Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


The problem there is that unmarrieds includes non serious relationships, or relationships between one or more people under that age of ~25 which tend imo to be more unstable and have less longevity than other relationships. Consider a hypothetical scenario of two identical couples, one married one not, the marriage would be irrelevant to them lasting, and rightly so because the reasons why in times past they would have lasted was the womans subservitude.

Two childbearing couples that have "settled down", one married, one not, it is reasonable to say that each has an equal chance of outlasting the other.

Yes and no.

If the issue is the best interest of the child, and we had a choice of where the child should be raise, the state has an interest in placing the child in the most stable relationship possible.

Married couples are statistically more stable and should be preferred over unmarried couples if we have a choice and all other things are equal.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


My partner and I have been together for twenty years come November.

That's longer than the first marriages of his sister and his cousin put together.

We aren't married, we don't have children (adopted or otherwise) and we're both gay men.

Do I win?

No, I do. I have been together with my wife for 24 years.

But, anywho, congrats Molly.

BTW, do you have domestic partner rights where you live like we do here in California?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
BTW, all us righties cannot think. We simply drag our knuckles and grunt like the troglydite we are.

You know that's sig material, don't you?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You know that's sig material, don't you?

Che, you got to give me something really juicy in return. We can then "trade."

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Married couples are statistically more stable and should be preferred over unmarried couples if we have a choice and all other things are equal.

Only because it's more dificult legally to get out of mariages. If marriage didn't have the backing of the state, I doubt it would be any more permanent than non-married relationships.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


No Molly, the formalities of marriage, support from the families and society, etc., have given marriages a lot more stability than just living together.

BTW, all us righties cannot think. We simply drag our knuckles and grunt like the troglydite we are.

That's troglodyte, Ned. If you're going to be a smarty-pants, get your spelling right.

Some other things that have given 'marriages' more stability:

inability in many societies for women to get a divorce

inability in many societies for women to inherit or own property

inability in many societies for women to control their own sexuality/body

the punishment inflicted on women who transgress
(honour killings in the Middle East, dowry killings in India, the servile status of women in many societies, Latin American 'machismo' culture)

the controls exerted by religion and community

and so on and so on.

You can find example of these stabilizers in all sorts of societies, in many different cultures and times throughout human history, Ned.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ned

Yes and no.

If the issue is the best interest of the child, and we had a choice of where the child should be raise, the state has an interest in placing the child in the most stable relationship possible.

Married couples are statistically more stable and should be preferred over unmarried couples if we have a choice and all other things are equal.

So,
if we allowed gays to marry (even if you call it "just" a civil union),
gay relationships (with Civil Union) should probably also be stable enough to be a choice for adopting children

[Whaleboy]

You called it before I did CG

If the issue is the best interest of the child, and we had a choice of where the child should be raise, the state has an interest in placing the child in the most stable relationship possible.

I think by definition this means judging it on a case by case basis. Then you can assess the actual merits and demerits of a case, rather than lumping in some statistics to which (even if they are canonically true to the point of usefulness which I very much doubt) one case may be the exception. As a result, the child loses out.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Married couples stay together longer than unmarried couples.

What exactly does this have to do with fertility?

[Whaleboy]

So,
if we allowed gays to marry (even if you call it "just" a civil union),
gay relationships (with Civil Union) should probably also be stable enough to be a choice for adopting children

That's some impressive reasoning going on there! I might just have to steal your brain...

MB deserves a for that!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


So,
if we allowed gays to marry (even if you call it "just" a civil union),
gay relationships (with Civil Union) should probably also be stable enough to be a choice for adopting children

What we need to do is recogize domestic partner rights that make it difficult for long term partners to simply walk away. Such rights are already recognized in California.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


No, I do. I have been together with my wife for 24 years.

But, anywho, congrats Molly.

BTW, do you have domestic partner rights where you live like we do here in California?

Not exactly, but I can become a resident of Australia based on proving that my partner and I have been in a committed relationship for X amount of time.

Of course, if we were heterosexuals, we'd have just been married before we came here, and could have waltzed in....

John Howard (Aussie Prime Miniature) thinks we're contributing to the downfall of civilization. I'm doing my best, but honestly, I don't want to go to Egypt to burn down the Library of Alexandria- perhaps I could just join the Australian National Party, or One Nation.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Only because it's more dificult legally to get out of mariages. If marriage didn't have the backing of the state, I doubt it would be any more permanent than non-married relationships.

In the progressive state of Kalifornia, the legal difficulties of breaking up are not confined to marriages.

[Whaleboy]

So increasing the stability of the family by force in the name of marriage? I think not.

[Whaleboy]

I don't want to go to Egypt to burn down the Library of Alexandria

You're a little late on that one I'm afraid