Is making gay marriage illegal censoring relationships?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Flubber:

Not these specific rights or obligations.

"If homosexual couples could marry, you have your litmus test right there-- they are married or they are not-- Very simple"


Nope. Still leaves us with the same problem. Why should pensions be restricted only to those who are married? Shouldn't we be allowed to give our pension to whomever we want?

"Also inherent in your " expensive" comment is the idea that there must be substantial numbers of couples being denied their pensions under current systems."


Presumes they should have those pensions, which is the case in point. Begging the question.

Ben, what precisely are you arguing here? What's the difference between the situation as it currently exists and if all homosexuals were allowed to get married and get the same benefits? You seem to be saying that if married homosexuals are allowed benefits, everyone should get them. Why? What's changed? You have to be married (straight) now to get those benefits, you'd have to be married then. Same deal. Are you trying to imply that if we allow homosexual marriage, it will open the flood gates and every two people who want to scam the system will claim to be married? Why isn't that happening now? What makes the current situation any more resistant to that than if we allow homosexuals to get married? If you don't allow these benefits to a man and a woman who have simply been dating for a few years, how is that any different under a gay marriage situation? You still aren't going to have a gay couple who have simply been dating for a few years allowed to have the benefits. The line is and will be marriage.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Flubber:

Presumes they should have those pensions, which is the case in point. Begging the question.

No not begging the question. My point was simply that if you say giving pensions to married gay couples would be expensive, this implies that there are substantial numbers of people being denied the ability to marry. pensions are designed to support an individual and also usually has survivor benefits for others dependent on the income. I know that a few pensions have been modified to grant survivor benefits to a person on a common law relationship but many are still stated to be for " spouses " only.



Class of persons? So tell me, how can a choice be a class?
[/QUOTE]

hmmm in human rights context , " marital status" is a ground under which discriminarion can be claimed. If a company refused to hire single people in a circumstance where there was no possible requirement to be married, then those single people would be a " class of persons".. . . So yes it is possible to have personal choices be part of creating a class of persons


But I'm done with this .. . its obvious you do not see homosexual persons as equals. You see no reason why their relationships should be afforded the same legal status as heterosexual relationships. I doubt 10,000 people could change your mind. Inherent in your arguments is the idea that they have chosen this inferior status and therefore do not deserve the benefits and rights that similarly situated heterosexual couples can get.

My position is simpler-- I see no reason that a committed homosexual couple should not have the choice to join themselves together in a legally recognized union that would afford them the same rights and obligations available to married couples. Whether the particular couple takes on those rights and obligations should be a personal choice just as it is for heterosexual couples. If you accept the validity of homosexual relationships, there is no other possible conclusion.

[Ben Kenobi]

Flubber:

My point was simply that if you say giving pensions to married gay couples would be expensive, this implies that there are substantial numbers of people being denied the ability to marry.

True, however, I was not clear enough at my first point. What is the idea and purpose behind distributing pensions? My critique is not so much about gay people getting pensions, it is arguing against the idea that someone should be able to give a pension to whomever he wants. What I am worried is that extending these benefits without a sufficient argument, will eventually lead to this situation.

IMO, this completely defeats the purpose of pensions.

If a company refused to hire single people in a circumstance which where there was no possible requirement to be married,

Now, if you look, at least in Canada, you will see those same rights granted in the case of sexual orientation. Now look very carefully at your own citation.

"where there was no possible requirement to be married,"

In some cases it will be okay to discriminate based on marital status, should it be shown as a requirement for the job. Why can we not say the same in the case of discrimination for sexual orientation, that in certain circumstances there should be a requirement, and allow one of those cases to be marriage?

But I'm done with this .. . its obvious you do not see homosexual persons as equals.

And you would be wrong. I make a distinction between the person and their preferences. Who one is, is not who one sleeps with.

You see no reason why their relationships should be afforded the same legal status as heterosexual relationships.

No. I see no reason why their legal status should be equated with marriage, not relationships. Nice troll.

Inherent in your arguments is the idea that they have chosen this inferior status

I qualified my statement to Ming. If your primary purpose is to have children, then yes, being a homosexual is a poor choice.

If you accept the validity of homosexual relationships

In what sense could a homosexual relationship be considered valid? I simply class these in a libertarian position, in that this is not a valid concern of the state to validate or invalidate relationships.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ming:

Contrary to what you seem to think, people don't get married just to have children. They get married because they love somebody and want to make a commitment with them.

Not contrary to what I think at all. And you know this very well. Love and desire for children. Both should be there in marriage.

And why is that... it seems soley on life style.

No, give the treatments to those who have no other option.

Because you think they made a poor decision...

If they want children, yes.

they need the same help as infertile couples...

No one needs children. They will not die without children, neither will anyone. Need implies an obligation, which does not exist even in the case of infertile couples. However, given limited resources, we should keep them for those who are infertile.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
In what sense could a homosexual relationship be considered valid? I simply class these in a libertarian position, in that this is not a valid concern of the state to validate or invalidate relationships.

First... your biases are showing again

Second... the state validates relationships all the time... it's called a legal marriage. If you get married in a church, it still has to be made official with the state... and you don't even need a church to be officially married. It's IN THE BUSINESS of VALIDATING relationships.

Again... if your religion doesn't want to do them... that's fine by me. But the state is a different story. The legal reasons to be married FAR OUTWEIGH the religious reasons... Gay couples need the same protections offered by the state to any married couple. You can try to change the argument to that they can't have kids, but for the last time... MARRIAGE ISN'T JUST ABOUT HAVING KIDS. And your church will marry people who don't plan on having kids even if the can. So it's all just a smoke screen. I have no problem with you being against gay weddings for religious reasons... but you still haven't come us with a single logical argument to support that totally religious postition of yours

[Ben Kenobi]

since we're suppose to impose morality on everyone else that involves lifestyles that harm no one,

Well, now, what about those who harm themselves?

how about we ban marriages by straight people who have had pre-marital sex?

This is immoral, accroding to the teachings of Christinianity.

Yes, it is immoral, pre-marital sex. But why should we prevent them from getting married? It would be more immoral to prevent two people who had sex with each other before they were married from marrying, then it would be to allow them to marry.

Remember my earlier post on bonds formed by sexual union? This would be why.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ming:

Not my point.

The word 'relationships' is notoriously imprecise. Will all heterosexuals involved in 'relationships' desire to get married? No. In what way is the state in the business of validating these relationships?

I'm trying to get greater clarity on Flubber's post.

Gay couples need the same protections offered by the state to any married couple.

Why?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The word 'relationships' is notoriously imprecise. Will all heterosexuals involved in 'relationships' desire to get married? No. In what way is the state in the business of validating these relationships?

The state isn't being asked to validate those relationships... so your point?

You are missing the point... many heterosexuals do want to get married and be granted the rights offered by the government... and gay people want those same rights. it's that simple. It's not about kids... it's about people who LOVE each other and want to spend their lives together, and want the government to give them the same rights as other people.

And you keep asking why gay couples need the same rights as straights... check the laws... they need them.
I should ask why you keep denying them the same rights you can get... your only answer is religion, because again... no logic from you.

Again... does your church deny people the right to get married simply because they don't want children... I'll bet they don't even ask, and even if they did, they would still do it. So lets stop bringing up kids... because it's just a smoke screen for you, and has nothing to do with this discussion.

[Ben Kenobi]

You seem to be saying that if married homosexuals are allowed benefits, everyone should get them.

Some of these benefits are in place to encourage marriage, and to protect marriage, and to help people stay married. Why would society provide these benefits? Clearly they have an interest in preserving marriage.

That's why I keep getting down the line of children, because they are probably the most obvious of benefits that society derives from marriage.

Now, once you change the role and purpose of marriage, as we are seeing right now, you change the value to society of the institution. Does the institution merit the same benefits as before? That I am not sure. We are going to have to go through this debate, and one of the options in Canada is to do away with marriage benefits altogether, because they realise this connection between privileges and responsibilities.

You still aren't going to have a gay couple who have simply been dating for a few years allowed to have the benefits. The line is and will be marriage.

But why will the line be drawn here? What value does society recieve from marriage to justify the provisions of benefits, once homosexuals are allowed to marry?

[Ben Kenobi]

And you keep asking why gay couples need the same rights as straights... check the laws... they need them.

Why do they need the right to marry? I have already argued why discrimination based on sexual orientation need not also be applied to marriage.

I should ask why you keep denying them the same rights you can get... your only answer is religion,

Why do they not have the same rights as I have? They can still marry a nice woman or man, so long as they be the opposite sex. Do you believe sexual orientation is fixed, Ming?

Again... does your church deny people the right to get married simply because they don't want children... I'll bet they don't even ask,

All couples that are members of my church would be required to go to premarital counselling. This would be one of the questions asked to the couple, is whether or not they want to have children.

Would they marry them? Yes. Would they discourage them? Yes, because they know people change their minds as they get older. They would rather not have a couple break up over this issue, and have a divorce just because one of the partners changed their mind.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's why I keep getting down the line of children, because they are probably the most obvious of benefits that society derives from marriage.

Again... children. DOES YOUR FAITH ALLOW PEOPLE WHO WON'T HAVE KIDS GET MARRIED. Simple question.
I don't want to hear how religious people will lie so they can get married... that's a cop out. Your faith allows people to get married with NO MENTION that they will have kids. So again... you are denying a right to some, that you will give to others, based on a irrelevent point.

No logic.

But why will the line be drawn here? What value does society recieve from marriage to justify the provisions of benefits, once homosexuals are allowed to marry?

Because that is the same line drawn for the rest of the people. A heterosexual couple that is dating doesn't get those rights... no commitment. So when they get married, they do get the bennifits. Allowing homosexuals to marry isn't going to change that. The big difference is... if homosexuals want the same rights, they too need to make the same commitment. A line drawn for one case should be applied to the other as well. What don't you understand? Oh that's right, you want to treat them differently than you because your religion is against them. That's the only reason... just admit it. At least then you will be being honest.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ming:

If I were dishonest, would I have admitted that my faith marries people even if they say they do not want kids?

Your faith allows people to get married with NO MENTION that they will have kids.

My faith has many other reasons why they do not recognise homosexual marriage, some of which I have even posted in this thread.

From the standpoint of the secular world, children are an important benefit society receives from marriage.

What value does society recieve from marriage to justify the provisions of benefits, once homosexuals are allowed to marry?

Answer the question Ming. Or perhaps another. Why does society provide benefits to married people?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Answer the question Ming. Or perhaps another. Why does society provide benefits to married people?

For legal reasons. They can act on each others behalf LEGALLY. We call that commitment. It is important to give legal rights to couples... so that they are considered as one in the eyes of the law. The example of how a gay couple has no rights in a hospital situation when life and death is involved is simply appalling. They deserve the same legal rights.

The fact is simple... your church WILL marry people who don't plan on having kids, and they don't state that it is a requirement for getting married. So you can stop using the kid argument... it isn't relevent no matter what kind of spin you try to put on it. It's about relgion and nothing else to you... your attempts to ground it in any other way don't make any sense... as most people are pointing out to you.

Again... I have no problem with your position based on religious reasons... your choice. I can respect that. I can't respect your attempts to try to convince us it is really something else. Because it isn't working

[molly bloom]

Are they any compelling reasons for preventing people of advanced age getting married? They are unlikely to produce any children, and unlikely to be allowed to adopt, or foster.

I don't know of any religion which disbars people of pensionable age from getting married, regardless of whether or not they may have had children in a previous marriage.

You keep throwing up these chimaeras, Kenobi, like a needle stuck in scratch on a record- marriage has been for many reasons, one of which was to produce offspring, others of which have been securing property and money (read Jane Austen), securing lands- the history of Europe's aristocracy and monarchies, bringing two lands or kingdoms together politically (Kievan Rus and Byzantium) and so on and so on.

Sanctity and love has had precious little to do with it in many cases, expediency, politically or otherwise, was the name of the game.

I know of one person in a long term lesbian relationship whose partner died. Her partner's family had had little to do with them, disapproving as they did of lesbianism. However this did not stop them taking away the body of their relative (despite having ostracized her whilst she was alive) and not informing the surviving partner of either the funeral or where the body was buried. No guesses as to which monotheistic faith they adhered to.

I'm fortunate in having 'in-laws' who treat us both as real human beings with real feelings and commitment, rather than second best heterosexuals. They look upon me as another son, and I'm included separately in their will.

Unfortunately the parents of all gay men and lesbians aren't quite up to this standard, so there are constant challenges to living wills, power of attorney, and so on, not to mention inheritances, joint investments, property holdings, and so on.

I fail to see why my love and commitment is valued at being less than that of a heterosexual's, for the purposes of the law- the civil law, the common law of Great Britain and the United States and Australia and Canada, which is derive from neither Hellenized Roman law nor Christianity.

You can be equal or not- there's no slightly equal, or kind of equal- and I fail to see why 'tradition' is held up to be such a great stumbling block. If that were the case we'd still have institutionalized torture, public executions, legal child labour and the death penalty for theft.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Some of these benefits are in place to encourage marriage, and to protect marriage, and to help people stay married. Why would society provide these benefits? Clearly they have an interest in preserving marriage.

That's why I keep getting down the line of children, because they are probably the most obvious of benefits that society derives from marriage.

Now, once you change the role and purpose of marriage, as we are seeing right now, you change the value to society of the institution. Does the institution merit the same benefits as before? That I am not sure. We are going to have to go through this debate, and one of the options in Canada is to do away with marriage benefits altogether, because they realise this connection between privileges and responsibilities.



But why will the line be drawn here? What value does society recieve from marriage to justify the provisions of benefits, once homosexuals are allowed to marry?

I really don't understand your obsession with breeding. I've seen you bring it up again and again, in many different threads. Seriously, is this a Mennonite thing? I've got a few years on you Ben, and I know tons of people who either have been married recently or are getting married soon and I can honestly tell you that in speaking to all the people that I have, not one of them was getting married to have kids. Sure, many of them want to have kids, but that was never the prime motivator in them getting married. Hell, this last summer a hardcore fundamentalist Christian cousin of mine got married - and not out of any particular desire to reproduce. She got married because she loved her (now) husband and wanted to make a lifelong commitment to him. To the best of my knowledge, they haven't even really considered whether they want kids or not.

More directly to your points above, society benefits from marriage in other ways than having children, and companies even moreso. Married people tend to, on average, be more mature and stable in most aspects of their lives. You tend to see less reckless behavior, more careful thinking and planning since another person is intimately involved in most major decisions. Hell, every aspect that makes for a better environment for raising children has equal benefits to society even in the absense of children. Employers see these benefits as well. An employee who's personal life is stable is likely better able to focus on their work. Someone that doesn't go out and party or have as active a social calendar as a typical single person is less likely to miss work due to illness or be less productive due to fatigue. The average person could probably come up with a whole list of other benefits as well.

Now I know you'll be tempted to drag out the "what about people in long term relationships that aren't married" spiel, but save it. Ming has already pointed out, and it should be obvious anyway, that the difference lies in commitment. Marriage is (or should be) a sombre, life long commitment to one another. It's no different with homosexuals. If two straight or gay people are simply dating for years and not married, you would probably ask yourself why. The answer is almost invariably "because they don't want to make the commitment".

But let's (again) turn the question back on you. How does allowing homosexuals to get married impact you in any way? You've stated that you see the most important reasons for marriage to be love and a desire to have children. Society has deemed to give you benefits in this endeavor. So now gays can get married. Have your desires changed? Do you love your partner less or now not want kids? Are you still not getting the same benefits from your union that you did before? What exactly is your problem here? Is marriage some sort of prestige status symbol to you that you want to share with as few people as possible? How does that benefit society?