Jump to content


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

Details in this thread

12 Reasons

Marriage satire Same sex marriage marriage

  • Please log in to reply
309 replies to this topic

#301 JchaosRS

JchaosRS

    Ordered Chaos

  • Islander
  • 2,373 posts

Posted 18 November 2005 - 05:26 PM

^I concur.

The large part of the opposition to Same sex marriage seems to be with the word "marriage".

So why not legalize "Domestic Partnerships" nationwide, and place DP on the same level as marriage (legally speaking) with marrige. This way the straights can keep their "sanctity of marriage" and everyone else can still enjoy the same equal mistreatment under the law. :)
Will be eternally Rommie's Slave
Jays Music Videos | Jeremy Farnum | LexaFans

#302 AnneZo

AnneZo
  • Islander
  • 688 posts

Posted 18 November 2005 - 06:01 PM

Why not use "domestic partnership"?  Because that would mean writing second-class citizenship into the basic fabric of our law.  

The only alternative is to change all legal recognition of all relationships as "domestic partnerships" and leave "marriage" as a religious issue. That would make the church people happy.  I'd get behind that. (No matter what you call it, people are still going to say "husband" and "wife" though.)

And as for marriage itself (from "marier" a 14th C. French word), no institution with such a sordid history of treating women and children like slaves is likely to have my unqualified support. Marriage has changed a lot through the centuries.  This change is no more radical than was the idea, in its day, that a woman, though married, was no one's property but her own.

Edited by AnneZo, 18 November 2005 - 06:06 PM.


#303 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,300 posts

Posted 18 November 2005 - 06:03 PM

Rommie's Slave - I don't favor domestic partnerships alongside marriage. I favor the government issuing domestic partnerships PERIOD.  

Marriage is something different, and means something different to people - and should be a matter of private conscience - not a government affair.

AnneZo - I agree, husbands and wives are still going to say husbands and wives.  Because they will be that. But that has nothing to do with the government, does it?

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#304 JchaosRS

JchaosRS

    Ordered Chaos

  • Islander
  • 2,373 posts

Posted 18 November 2005 - 06:05 PM

^Hmmm... I agree.
Will be eternally Rommie's Slave
Jays Music Videos | Jeremy Farnum | LexaFans

#305 AnneZo

AnneZo
  • Islander
  • 688 posts

Posted 18 November 2005 - 06:09 PM

QueenTiye, on Nov 18 2005, 04:03 PM, said:

AnneZo - I agree, husbands and wives are still going to say husbands and wives.  Because they will be that. But that has nothing to do with the government, does it?

No, of course not. :)  It was just a sort of side remark. That's why it was in parentheses.

#306 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 18 November 2005 - 06:19 PM

Eska- thanks, though...actually I'll say this to all:

We all seem to be arguing the same point here :eh: I think we all pretty much agree, do we not, that marriage fraud among same-sex couples is not really something we need take into account.

QT and Eska- it's Schmokie, not Schmockie....sorry to seem pedantic but it looks really weird and funny to me...

Sparcky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#307 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 18 November 2005 - 07:23 PM

Quote

QT: I don't favor domestic partnerships alongside marriage. I favor the government issuing domestic partnerships PERIOD.

Marriage is something different, and means something different to people - and should be a matter of private conscience - not a government affair.

This, I agree with. :)

I heartily disagree with Delvo's narrow definition of marriage as only being able to occur between a man and a woman because that's the only arrangement the state has an interest in, namely because it can produce children. (1) Gay couples can reproduce, too. And (2) marriage, when successful, brings with it other benefits--stability, usually home ownership, etc.  What attracts most gay couples to it is the same thing that most attracts straight couples to it: commitment, stability, a goal of economic security, a sense of family, all the things considered middle-class virtues. And it can be argued that society has an interest in promoting these values, regardless of the makeup of the couples.

But I agree that the state should not be in the business of "sanctifying" unions. That's religion's job, and various religions have to sort out where they stand on gay and lesbian unions, which they're doing.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#308 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 18 November 2005 - 09:13 PM

Quote

Why not use "domestic partnership"? Because that would mean writing second-class citizenship into the basic fabric of our law.

It wouldn't be the first time. :angry:

Look, we currently have two forms of marriage in the United States.  There's civil marriage, usually conducted by a judge or a JP, and there's religious marriage, presided over by a religious official. The first is open to consenting adults who are of legal age, not related within certain degrees, and not already lawfully married to someone else.  The second is governed by the rules and customs of individual faiths--some will not remarry a divorced person, others forbid marriage between brothers- and sisters-in-law, others will not allow marriage outside that particular religious group, and so on.  Extending civil marriage to same-sex couples will not in any way affect what various religious groups can or cannot do.  There's that little first amendment thingie that prevents the state from imposing its will on a non-governmental religious institution.  

The state has the same stake in all these relationships:  the marriage licence is the basis for insuring that children are provided for, it allows the law to govern the disposition of a couple's property, and it allows the couple to assume next-of-kin status for each other.  If you look at the  history of marriage, it is these concerns of offspring, property and legal authority that have been paramount, which is why marriage has not, until relatively recently, been regarded as a sacrament or as anything other than a civil contract.  That is also why an actual contract, written out and signed, was a precursor to most marriages in the middle and upper classes until well into the nineteenth century.  Similar considerations are reviving the practice in the form of pre-nuptial agreements today.

So the idea that somehow "marriage" should be solely a religious concern and some other nomenclature should replace civil marriage  has no foundation in the history of the institution.  All such a split would do would create first- and second-class unions, not to mention suddenly unmarrying all the millions of couples who chose to be married in a civil rather than a religious ceremony.
Posted Image

#309 Schmokie_Dragon

Schmokie_Dragon

    Crazy Fish Lady

  • Islander
  • 1,226 posts

Posted 21 November 2005 - 11:57 AM

We now have Civil Partnerships legal in the UK. This is essentialy the same as marriage but the partnership cannot be blessed by a religion. The inheritance, tax, next-of-kin etc rights are pretty much the same as for straight married couples.

One of the UK's most conservative newspapers, The Telegraph, recently published a two page article written by the actor Sir Antony Sher, about his partner, Greg Doran (The Royal Shakespeare Company's chief associate director) and their civil partnership. Interesting, I think, as I, a Conservative Party supporter, was recently accused of being a "bigoted c**t" because I was a Conservative and therefore *must* be homophobic.... Blatantly! Some people eh  ;)

Having read the article I am officialy converted over to the pro-gay marriage camp. Wooo! Go Telegraph!
Posted Image

#310 Heropa

Heropa

    Phantom of the Obtuse - Pubic Defender

  • Islander
  • 474 posts

Posted 22 November 2005 - 08:50 AM

AnneZo, on Nov 18 2005, 06:01 PM, said:

Why not use "domestic partnership"?  Because that would mean writing second-class citizenship into the basic fabric of our law. 

The only alternative is to change all legal recognition of all relationships as "domestic partnerships" and leave "marriage" as a religious issue. That would make the church people happy.  I'd get behind that. (No matter what you call it, people are still going to say "husband" and "wife" though.)

As I see it, married couples will call themselves married no matter what the document says, and most people won't BOTHER to use the big words. As long as the rights and privilages are given equally, and I mean EQUALLY, in the eyes of the law there's no classism likely. Also the attitudes of discrimination will not be quick to change and things will swing over to the question of getting sued.

[At this point I'd like to point out the recent case where a gay man stabbed and killed one man in a gang that attacked him. He then got the police. When charged with murder the judge threw it out. I bring this up as a note of the law being able to treat things fairly.

http://news.yahoo.co..._attack_1;_ylt=
Ak9Sck5f758slgyouZ4NOSIb.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw

I see the same fair review of marriage issues if only given the chance.]
Your Heropa.
Here for something- there you go.

If you can't say anything nice, be accurate.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Marriage satire, Same sex marriage, marriage

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users