Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned


Mr.Baggins, just a small point. I agree with you. It is gay marriage mega-advocate Whaleboy argues against obligations as being conterproductive and destabalizing. He seems to be arguing both for gay marriage and against gay marriage at the same time.

Thats fine then...

I'd say that I've come to the conclusion that we need to recognise that marriage as a secular or social construct has become more important, in day to day life, than a religious or cultural construct, thus we need to separate the principals from each other.

Thus religious marriages shouldn't automatically confer privileges due to civil unions (which would effect secular privilege or benefit)... There should be a separate civil ceremony or contractual agreement, from any religious ceremony. Different religious institutions should be permitted to have different rules as to whom can marry whom, but none of that should effect civil or social rights.

Falling short of that, allow gays to marry in secular manners.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
How does one argue against this after the gay marriage revolution?

I don't know. Is there any non-religious argument against polygamy? I mean, polygamous relationship are sure supposed to be more oppressive and unequal than monogamous ones, but then again, we don't monogamous marriages even though it can be a horrible place of violence and oppression.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't. Yo do seem like it however. You don't want the State (the archetype of the non-religious institution) not to perform marriages. I fail to see what this demand has to do with "owning your opinion".

Spiffor, historically in European civilization, marriages are valid even without solemnization either by the state or by religious institutions. In Kalifornia, we recognize "domestic partnerships" simply by registration. (Gay and lesbians.) Many US states recognize so-called "common law" marriages which are comprise people living together and holding themselves out as being married. All US states must recognize common law married couples as being married.

Do you know why France, or indeed, any European state requires a license or solemnization ceremony by the state in order to be validly married? Would it be totally offensive to the state for people to simply register their status as being married to be treated as such by the state?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


Why would you want to forbid non-religious institutions from performing marriages?

Beats me - that your arguement.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't know. Is there any non-religious argument against polygamy? I mean, polygamous relationship are sure supposed to be more oppressive and unequal than monogamous ones, but then again, we don't monogamous marriages even though it can be a horrible place of violence and oppression.

If you seperate out inbreeding, then probably very little indeed; while you may have a slight genetic advantage to 4 separate pairs, due to genetic diversity, those pairings may not have the same genetic advatage as a single strong set of genes, and you might argue that a man able to attract, and support multiple partners is environmentally superior than his single mate competitiors.

The best possible genetic situation is actually, a single woman and multiple male partners (not considering sexually transmitted diseases for a second,) actually has the advantage of greater genetic diversity and environmental superiority.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Thats fine then...

I'd say that I've come to the conclusion that we need to recognise that marriage as a secular or social construct has become more important, in day to day life, than a religious or cultural construct, thus we need to separate the principals from each other.

Thus religious marriages shouldn't automatically confer privileges due to civil unions (which would effect secular privilege or benefit)... There should be a separate civil ceremony or contractual agreement, from any religious ceremony. Different religious institutions should be permitted to have different rules as to whom can marry whom, but none of that should effect civil or social rights.

Falling short of that, allow gays to marry in secular manners.

Why licenses at all? Why civil ceremonies?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't know. Is there any non-religious argument against polygamy? I mean, polygamous relationship are sure supposed to be more oppressive and unequal than monogamous ones, but then again, we don't monogamous marriages even though it can be a horrible place of violence and oppression.

You know, I always wondered why my wife insisted that I stop dating other women when I got married. (Clearly, polygamy is strongly anti-woman as men want it and women don't)

[Ming]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I think demanding "exclusive rights" to have my own opinion is fair enough. Why do you want to remove that? Isn't that attitude a little bit facist?

Hmmmm... facist... HUH? You are the one that's trying to cram your opinion down everybody else's throat... you are the one that is saying that ONLY religions should have the authority to perform "marriages"... I'm not saying that you personally need to recogonize something as marriage... but you are saying that only a religion should have the right. Heck, religions can't even agree... so you are really saying that only religions that agree with you should have the right.

I see no reason why the state shouldn't continue what it has done for years... perform marriages. And I see no problem with religions "blessing the marriages" as they have done for years... and if they don't want to recogonize something as official in the eyes of their beliefs... it's their right. But they shouldn't have the right to force their beliefs on others, or deny somebody that basic right.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't know. Is there any non-religious argument against polygamy? I mean, polygamous relationship are sure supposed to be more oppressive and unequal than monogamous ones, but then again, we don't monogamous marriages even though it can be a horrible place of violence and oppression.

Yep. A pairing makes far more sense from several legal angles. Two quick examples I made in another thread:

Medical decision to be made. One spouse is unconsious and needs approval from next-of-kin for a procedure. One spouse says yes, another says no. Whose opinion trumps whose? Why?

Divorce. One spouse wants to leave the marriage. If five people are married, is the person leaving entitled to one-fifth of the communal assets? For that matter, do the other four have to agree? You would rarely see cases where all five people got married at once, so how can the last person entering the marriage have the same claim on communal property as the first person?

[Ned]

The real question to me, Ming, is why the state issues "marriage licenses" when we also recognize common law marriages and domestic partners simply by registering.

I don't get it. When does a state deny a license? Why would it deny a license?

[Spiffor]

Ned:
To me, it is obvious modern-day polygamy should be entirely consenting. If a partner opposes the idea of a polygamous relationship, there is no way for this one relationship to turn officially polygamous.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned


Why licenses at all? Why civil ceremonies?

Since you want some status for civil means... for tax reasons, benefits... etc.

These civil matters are entirely secular... they've got nothing to do with religious institutions.

The most equitable solution is to utterly separate the "marriage" status in a religious sense from an civil status.

Everyone is happy... Gays aren't married (in certain churches, although some may allow it,) straight people have no more civil rights than gay people... they both have to go through a different and specific process... civil ceremony or contract, to gain any civil or social rights, as a pairing.

[Spiffor]

Kontiki: those are actually interesting points

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Yep. A pairing makes far more sense from several legal angles. Two quick examples I made in another thread:

Medical decision to be made. One spouse is unconsious and needs approval from next-of-kin for a procedure. One spouse says yes, another says no. Whose opinion trumps whose? Why?

Divorce. One spouse wants to leave the marriage. If five people are married, is the person leaving entitled to one-fifth of the communal assets? For that matter, do the other four have to agree? You would rarely see cases where all five people got married at once, so how can the last person entering the marriage have the same claim on communal property as the first person?

Kontiki, community property is that property "earned" during a marriage. With multiple partners, the latecomer would only get a share of the communal property created after the date of marriage.

It is not that complicated.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Ned:
To me, it is obvious modern-day polygamy should be entirely consenting. If a partner opposes the idea of a polygamous relationship, there is no way for this one relationship to turn officially polygamous.

Good answer.

I already asked my wife. She still opposes me dating other women.