Gay Marriage and the law of unintended consequences...

[Timber Loftis]

Two good ones, there, Thoran. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Maelakin: Timber’s suspicions are correct. I would agree that you only get out what you put in to the relationship; however, in today’s day and age, it is increasingly difficult to find someone that will live by marriage vows that are taken when they are married. I’m pretty sure everyone can agree with me here. Honestly, they should just abolish the concept of marriage legally. It can remain a part of the religious sects, and it can remain as a token for those who wish, but it should not have any legal impact on people’s lives. In doing so, the benefits associated with marriage will be removed to an extent, but they are easily reworked in a new format.

Ok... I got ya. I'd also agree that seperating religous marriage from the legal aspects of partnering is a good idea. Let churches issue marriage certificates (that legally mean zip) and the two partners can sign a marriage contract (which if they're like pre-nup's will also mean zip since it seems they can't be made binding).

I guess the outlook on marriage depends on your philosophical point of view. Half of marriages end in Divorce... but the other half don't. That means that 50% of Americans think there's something worth fighting for (to steal a LoTR line) in the old beat up institution. Is the glass half full or half empty?\

Note: can't claim credit for the "natural Log" joke... that was Sultan's, I'd heard the pencil joke a million times but the natural log caught me by surprise. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 12-04-2003, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Thoran: Spoken like a true liberal who doesn't understand the question but wants to take a slap at conservatives anyway. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Well my poor attempt at humor was taking a slap at a psycological condition (Egoism) that typically manifests as the desire to control what other people do based on a sense of morality as well as creates faulty logic (like linking homosexuality to beastiality or pedifelia) rather than a political leaning. You would probably be suprised just how "conservative" I am on several issues, as much as I am "liberal" on others. [img]smile.gif[/img]

NOW... if it was a conservative who didn't understand the question but wanted to take a swing at liberals, the response would look something like this: First you multiply the welfare roles by 4, Add in some victims groups and environmentalists... finally stir in some Political Correctness. Then 2+2= poppycock unless you're a feminist, in which case it equals a poppyvagina, or if you're an environmentalists it equals poppyseeds. If you're a member of the teachers union it equals 3.5 (becuase of horrible budget cuts they couldn't afford a whole 4). If you're pro gun control it equals 8 (a one that's been shot twice by irresponsible gun owners). If you're pro-choice it equals 4... but ONLY if the mother CHOOSES to let it equal 4 (keep your arithmatic off my body!).

[img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] Good one!

[Cloudbringer]

Ok, so how many of you 'marriage is outdated' people who think it is only for 'legal' purposes are married? Why not just live with someone and create a legal contract for your living arrangements?

I guess I won't be asking many of you to congratulate me on my nuptials next spring!

I realize the legal system sees it as a contractual agreement and the church sees it as much more than that. Personally, I think of marriage as the WHOLE thing, both a binding of two people in law and in spirit. So I can't really 'divide' it up the way some people suggest we do it.

It will be interesting to watch as the ripples from the MA ruling spread, though.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Well my poor attempt at humor was taking a slap at a psycological condition (Egoism) that typically manifests as the desire to control what other people do based on a sense of morality as well as creates faulty logic (like linking homosexuality to beastiality or pedifelia) rather than a political leaning. You would probably be suprised just how "conservative" I am on several issues, as much as I am "liberal" on others. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see egoism as playing a part here. Egoism is the idea that self-interest motivates all the decisions a person makes. Unless you're arguing that opponents of gay marriage are doing so because they feel gays will somehow reduce their own access to marriage benefits. I doubt you would argue that's a valid reason.

Niether does egoism have much to do with control, there's probably as many reasons for wanting to control as there are humans. I DO tend to think that radicalism makes people feel justified in attempting to control others, and that where you find radicals you'll find control freaks. Of course they don't hold a monopoly on it, just that they seem to have more than their share. In this case there's also inertia... the old guy sitting on the porch saying "well, we never did it THAT way before". Frankly I think it's important to have people that resist societal change, otherwise we'd be changing things to fit whatever the flavor of the moment social issue is. I'd be willing to bet that as many as half of the "flavor of the moment" social movements are just plain wrong, if only because people are behind them and we seem to be wrong darn near as often as we're right. It's the law of unintended consequences coming up to bite us, as the thread heading suggests. Prohibition seemed like a grand idea. Was it... nope. Isolationism was the way to be. Was it... nope. The Communist revolution will make an eden of the world. Will it... nope. Without people to go "WOH, this doesn't seem like such a hot idea", the gung ho among us would have us jumping from one hair brained scheme to another. So I'd say they're conservatives, and I'd say they're reluctant to change, often backward, pig headed, stubborn, and often just plain wrong. But in their own way they're trying to influence society in the same way the PC nazi's who try to shove their intolerant brand of tolerance down our throats do.

Linking homosexuality to beastiality or pedifelia... that too depends on your point of view. Many Conservatives would say they're all mental illnesses and there's the link, Liberals would say that Homosexuality is an act between two consenting adults therefore totally different than the other two. Heck, libertarians would probably say that other than pedifilia (or actions that hurt others, young or old) the government should keep it's nose out of WHATEVER a person want to do in private. I tend toward the libertarian on this one, but I see the other two points of view too.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: Ok, so how many of you 'marriage is outdated' people who think it is only for 'legal' purposes are married? Why not just live with someone and create a legal contract for your living arrangements? I guess I won't be asking many of you to congratulate me on my nuptials next spring! I realize the legal system sees it as a contractual agreement and the church sees it as much more than that. Personally, I think of marriage as the WHOLE thing, both a binding of two people in law and in spirit. So I can't really 'divide' it up the way some people suggest we do it. It will be interesting to watch as the ripples from the MA ruling spread, though.

Married 10 sometimes rough, sometimes great years. For me it's easy to seperate the two parts of marriage, because the concept of Marriage has not changed in 2000 years at my church, and the concept of marriage has not stayed the same for 10 minutes at my town hall (or at least it seems that way sometimes). I support the gubberment getting out of the marriage business partly because they should not be in the religon game, and based on recent rulings they should also not be in the morality game (of course they ARE in that game, but apparently they can pick and choose how to participate). SO, let them handle the legal aspect of marriage and see if they can avoid screwing that up any worse than it already is. Leave the spiritual side to whatever church you choose, the church never had much to do with the legal aspect anyway.

BTW : Good luck... it's a wild ride!

[ 12-04-2003, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: Ok, so how many of you 'marriage is outdated' people who think it is only for 'legal' purposes are married? Why not just live with someone and create a legal contract for your living arrangements? I guess I won't be asking many of you to congratulate me on my nuptials next spring! I realize the legal system sees it as a contractual agreement and the church sees it as much more than that. Personally, I think of marriage as the WHOLE thing, both a binding of two people in law and in spirit. So I can't really 'divide' it up the way some people suggest we do it. It will be interesting to watch as the ripples from the MA ruling spread, though.

great post, cloudy.

i'm married, love my wife dearly, and believe in the sanctity of our relationship being one of heart, mind, body, and spirit. no church or gubmint can say or do anything about it. we are, and that's that.

at the same time, i do believe the marriage institution as currently used is outdated. i'd be all in favour of separating church-marriage from legal-marriage, and even breaking the latter into a series of contractural agreements, such as financial, power of attorney, etc.

that said, there are benefits with the gubmint or church recognising your union, and as such we'd like to take advantage of those benefits. personally, i'd be happy to do so as a series of 4 contracts about different parts of our lives as much as a single marriage doco - and the former seems much more appropriate as times change.

lastly, congrats on your nups. [img]graemlins/balloons.gif[/img] whenever i have friends tell me they're getting married, i always hope they've found what i (we) have. [img]smile.gif[/img] just be sure to take care of each other.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: Ok, so how many of you 'marriage is outdated' people who think it is only for 'legal' purposes are married? Why not just live with someone and create a legal contract for your living arrangements? I guess I won't be asking many of you to congratulate me on my nuptials next spring! I realize the legal system sees it as a contractual agreement and the church sees it as much more than that. Personally, I think of marriage as the WHOLE thing, both a binding of two people in law and in spirit. So I can't really 'divide' it up the way some people suggest we do it. It will be interesting to watch as the ripples from the MA ruling spread, though.

Cloudy! Of course I'll congradulate you and Nacht!

Just because I think the whole 'legal concept' of the institution should be completely destroyed, doesn't mean that I am not glad that you two find joy and comfort in eachother. I just think that the gubmint/ins co's have way to much say in our personal lives - and that they should be booted from it.

But as for you two, I'm happy for the both of you and will be eagerly awaiting pics on Stealthy's! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Thoran: Interesting way of looking at the issue, I'll have to think about it. I would however disagree that there is no sanctimony in marriage anymore, I think that you get out of it what you put in... irregardless of your sexual orientation. Long term relationships are darn tough, and as Night Stalker acidicaly pointed out, too many people out there cut and run whenever things don't go their way. I think this is why I overall support the idea of Gay Unions, whatever the name... if they're willing to stick with eachother for the long term they deserve the rights that married couples have. It worries me a little (I wonder when the fire and brimstone are going to start falling), but sexual preference just doesn't seem like a good reason to discriminate against anyone. (of course that won't keep me from arguing the other side... because what would life be without a good argument on occasion).

Sorry if you interpreted any acidic vehemence in my post. Certainly wasn't intended that way. Call me a pure bred cynical and aloof GenX -er.

You make a good point about the legal justifications of banning polygammy if 'gay marriage' is OK. I agree. It is stupid. If people want to live in a hierachal commune, let em. BTW Timber, I disagree. Applying the same standard of 'consenting adults', Dad 'marrying' his 13 yo daughter wouldn't be permissable.

Anyway, back to Thoran! I don't like the lifestyle of 'those people' either, I don't think the Constitution supports any ban on their lifestyle. Therefore, live and let live and all. The less "Moral decency" laws (applying the consenting adults standard and "my rights end where another's begins" standard), and the less "Nanny" laws we have, the better I think this country will be.

[Timber Loftis]

Is it wrong to legislate morality at all?

You should do no harm to others IS a moral statement. But, is this the only morality a legislature can dictate?

While I generally agree with moral liberalism personally, I've got to say that philosophically it's really silly to think legislatures can't legislate morality. I think they can -- so long as they do it equally for all and do not otherwise violate the constitution.

Which leads me to note: legislating morality and establishing a religion are not one in the same.

As for the argument about polygamy, Maelakin answered it best, absolutely more sensible than my reasoning, which was a collage of legal research I did several years ago.