Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Marriage - What do you want out of it?

Culture marriage

  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#21 ArmourMe

ArmourMe
  • Islander
  • 500 posts

Posted 16 February 2004 - 02:53 AM

I've been thinking about your question as I've watched the other thread develop.  My sweetie and I have had a good conversation about it, too, that made me think more clearly about the seperate issues as well.

I see four different questions here:

What do I want from a legal agreement with a life partner?

What do I want from an spiritual bond with my mate?

What do I want from a religious agreement with my mate?

What do I want from the concept of my bond existing within my community?


The legal question is the one that is most at issue within the gay community right now - the right to both the RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITIES of legal union.


What I want from that set of legal rights is pretty standard:


For my spouse to have power of attorney should I ever be disabled - so that the one who knows me best decides what I would most want for myself should I be too gone to be able to make that decision.

For my spouse to be granted custody of my children automatically if I die so that the person they know of as their other parent is still thier guardian.

For my spouse to inheret my posessions.

For my spouse and I to be able to make joint purchases or investments.

For my spouse to be considered "next of kin" and never seperated from me by hospital staff (if you've read stories of gay men who were blocked by heartless disgusted nurses (citing they weren't "next of kin" since there was no marriage contract) from attending the very DEATH of a husband they'd been with for years as he died..... it would make the very stones weep)

Of course for all of these rights to be granted to my spouse as well and for us to have to be responsible to eachother in all of these matters.

This list goes on - the legal rights of a couple are pretty well commonly understood.  This is bascially the "bundled" bunch of legal agreements that are all contained within a conventional civil union.  And, yes, these are all things I would want from a civil union for myself and my mate.  These are the things I would fight for the rights of any committed adult relationship to have.

These things are not the RELATIONSHIP to me - they are ensurances that no agency can easily disrupt that relationship on a practical level so that we are safe to explore and live that relationship day by day in our own home.


What do I want from a spiritual bond with my mate?


I want to love and be loved.  I want to be completely understood and to understand.  I want honesty.  I want to be made better, stronger, more compassionate, bolder and more deeply myself by the connection.  I want the daily details of our lives to be woven together so that we know eathother on a visceral level.   I want our souls to be nourished by one another.  I want to be so deeply bonded to eachother that our souls may even be together in the next phase of existance.

THESE THINGS ARE THE RELATIONSHIP TO ME.

No state can give me these things in a certificate.  No laws can keep me from having these things - though discrimination such as putting me in jail or killing me would make it hard to KEEP having these things - and to a lesser degree the discriminations of REFUSING to ensure me the conventional protections of legal union can also make it hard to keep having those things.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS IN AIDING OR INTERFERING IN THESE THINGS THAT ARE THE HEART OF A RELATIONSHIP.

My in-this-case-not-at-all-humble-opinion.


What do I want in a religious agreement with my mate?


To me this question is not seperate from the spiritual question.  Since I believe in no diety or doctrine outside of the individual soul, there is no seperation between my spiritual connection and my religious one.  They are the same thing - deeply personal and with relevance only to what I percieve on a spiritual plane.  For those with a theistic or doctrinal religion, of course there would be a lot more to this question, and in our culture the word "marriage" most closely means this idea of union.


What do I want from the community with regard to my status as someone committed to someone else?


I want aknoledgement of our intentions.  If we've chosen to let it be known that we're committed to stay together for life through every difficulty, I expect the community to assist us in that via friendships, ears to listen and hands to help and the expectation that we live up to our intentions.  I expect to contribute to that community with my ears and hands and friendships as well, as the fulfillment of myself in that relationship affords me extra energy and love to help others when they need it.  I expect our community to advocate for our rights as a committed couple to strangers.  I expect to advocate to strangers for the values of our community.


I've been in a legal marriage that lasted a disasterous decade for both parties.  I've been in a poly relationship (though I don't identify as poly by orientation I do advocate strongly for the acceptance of poly relationships as normal and possible).  I do identify as a bisexual woman.  And I have the kind of spiritual connection with my mate that I've described as what I would demand for myself of a relationship with my mate.

No one has the right to tell anyone else what committed relationship means to them.  People need to delinate terms.  I would never want marriage in the religious definition.  I do want spiritual bonding, community support and aknoledgement, and the option to use the blanket of civil union to protect our rights as a financial and family unit.  IMO its time to seperate the term of "marriage" from the legal, the community and the spiritual and let it stand for the religious committment.

See, this is what happens when I think about a thread for a whole weekend :D

*smooch* QT-HM  Thanks for asking :)


*edited to ad I see a zillion Dvorak inspired typeos and weird grammar cause my brain works too hard typing in Dvorak.....its too late at night to fix them.  Please do me a favor and pretent I sound well spoken, K?
AM, up to 42 wpm :p

Edited by ArmourMe, 16 February 2004 - 03:38 AM.


#22 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 16 February 2004 - 03:13 AM

ArmourMe, on Feb 15 2004, 11:51 PM, said:

I've been thinking about your question as I've watched the other thread develop.  My sweetie and I have had a good conversation about it, too, that made me think more clearly about the seperate issues as well.

I see four different questions here:

What do I want from a legal agreement with a life partner?

What do I want from an spiritual bond with my mate?

What do I want from a religious agreement with my mate?

What do I want from the concept of my bond existing within my community?


The legal question is the one that is most at issue within the gay community right now - the right to both the RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITIES of legal union.


What I want from that set of legal rights is pretty standard:


For my spouse to have power of attorney should I ever be disabled - so that the one who knows me best decides what I would most want for myself should I be too gone to be able to make that decision.

For my spouse to be granted custody of my children automatically if I die so that the person they know of as their other parent is still thier guardian.

For my spouse to inheret my posessions.

For my spouse and I to be able to make joint purchases or investments.

For my spouse to be considered "next of kin" and never seperated from me by hospital staff (if you've read stories of gay men who were blocked by heartless disgusted nurses (citing they weren't "next of kin" since there was no marriage contract) from attending the very DEATH of a husband they'd been with for years as he died..... it would make the very stones weep)

Of course for all of these rights to be granted to my spouse as well and for us to have to be responsible to eachother in all of these matters.

This list goes on - the legal rights of a couple are pretty well commonly understood.  This is bascially the "bundled" bunch of legal agreements that are all contained within a conventional civil union.  And, yes, these are all things I would want from a civil union for myself and my mate.  These are the things I would fight for the rights of any committed adult relationship to have.

These things are not the RELATIONSHIP to me - they are ensurances that no agency can easily disrupt that relationship on a practical level so that we are safe to explore and live that relationship day by day in our own home.


What do I want from a spiritual bond with my mate?


I want to love and be loved.  I want to be completely understood and to understand.  I want honesty.  I want to be made better, stronger, more compassionate, bolder and more deeply myself by the connection.  I want the daily details of our lives to be woven together so that we know eathother on a visceral level.   I want our souls to be nourished by one another.  I want to be so deeply bonded to eachother that our souls may even be together in the next phase of existance.

THESE THINGS ARE THE RELATIONSHIP TO ME.

No state can give me these things in a certificate.  No laws can keep me from having these things - though discrimination such as putting me in jail or killing me would make it hard to KEEP having these things - and to a lesser degree the discriminations of REFUSING to ensure me the conventional protections of legal union can also make it hard to keep having those things.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS IN AIDING OR INTERFERING IN THESE THINGS THAT ARE THE HEART OF A RELATIONSHIP.

My in-this-case-not-at-all-humble-opinion.


What do I want in a religious agreement with my mate?


To me this question is not seperate from the spiritual question.  Since I believe in no diety or doctrine outside of the individual soul, there is no seperation between my spiritual connection and my religious one.  They are the same thing - deeply personal and with relevance only to what I percieve on a spiritual plane. 


What do I want from the community with regard to my status as someone committed to someone else?


I want aknoledgement of our intentions.  If we've chosen to let it be known that we're committed to stay together for life through every difficulty, I expect the community to assist us in that via friendships, ears to listen and hands to help and the expectation that we live up to our intentions.  I expect to contribute to that community with my ears and hands and friendships as well, as the fulfillment of myself in that relationship affords me extra energy and love to help others when they need it.  I expect our community to advocate for our rights as a committed couple to strangers.  I expect to advocate to strangers for the values of our community.


I've been in a legal marriage that lasted a disasterous decade for both parties.  I've been in a poly relationship (though I don't identify as poly by orientation I do advocate strongly for the acceptance of poly relationships as normal and possible).  I do identify as a bisexual woman.  And I have the kind of spiritual connection with my mate that I've described as what I would demand for myself of a relationship with my mate.

No one has the right to tell anyone else what committed relationship means to them.  People need to delinate terms.  I would never want marriage in the religious definition.  I do want spiritual bonding, community support and aknoledgement, and the option to use the blanket of civil union to protect our rights as a financial and family unit.  IMO its time to seperate the term of "marriage" from the legal, the community and the spiritual and let it stand for the religious committment.

See, this is what happens when I think about a thread for a whole weekend :D

*smooch* QT-HM  Thanks for asking :)
This is one of the most well thought out essay's I've ever read on the topic.

Thank you for sharing yourself in this thread.

And, since I completely agree with every statement, I'll just add a big loud ........ What she said

~ Cait

Oh, and from your mouth to TPTB concerning poly relationships.  :whistle:

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#23 ArmourMe

ArmourMe
  • Islander
  • 500 posts

Posted 16 February 2004 - 04:36 AM

Caitriona, on Feb 16 2004, 08:11 AM, said:

This is one of the most well thought out essay's I've ever read on the topic.

Thank you for sharing yourself in this thread.

And, since I completely agree with every statement, I'll just add a big loud ........ What she said

~ Cait

Oh, and from your mouth to TPTB concerning poly relationships.  :whistle:
I'm very moved...thanks, and your welcome :)  & yeah, poly is so recently out of the closet its still facing a lot of grief.  I have faith that poly will be where queer rights are in a decade though :)

AM

#24 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 16 February 2004 - 06:26 AM

Standing Ovation AM, Thank you ever so much for saying so lucidly how I feel and agree with. Standing Ovation.

Like Cait said What she said!!!

and on poly- I hope it's only a decade.
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#25 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 16 February 2004 - 02:56 PM

This whole business of Marriage being a religous institution is wrong. Anything that can be broken up by judges and laywers has little or nothing to do with religon. You don't need a minister to get married, a Judge can do it, a ships captian can do it, and a Justice of the Peace can preform marriages. The dictionary has an interesting take on the word it's self.




Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>



I think the key phrase there is "recognized by law". None of the definitions mention religon.
Can't Touch This!!

#26 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 16 February 2004 - 04:13 PM

Shalamar, on Feb 16 2004, 03:24 AM, said:

and on poly- I hope it's only a decade.
I figure it may be two decades.  Gay Rights seemed to follow Women's Rights by two decades.  

Of course Poly may accelerate, because it can definitely use the precedents set by the Gay Marriage challenges, whereas Gay Marriages couldn't ride the coat tails of Women's Issues.

One day, Triads/Poly will be accepted.  They don't have quite the same religious obstacles, but they certainly have the hardest social and community ones to tackle.  It just cuts right at the heart of existing morality.  Them's hard barriers to break through, but who knows what the climate will be like after Gay Marriages are fought for?

But there is already talk of Poly relationships being the next in line.  Discussion is the first step .. so this is all good.

Someday...........  :angel:

~ Cait

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#27 WildChildCait

WildChildCait

    And from the ashes of fire, she is reborn

  • Islander
  • 3,416 posts

Posted 16 February 2004 - 05:00 PM

Hi All,

i grew up with the idea that a wedding was in city hall with a religious blessing if  you so chose afterwards in church. In holland it is not the church who marries you.
This is jsut to give you a background.

What would I want out of a wedding : well, I don't see a weddding as an essential at all. The way i'm concerned as long as a couple is not parents, it can only confuddle the issue if the decide to seperate. I've long believed in serial monogamy for the  human species. However, marriage gives tax breaks and legal benefits not given to co-habitters in most countries, so  I can see a legal benefit.

However, if a couple is parents, and love each other, I believe a union is a good idea, simply for hte children should something happen to one or both. Then as well, there is the tax breaks and legal situation with the kids.

That said, I would never have a church blesssing. I am a witch at heart, so to do so would be hypocrit and demeaning to both the religion of the church and myself. Nor am I interested in an overpriced white dress, flowers that cost triple the normal cost or minimal food presented as a 'meal' .
What exactly I would want, i'm still deciding ;-) While I am  not opposed to gay unions, I am at least 95 and probably 99% heterosexual, so I assume a civil union would be legal wherever I am. Having a ship's captain do it, sailing on the waves, now that sounds great to me! Else, it will be handfasting. If necessary I will have it with unrecognised and followed by a recognised civil service. It is what is in the heart that matters.

As to poly - I will count myself lucky to find one person to love. Should I by some miracle find two, i refuse to discount it by not honoring it. If that means I break traditions, traditions be damned. But I do believe poly takes exceptional combinations of people to work. I will count myself blessed if I find one person to love.


Does anybody know anythign on the legalities of being married by a ships captain?

Cheers
Chaddee
RIP Ruby Medallion: 31-10-1999/21-05-2007
one gender-reassigned, world travelling, world class snake.

FKA Chaddee, amongst other things.
http://scentedalchemy.webs.com Custom handmade bath and body products

#28 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 16 February 2004 - 05:00 PM

In some states, a minor as young as 14 can marry with the permission of a parent.

How long before a 14 year old boy will be allowed to marry an adult man?
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#29 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 16 February 2004 - 06:22 PM

Drew, on Feb 16 2004, 01:58 PM, said:

In some states, a minor as young as 14 can marry with the permission of a parent.

How long before a 14 year old boy will be allowed to marry an adult man?
Drew I understand your concerns, I think we all do.  But how is this example any different than a 14 year old girl married off to a full grown man?  I don't think it is a question of same sex marriages in this example, but the (pretty universal) recognition of 'age of consent' issues.

Which I know is a legitimate concern, even in this discussion, because it varies state by state, but it is still a different concern.  Same sex marriage is not the same discussion as a discussion re: age of consent.

But it sure is an interesting topic all on its own and one worth discussing.

~Cait

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#30 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 16 February 2004 - 07:26 PM

Caitriona, on Feb 16 2004, 05:20 PM, said:

Same sex marriage is not the same discussion as a discussion re: age of consent.
But it may soon be, once the dominoes start to fall.

And it suggests that those who draw a comparison between gay marriage and the legitimization of NAMBLA aren't as wacky as we all once thought.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#31 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,653 posts

Posted 16 February 2004 - 07:32 PM

But Drew, you didn't answer the question of why an older adult seeking to marry a fourteen-year-old becomes any more troubling if it is same-sex rather than opposite sex.  If young teens marrying is troublesome, then there should be a constitutional amendment requiring the age of consent to be 18.  :devil:

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#32 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 16 February 2004 - 07:39 PM

Cardie, on Feb 16 2004, 06:30 PM, said:

But Drew, you didn't answer the question of why an older adult seeking to marry a fourteen-year-old becomes any more troubling if it is same-sex rather than opposite sex.
Oh, I find it troubling. I wouldn't even recommend anyone marry at 18 these days, particularly because the culture seems to have allowed us to extend adolescence into the mid-twnties. However, the consensus here seems to be that if it doesn't harm anyone, and both parties (or "all parties" where three or more are concerned) are consenting, the government should give its blessing.

I think the logic behind this lassez-faire attitude sends us places where we really don't wish to go.

Quote

If young teens marrying is troublesome, then there should be a constitutional amendment requiring the age of consent to be 18.  :devil:

Jolly good!  :angel:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#33 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 16 February 2004 - 07:53 PM

Quote

However, the consensus here seems to be that if it doesn't harm anyone, and both parties (or "all parties" where three or more are concerned) are consenting, the government should give its blessing.

Drew- we are talking about consenting adults, not minors.
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#34 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 16 February 2004 - 07:58 PM

Shalamar, on Feb 16 2004, 06:51 PM, said:

Quote

However, the consensus here seems to be that if it doesn't harm anyone, and both parties (or "all parties" where three or more are concerned) are consenting, the government should give its blessing.

Drew- we are talking about consenting adults, not minors.
Well, I like I said, in some states, minors may marry with the proper parental permission, or barring that, with the state acting in loco parentis. Do we say "only minors of the opposite sex may marry"? Isn't that the same kind of discrimination being talked about here?
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#35 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 16 February 2004 - 08:08 PM

Drew, on Feb 16 2004, 04:37 PM, said:

However, the consensus here seems to be that if it doesn't harm anyone, and both parties (or "all parties" where three or more are concerned) are consenting, the government should give its blessing.

I think the logic behind this lassez-faire attitude sends us places where we really don't wish to go.
Like I said a discussion of 'age of consent' is necessary.  I think the concerns you express are valid and I share them.

However, for the record, I want to make it clear that *I* personally am discussing marriages between consenting adults.  And I take 'consent' (read: informed) very seriously.

That would include eliminating ALL minors from the equation.

IMO, it would also involve consent from ALL the parties in a poly situation.  Which believe it or not is NOT all that easy to obtain.  

Same sex marriages do not lead directly to child marriages.  Children (14 is still a child to my way of thinking) married off at a young age already exists in many states.  It's just that it exists between young girls and older men, not young boys and older men.

I'd be tempted to point out the gender bias here, except I know Drew too well to think that he thinks that it is OK to marry off young girls against their will, but not OK to marry off young boys.

These are two different issues.  One is a matter of denying the right to marry legally between consent adults.  The operative words being consenting adults.

The other is a question of continuing to or extending protection to those under the age of consent (children).  And this is a legitimate concern of any government that seeks to protect children who are not protected by their parents, family, or  community etc.

Two different issues here; the age of consent (and agreement on said age) being the more profound one when it comes to stability in our culture.

~ Cait

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#36 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 16 February 2004 - 08:15 PM

Drew, on Feb 16 2004, 04:56 PM, said:

Shalamar, on Feb 16 2004, 06:51 PM, said:

Quote

However, the consensus here seems to be that if it doesn't harm anyone, and both parties (or "all parties" where three or more are concerned) are consenting, the government should give its blessing.

Drew- we are talking about consenting adults, not minors.
Well, I like I said, in some states, minors may marry with the proper parental permission, or barring that, with the state acting in loco parentis. Do we say "only minors of the opposite sex may marry"? Isn't that the same kind of discrimination being talked about here?
Drew, now I am beginning to wonder if you see the gender bias you're presenting here.

You bring up a valid point, but miss the answer.

The answer isn't to extend marriage privileges to young boys and older men, it is to limit the privileges of marrying off any child.

A discussion on age of consent is at the heart of this, not whether it is a young girl or boy.  Both are equally exploited by adults in these situations.

You present the marriages of young girls as a matter of course, yet somehow are horrified at what might happen to young boys if same sex marriages are legalized.

What's wrong with this picture?

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#37 ArmourMe

ArmourMe
  • Islander
  • 500 posts

Posted 17 February 2004 - 02:24 AM

My post especially said consenting ADULTS.

The thing that makes me NUTS about the "slippery slope" argument regarding legalizing gay marriage turning into a NAMBLA free for all is...... THE GREAT MAJORITY OF SEXUAL ABUSE IS COMMITTED BY MEN WHO ARE *STRAIGHT* IN THEIR ADULT SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

SEX WITH CHILDREN IS NOT ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS ANY MORE THAN RAPE IS ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS.  It is about POWER and CONTROL.  It has NOTHING to do with healthy adult orientation.  

The idea that homosexuality has ANYTHING to do with sexually abusing children is SO FREAKIN' OUT OF DATE that it displays the stark ignorance of anyone still going on about it.

AM, bisexual mother to 2 sons and survivor of sexual abuse in childhood - all issue rolled tidily into one offended person

#38 WildChildCait

WildChildCait

    And from the ashes of fire, she is reborn

  • Islander
  • 3,416 posts

Posted 17 February 2004 - 08:07 AM

As one of those who is for being able to marry if it harms nobody, I am abhorred by the idea of being able to marry at 14 being legal, to anyone!
Heck,  holland is liberal, and even there it is 16, wiht parental or court permission!

No, i'm talking people who can decide for themselves, not with parental dicission, which means 18 minimum

Preferably, i'd have something that could test maturity, but as we don't, chronological age will have to do.

Cheers
Chaddee
RIP Ruby Medallion: 31-10-1999/21-05-2007
one gender-reassigned, world travelling, world class snake.

FKA Chaddee, amongst other things.
http://scentedalchemy.webs.com Custom handmade bath and body products

#39 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 17 February 2004 - 09:19 AM

Caitriona, on Feb 16 2004, 07:13 PM, said:

You present the marriages of young girls as a matter of course, yet somehow are horrified at what might happen to young boys if same sex marriages are legalized.

What's wrong with this picture?
What's wrong is you weren't reading me closely. I said I didn't like the idea of 14-year-old girls being permitted to marry either. However, those laws are on the books in many states. (I used to have a link to a table showing the age where marriage is allowed in each state. Quite a few allow minors to marry.) So, sure, . . . change those laws first. If you can. What I see though is a systematic removal of any barriers to marriage. Same sex? Yep. More than two? Next! And then? Minors of the same sex? Animals? Cars? Abstract nouns?


Quote

My post especially said consenting ADULTS.

I wasn't responding to any particular post. I am talking about the logic used to justify same-sex marriages, and how it can also be used to justify any combination one can conceive of: the logic that says to prevent any union is a form of discrimination on the level of racism. The logic that says that if all parties are consenting, we must allow a marriage. The logic that says that anything goes if no one is harmed. The logic that says that marriage is a human right that must never be denied.

Quote

The thing that makes me NUTS about the "slippery slope" argument regarding legalizing gay marriage turning into a NAMBLA free for all is...... THE GREAT MAJORITY OF SEXUAL ABUSE IS COMMITTED BY MEN WHO ARE *STRAIGHT* IN THEIR ADULT SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

So what? Statistics are not a factor here. The fact is that if you follow the logic, you get to the point where we must allow teenaged boys to marry adult men. If both parties are consenting, would you allow it? If you say no, aren't you discriminating? Aren't you forcing your morality on someone? Aren't you taking away someone's rights?

Quote

SEX WITH CHILDREN IS NOT ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS ANY MORE THAN RAPE IS ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS. It is about POWER and CONTROL. It has NOTHING to do with healthy adult orientation.

Then please do what you can to change the laws on the books that already allow minors to marry.

Edited by Drew, 17 February 2004 - 09:20 AM.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#40 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,653 posts

Posted 17 February 2004 - 09:25 AM

If everybody follows my idea of making legal union for all orientations a domestic partnership defined by contract law, then no slippery slope worries.  I don't think there are any states that allow you to take out a car loan or be issued a credit card when you're 14.  ;)

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Culture, marriage

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users