) anyway - things like testifying against one another in court, visiting one another in hospitals, being mutually obligated to any children.
          Nah, government's decency with regard to marriage is almost entirely predicated on the degree to which encouraging or discouraging marriage enabled them to maintain their power. Their willingness or unwillingness to meddle in it was entirely due to how religiously the democracy could be trusted to hold marriage and its violations in the face of encroachments against it.

          So marriage as a human practice (regardless of the sexes of the couple) have existed far longer than government regulation.
          Nope. Marriage as a human practice between most men and most women has existed far longer than government regulation, gay marriage is hedonists fiddling in the ruins of marriage.

          I suppose we could better split the semantics up into "committed marriage" and "legal marriage", where a committed marriage is what genuine couples do (regardless of sex), and legal marriage is a collection of special considerations guaranteed by the civil authorities.
          Such division does nothing but encourage liars, and the first step of any fighting society will be to erase that distinction through enforcing common definitions and common traditions.

          And clearly, it's possible to have either one without the other. Today, a great many de facto marriages exist without state licence, and a great many "technical marriages" exist with state licence but no interpersonal bond.
          Shifting from 'genuinely married' to 'de facto married' and talking about "interpersonal bonds" like you're describing atoms in a chemistry textbook. This ought to get good.

          Why have a "technical marriage", where there is no emotional bond, no particular love or respect?
          Because the emotional bond is not the most important part of marriage, and treating it as such has destroyed a great many marriages.

          Usually, it's because the hoped-for permanent emotional attachment didn't last, leaving a marriage in name only. Sometimes people marry for financial reasons, or for reasons of appearance. As courts have found consistently, a state of legal marriage bestows genuine benefits of real value, regardless of the strength of the personal commitment. To the point where committed couples ineligible for legal marriage have been willing to spend many thousands of dollars in legal fees to fabricate some (certainly not all) of the structures of legal marriage. I would doubt there are any two couples who share exactly the same constellation of "purposes of marriage". Often, the two people involved don't either! Yet the legal state of marriage as embodied in the thousand and one legalities is still valuable.
          What keeps a business running after the emotional high of a new job and new line of work is gone? Does the fact that the Mafia feels the need to maintain a Legitimate Businessman's Social Club with several front businesses for their workers make it unjust that most business historians tend to ignore the Mafia when studying business models? What everyday human need is served by a business? What everyday human need is served by a marriage?

          Given this wide variety of purposes for getting and staying married, it becomes difficult to logically or legally separate out some subset of committed marriages and declare them ineligible for legal marriage.
          Well yes, if you have no particular imagination, observation, or experience on the issue, and have no particular habit of systematically observing the things that make a liveable community, specifically things like widely shared common experiences and shared goals for the future of your neighborhoods and a desire to see your own children as part of that community

          Certainly the reason can't be procreation - many permitted marriages are known in advance not to be fertile.
          Childless couples can easily hit two out of three of the above; their weakness in one aspect is not a rejection of marriage's purpose.

          As for intangibles like "danger to the society as a whole" or "danger to public morale", so far (and despite committed marriages for millennia by those of the same sex), none of the purported danger has ever developed into actual harm or injury,
          Point and sputter all you want, the marks of corruption are there for all with eyes to see.

          at least to the satisfaction of any courts.
          Haven't you've already spent all this time establishing that courts are terrible judges of character and bondedness, being interested only in abstractions and cash value?

          So what we have is an essentially arbitrary restriction on certain committed marriages, declaring them ineligible for legal marriage because of distinctions that have nothing to do with either the laws governing legal marriage (which would not need more than cosmetic modification), or the emotional bonds of the permanent commitments. And this is fortunate, because it means that if arbitrary restrictions are lifted, nothing really changes. Certain existing marriages become licenced, affecting nobody outside that licence.
          Just like the aftermath of the Civil Rights movement changed nothing:

          Originally posted by Jim
          You cannot do large projects in the US any more, because any new project attracts a horde of government officials seeking a payoff, the bigger the project, the more people seeking a payoff, until eventually you get a hundred officials each seeking five percent of any added value the project would generate. Possibly this a result of the well known effect of diversity in lowering trust, trustworthy behavior, and social pressures that enforce trustworthy behavior. Add five percent affirmative action blacks to the ruling elite, get one hundred percent Chicago style corruption.
          Because empowering hostile minorities never, ever, has bad effects on the character of the nation as a whole, right?
          Last edited by Epoetker; 03-04-2014, 03:37 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
            Let's unpack the Phankisms in his main soliloquy, heartfelt as they may be hollow.
            That's it? The best you can do is evade, dodge, reinterpret, lie, and misrepresent? I stand vindicated in detail. I appreciate it.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by phank View Post
              That's it? The best you can do is evade, dodge, reinterpret, lie, and misrepresent? I stand vindicated in detail. I appreciate it.
              When Outis loses the debate to me, he changes the subject. When Dee Dee loses the debate to me, she begs leave. When phank loses, he declares victory.

              Two of these at least show an understanding of when they've lost a debate, and that losing is in fact shameful. But I guess you're thinking that by following the no-quarter no-negotiation no-understanding no-limit womb-to-the-tomb YOU DON'T KNOW ME bullying model that gays and blacks have so successfully implemented, you'll gain their success. Please try to remember that you are in fact white, and have no particular innate talent for this.
              Last edited by Epoetker; 03-04-2014, 12:48 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by phank View Post
                But asking about blood type is NOT an invasion of privacy?
                No. HIPAA permits request and compliant disclosure of limited identifying information to government officials. Such examples are:
                Name and address;
                Date and place of birth;
                Social security number;
                ABO blood type and rh factor;
                Type of injury;
                Date and time of treatment;
                Date and time of death; and
                Description of distinguishing characteristics, including height, weight, gender, race, hair and eye color, presence or absence of facial hair, scars, and tattoos.



                I simply disagree here. The State does not ask about ability to procreate because this is nowhere a condition or expectation of marriage in any way.
                It can never be because it involves violating HIPAA laws. But, notice, I never said it was a condition of marriage. I said it was encouraged by the state WITHIN a marriage bond.

                You will notice that in all the states that permit same-sex marriage, no forms had to change, no rules modified, no questions omitted.
                That's simply not true. Most of the states that allow same sex marriage updated their licenses from "Husband and Wife" blocks to "Applicant A" and "Applicant B". New York updated their online application to include "Spouse A" and "Spouse B".


                The state does not care about the ability or intent to procreate.
                Again, yes they do. It is the primary interest that the SCOTUS has repeatedly stated in government sanctioning of marriage for the past over 200 years.


                Yes. My point was, existing law is indifferent to procreation. It's not at issue anywhere.
                It is encouraged through the heterosexual marriage bonds.


                Then why have no states added any procreation questions or requirements?
                Because HIPAA laws will not allow it, and making it a requirement of a marriage is also unconstitutional. But, encouraging it to occur within the optimum circumstance of the husband/wife bond is where the government is concerned.


                They weren't asked about any matters irrelevant to the act of getting married. The state, believe it or not, is not required to ask about every detail not explicitly disallowed by privacy laws. They only ask about things considered relevant. Procreation is not one of them. Sorry.
                As I said, the SCOTUS has said that procreation within a marriage IS relevant, and to be encouraged. And, as I have stated time and time again, in order to do so without invading privacy, the exceptions to the category are incapable of invalidating this interest, nor are they excuse to expand it to those who clearly can never meet that interest as a broad category.


                But I should ask you: Since this elderly couple very obviously would never be able to procreate,
                And you know this, how? Can you say (without asking them) if they have any frozen embryos from 30 years prior? Or perhaps that she froze some of her eggs, and they wanted to attempt to fertilize them and implant them into her? No. You can't. They are an exception to a category of those who ARE capable of procreating, and they MAY be able to procreate together, given current technology.


                It's quite simple... without any further information,

                Human male A + Human female B
                Human male A + Human male B
                Human female A + Human female B


                Which of these three categories are capable of reproducing by themselves?

                SHOULD the state have disallowed their marriage, in your opinion?
                No. If they were, it would have to be on a specific grounds that is classified as an invasion of privacy in order to determine.
                That's what
                - She

                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                Comment


                • Originally posted by phank View Post
                  My wife and I never intended to have any children, and we never did. And it never mattered. But we DID recognize that marriage is a constant work in progress, and often it's hard work. There are guaranteed to be differing expectations about what needs to be done, and how it needs to be done, and which priorities take priority, and how these can be compromised and combined to mutual satisfaction. Sometimes this is VERY hard, and you have to step back and count to a million and reflect on your promised willingness to be part of a team, and decide whether this current issue is really life and death, and it never is. And all of this demands mutual loyalty and respect, and the never-questioned presumption that both people genuinely want what's best for both people.

                  You don't learn all this by reading a book pushing a religous or political agenda. You learn by trial and error, patience and consideration and forgiveness and determination.
                  I have this very bond with my wife AND my best friend. Should the government recognize my devotion to my best friend with some form of monetary benefits?
                  That's what
                  - She

                  Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                  - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                  I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                  - Stephen R. Donaldson

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                    Even if it isn't easily accessible outside of the sophisticated structures of morality provided by religious traditions, I strongly believe that it isn't inherently sectarian. In any case, Justice Kennedy's assertion that the only reason to oppose the civil redefinition of marriage is some sort of "animus" is utterly absurd; if nothing else, it makes actual dialogue on this issue impossible.
                    I think he was using the term "animus" technically. That is, his argument was that there was no rational objection to people of the same sex marrying. That is, it doesn't cause any kind of harm, interfere with anyone else's rights, impede anything that the State might want to do, etc. That's a specific legal test. It's called a "rational basis" review. Of course many people do have religious objections, but that's not something the justices can take into account under current rules. So from a strictly legal point of view, you've got people who want to see certain people treated worse than others for no rational reason. It's not unreasonable to call that "animus." That's not a term I would use in other discussions on the topic. I certainly understand that conservative Christians don't have an animus against gays. But in the context of the ruling it makes sense.

                    When I read the original decision I was surprised by how strong the language was, although in on a Constitutional basis I can see exactly where it came from. The recent Kentucky ruling used exactly that reasoning to show that Kentucky's failure to recognize certain marriages had no rational basis. It was interesting to see that the decision didn't mention full faith and credit at all. It didn't need to if the original law burdens a specific set of people without rational basis. As far as I can see, the only reason the judge didn't mandate same-sex marriage is because the case before him didn't require it. That "rational basis" analysis will overturn the ban on same-sex marriage within Kentucky when the first case involving it is brought.

                    That's assuming it passes review on appeal. But unless the Supreme Court justices change their minds, it surely will. If they really believe that there's no rational basis to distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage (and I can see that absent religious reasons there is not), then burdening a specific class of people really ought to be unconstitutional. None of us should want there to be laws that burden a group of people without rational basis.
                    Last edited by hedrick; 03-04-2014, 03:40 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      I have this very bond with my wife AND my best friend. Should the government recognize my devotion to my best friend with some form of monetary benefits?
                      Your accomplishment exceeds my capability. One wife is as much as I can deal with. Imagine THREE opinions about everything to have to reconcile!

                      Very few of the government benefits are monetary, and some years there has been a "marriage penalty" in the income tax laws. Most of the marriage benefits are simply legal recognition of the implications of the emotional bond. For a true group marriage like you claim to be living in, I don't know what the consensus legal defaults would be among all such instances. Perhaps you can check with your marriage partners and find agreements (rather than a bunch of 2-1 votes).

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by phank View Post
                        Your accomplishment exceeds my capability. One wife is as much as I can deal with. Imagine THREE opinions about everything to have to reconcile!

                        Very few of the government benefits are monetary, and some years there has been a "marriage penalty" in the income tax laws. Most of the marriage benefits are simply legal recognition of the implications of the emotional bond. For a true group marriage like you claim to be living in, I don't know what the consensus legal defaults would be among all such instances. Perhaps you can check with your marriage partners and find agreements (rather than a bunch of 2-1 votes).
                        Oh, I'm not in any sort of group marriage. Nor is one required for the bond type that you described in the post I quoted. What I do have is a very strong personal bond with my best friend - one that we plan on cultivating for the rest of our lives. We genuinely care about each others' families, we compromise on differing opinions and priorities, and we agree to be part of a team. He's closer than my 2 brothers in that respect.
                        That's what
                        - She

                        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                        - Stephen R. Donaldson

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Oh, I'm not in any sort of group marriage.
                          I described a marriage bond, and you said you have "this very bond" with your best friend. That is, a loving, living-together, committed, sexual relationship. As I described. If you have two such relationships, it's a group marriage. If you do NOT have two such relationships, then you were misrepresenting.

                          Nor is one required for the bond type that you described in the post I quoted. What I do have is a very strong personal bond with my best friend - one that we plan on cultivating for the rest of our lives. We genuinely care about each others' families, we compromise on differing opinions and priorities, and we agree to be part of a team. He's closer than my 2 brothers in that respect.
                          In my mind, there is a clear distinction between a marriage and a long-term close friendship. This distinction is emotional, practical, and legal.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by phank View Post
                            I described a marriage bond, and you said you have "this very bond" with your best friend.
                            You gave some descriptions that fit your marriage. The same descriptive words that you offered fit the relationship my best friend and I have. You never mentioned cohabitation, sexual relations, or any indicator of marriage-specific terms. You simply described a 2 person relationship that is built on trust, mutual satisfaction, and common goals.

                            That is, a loving, living-together, committed, sexual relationship.
                            None of the descriptions you listed, and I quoted, mention any of those.

                            As I described. If you have two such relationships, it's a group marriage. If you do NOT have two such relationships, then you were misrepresenting.
                            Too bad that's not what you said. You may have implied it, but unspoken words are not sufficient to make your point. Had you meant a sexual, cohabitating relationship, you should have specified that.

                            In my mind, there is a clear distinction between a marriage and a long-term close friendship. This distinction is emotional, practical, and legal.
                            Oh, I agree, when we expand out from the basics of interpersonal relationships into matters of physical intimacy and legal responsibilities. But, again, I see no reason to reward someone for taking their long term relationship to a physical intimacy level just on the basis of their getting physical.
                            That's what
                            - She

                            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                            - Stephen R. Donaldson

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              You gave some descriptions that fit your marriage. The same descriptive words that you offered fit the relationship my best friend and I have. You never mentioned cohabitation, sexual relations, or any indicator of marriage-specific terms. You simply described a 2 person relationship that is built on trust, mutual satisfaction, and common goals.
                              You are cherry-picking some of my description of marriage, in order to represent it as something clearly different from what I intended.

                              None of the descriptions you listed, and I quoted, mention any of those.
                              Except those that do. Your pretense that you have NO CLUE what's involved in a marriage doesn't work.

                              Too bad that's not what you said. You may have implied it, but unspoken words are not sufficient to make your point. Had you meant a sexual, cohabitating relationship, you should have specified that.
                              I have described aspects of what I called "emotional marriage" in multiple posts. I haven't given the entire list in every post, but you have replied to most of the posts. Picking a list intended to emphasize one aspect of marriage, and pretending I never spoke of any other aspect, is a deliberate misrepresentation.

                              Oh, I agree, when we expand out from the basics of interpersonal relationships into matters of physical intimacy and legal responsibilities.
                              Which are also aspects of marriage. But a discussion of every aspect is probably more rewarding than simply sniping (and missing your target).

                              But, again, I see no reason to reward someone for taking their long term relationship to a physical intimacy level just on the basis of their getting physical.
                              I'm not sure I understand what you mean. In a prior post, I spoke at some length about legal marriages based on physical attraction and lust. I said that these were never emotional commitments, and when the novelty of sex wears off people find they don't really like each other and divorce. That is, they discontinue the LEGAL marriage, since the emotional marriage never happened. And yet, if you regard legal marriage as a system of rewards, these "revolving door marriage" people DO get those benefits, because these are legal marriages. Empty, perhaps, but legal.

                              Are you suggesting here that there should be a trial period before a licence is granted, to prevent granting the "rewards" of legal marriage to short-term sexual hookups?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by phank View Post

                                Are you suggesting here that there should be a trial period before a licence is granted, to prevent granting the "rewards" of legal marriage to short-term sexual hookups?
                                No. I am saying that Marriage should remain exactly what it has been for centuries in this country, and that there is no good reason to expand its meaning to cover same sex "marriage".
                                That's what
                                - She

                                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                361 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X