Civil Unions for ALL, and to all a good night.

[Giancarlo]

I'm just saying in no way will gay people hurt the sanctity of marriage.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
I'm just saying in no way will gay people hurt the sanctity of marriage.

(_O_)

[Spiffor]

Am I the only one who wonders if Giancarlo would hold the same speech if he was a clear-cut straight? (insecure straight doesn't count)

And to that btw

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think that needs to be preserved. If people want to be united in the eyes of God, they can go to a church.

1. Are there any benefits that society derives from keeping marriage as one man and one woman?

2. Should these benefits be compensated for by society?

Your solution ignores both of these points, although it is probably the best of the lot of options available to Canada, (short of invoking the Notwithstanding clause.) Without marriage, the state would not be able to make these distinctions.

[Sava]

Are there any benefits that society derives from keeping marriage as one man and one woman?

Are there any negative effects (other than gay-haters complaining) to society from allowing gay civil unions?

[Ben Kenobi]

Are there any negative effects (other than gay-haters complaining) to society from allowing gay civil unions?

I suggest you try answering the question Sava.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
1. Are there any benefits that society derives from keeping marriage as one man and one woman?

No.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


So only churches can do marriages? What about heterosexual atheists, there seem to be plenty on this forum... would you deny them the right to marriage that is not endorsed by some church?

All we demand is equal rights, and by being denied marriage we are being denied an inalienable right. The right to live happily with the special someone we love and the right to marry.

Check out my avatar. Just showing my support.

Read my post.

People who live together can acquire certain rights equivalent to marriage. This was established in the Lee Marvin case. I suggest that any two or more people should be able to claim to be domestic partners and gain the full benefits (and burdens) of law accorded to marriage. Government would NOT be involved in any way in determining the validity of the relationship.

In other words, polygamy, incest, or gay or straight marriage would no longer be the subject of the law. People could establish their own relationships without governmental interference. If a man wanted thirty "wives," some of which were men, some women, some sisters -- who cares? That is not the matter of the state.

We have established in these gay marriage threads the general priniciple that relationships are a PRIVATE matter. Government should not be involved in issues marrige licenses.

What is the point of a marriage license in the first place if people can live their lives anyway they want to without governmental interference. THAT principle has been overwhelming established by recent Supreme Court decisions. Private sex and private relationships are NOT the governments business.

Butt out government.

[Elok]

Well Ben, we don't seem to be horribly underpopulated here in the states, though I can't speak for Canada. And AIDS and other STDs are no longer just a gay plague. From a societal standpoint, it would seem that the only relevant concern is whether the people involved are willing to make good on their promises of loyalty and mutual support. The Clinton years showed us all how stupid things can get if government is held up as a model of moral behavior.

Gay unions do not appear to have any effect on the population that straight marriages do not, other than the fact that they weird some of us out-which is true of all changes, and so IMO moot as an argument.

What I'm proposing is just killing a question that doesn't need to be asked in the first place. The government doesn't rule by "sanctity," matrimonial or otherwise. It rules by inflicting very blunt physical repercussions if certain individuals refuse to play nice. We are all entitled to our own opinions as to the greater meaning, or lack thereof, beyond playing nice, but marriage as it is contested right now is a social contract, not a sacrament.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
How many threads about the issues concerning gays have been created the past two months or so??

Don't you know? The world revolves around where you want to stick your cheney.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Don't you know? The world revolves around where you want to stick your cheney.

also its an implicitly moral issue mostly. so u can go round and round lots easier.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Elok
I think regulation is still necessary just to avoid people getting treated like family and then dumped, unsupported, when the partner/spouse gets fed up. The government ought to be concerned with the ways its constituents try to hurt each other, I think. It's the metaphysical nature of their commitment that's not Uncle Sam's business. So Ned, I think I'm just talking about a different kind of "contract or deed" to streamline it. Stuff about being "off the market" for dating, as FlameFlash mentioned, could be integrated as a stipulation of the contract itself if desired. Like a prenup. Yes, it makes things more complicated than our current J.P, five minutes and two witnesses deal, but I say, the more aware people are of the significance of the contract they're entering, the better. Divorce lawyers could take up the slack as Union lawyers, and as an added bonus they'd stop looking like the epitome of social parasitism...

Elok, the Lee Marvin case established the principle of "protection" even when people just live together. California law, as always a leader in the world, ALREADY protects domestic partners.

I no longer see any reason for marriage licenses or certificate or ceremonies conducted by the state. There is no reason for them at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

From a societal standpoint, it would seem that the only relevant concern is whether the people involved are willing to make good on their promises of loyalty and mutual support.

Again, do you believe that there are benefits that society derives from marraige? All of your arguments say that maybe it is not so bad to recognise homosexual partnerships, as we cannot see a negative effect, but it does not address my question.

To me, it is relevant that society encourages marriage. What I am trying to get at is why does society do this?

The Clinton years showed us all how stupid things can get if government is held up as a model of moral behavior.

Interesting. I used to debate that the government always has a moral responsibility, and thus, must apply the highest standards of morality to their conduct, in order to encourage the same standards to apply to their citizens. Just because Bill Clinton had a low standard, does not mean that the government should be removed from all areas of influence.

Gay unions do not appear to have any effect on the population that straight marriages do not, other than the fact that they weird some of us out-which is true of all changes, and so IMO moot as an argument.

Again, just because we do not know the effects of an action, does not justify the action. One would anticipate that a good reason should be put forth to do the action in the first place.

It rules by inflicting very blunt physical repercussions if certain individuals refuse to play nice.

So how would the apparatus of the state be applied to this situation in such a blunt fashion? Would the state hunt down any gay people in relationships to make sure they do not marry?

No. All I can see, as a negative consequence, of not recognising these partnerships is to be called a 'bigot' and against the forces of progressivism.

There is no segregation, no bus riots, no hardship for gay people in society today.

We are all entitled to our own opinions as to the greater meaning, or lack thereof, beyond playing nice, but marriage as it is contested right now is a social contract, not a sacrament.

Agreed.

And it is as a social contract, that I ask why does society encourage marriage?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Elok

And AIDS and other STDs are no longer just a gay plague.

Nor were they EVER.

Good grief.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by yavoon
also its an implicitly moral issue mostly. so u can go round and round lots easier.

I really don't want to go 'round and 'round MrFun's cheney.