Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Ryan :"Preventing GAY PPL from Marrying IS a Universal Value....

Posted by   + Show Post
by on Sep. 25, 2012 at 11:35 PM
Replies (21-30):
Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Sep. 26, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Then if we accept your argument, then we must eliminate legalised marriage and adopt civil unions.  Because there are families who would still be excluded from the bundle of rights provided by marriage even if ssm is legalised.

Quoting jaxTheMomm:

The purpose of the law is to provide a married couple and their family with rights and protections that would be nearly impossible and very expensive and time consuming to get any other way.

There is no argument for denying one family the same protections the other gets with the stroke of a pen.

Speed limits are there for safety - if you ignore them, you could die or kill other people.  There are no such consequences with allowing a same sex couple the same rights and protections.  It means THEY and their children are safer, and you are no less safe.

imamomzilla
by on Sep. 26, 2012 at 9:54 AM
1 mom liked this

 Watch 'em ........weeeee

jaxTheMomm
by Gold Member on Sep. 26, 2012 at 9:57 AM
1 mom liked this

If we accept my argument - which is a pretty damned valid one - we merely allow same sex couples to go down to the courthouse, get their marriage license, and figure out what kind of ceremony they want.  Just like hetero couples do.

That's it.  That's all.  You don't have to eliminate anything.

Quoting Meadowchik:

Then if we accept your argument, then we must eliminate legalised marriage and adopt civil unions.  Because there are families who would still be excluded from the bundle of rights provided by marriage even if ssm is legalised.

Quoting jaxTheMomm:

The purpose of the law is to provide a married couple and their family with rights and protections that would be nearly impossible and very expensive and time consuming to get any other way.

There is no argument for denying one family the same protections the other gets with the stroke of a pen.

Speed limits are there for safety - if you ignore them, you could die or kill other people.  There are no such consequences with allowing a same sex couple the same rights and protections.  It means THEY and their children are safer, and you are no less safe.


Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Sep. 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Words communicate, and rightly so.  My point is that the legalisation of same-sex marriage is dichotomous. Either marriage is between a man and woman based on the uniqueness of that relationship, or we MUST do away with legal marriage and have some catch-all domestic partnership.  Otherwise it would still leave people with legal familial relationships out.

Quoting Trueblu:

My solution is based on not being hung up on a word. The meaning of marriage and what it entails personally and spritually should NOT be a part of the civil, legal rights of domestic partnerships. To me, your "rights" in society as a couple should be conferred upon completing your license paperwork, blood test, etc. The emotional, spiritual part should take place outside of that in whatever venue speaks to your beliefs. So everyone who's hung up on being called "married" can still be called that, but the legal protections would be offered to all committed couples. JMO, I don't expect you to agree...

rccmom
by Gold Member on Sep. 26, 2012 at 10:02 AM


Quoting Meadowchik:


Quoting rccmom:

 

Quoting Meadowchik:

Not exactly what he said, which was basically involving things like traditional marriage and entrepreneurship as universal values.  They are.

One thing that many, many seem to be missing, is that the arguments for same-sex marriage logically result in the deconstruction of marriage.  The right wingers are correct about ssm marriage destroying the sanctity of marriage, although oftentimes it is not well-expressed, or atleast the statements focused on are not well-expressed.

The deconstructive ssm marriage argument goes like this:

"Same sex couples have families, too.  They have children and they love each other and care for each other.  They should have the same set of rights that married people have, and those rights should be called legal marriage."

This argument, if applied logically and consistently, means that platonic friends and close relatives should be able to get married too.  It basically means that ALL legal, family-like relationships between adults, where two people share the household, should be allowed to get married.  Obviously, we know that marriage has never been this way.  It was never a way to codify the relationship between all types of adult family relationships.  This would represent a fundamental shift in the structure and legal purpose of marriage.

IMO, more people supporting ssm need to acknowledge this fact, need to stop caricaturising ssm marriage opponents as Bible-thumping-ignorant-yokels, and need to start seriously thinking about the structural implications of their arguments. 

I find your argument interesting, but I don't agree with it. If two consenting adults fall in love, share their lives together, support each other, and want to share themselves physicallly via sex, if they are of oppositve sexes, they are allowed to get married. If they are of the same sex, though they want the same thing, and that is not a platonic relationship, they can't get married. This is not the same as 2 friends getting married, or relatives, or other family members wanting to be married. This is about falling in love, committing to each other, and sharing your life with another human being.

Marriage has changed over the years. Nowadays it is to recognize that committment between two people, and also allow them the legal means to support one another, ie insurance rights, ability to have a say in medical matters and visits in a hospital, and even spousal support if you get a divorce.

Deconstruction of marriage does not come from ssm, but rather from the view today that marriage is a convenience, and divorce is a simple solution. Many people do not take marriage seriously, both straight and gay. However, those who do take such a committment seriously should be allowed to marry, whether same or oppositve sex.

You're basically saying that marriage is only for intimate, romantic, sexual relationships. 

But other people in platonic relationships can love each other every bit as much as some people in romantic relationships.  Why should society value their relationship any bit less??


You are the one that brought up in a negative connotation how ssm would mean that platonic friends could get married too. However, there is something to be said about the physical, intimate side of marriage, and as far as I know about history and other cultures, that is one of the defining factors of marriage. Even the Catholic Church recognizes the importance of sex in a marriage, and lack of consumation is one reason allowed for an annulment if I heard that correctly in the past. Marriage is not just about a loving platonic relationship, but about sharing one's life, body and soul. Sex is how we share each other physically. That being said, I am sure there are marriages out there where sex does not take place, and if the 2 are perfectly happy and committed to each other in a monogamous relationship, they should be allowed to marry, whether they are same or oppositve sex.

One might also ask, same sex couples can love each other every bit as much as opposite sex couples, so why should society value their relationship less?

Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Sep. 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

If so, all the arguments of fairness are insincere and hypocritical.  Why should platonic people only have access to those rights if they agree to something that is not true?  Just because some people are willing to do that, doesn't mean we should expect everyone else with a similar relationship to be dishonest.

And what about platonic, close-blood relatives? Legalising same-sex marriage does not solve that, they are still excluded.  I have a large family.  If my two sisters decided to live together in a committed, joint household, they are not each others' first next of kin like married spouses are.  They do not have access to the same rigts as married people.  And they wouldn't want to be called married, either.  That does not mean that they should be excluded from that bundle of rights.

Quoting jaxTheMomm:

If we accept my argument - which is a pretty damned valid one - we merely allow same sex couples to go down to the courthouse, get their marriage license, and figure out what kind of ceremony they want.  Just like hetero couples do.

That's it.  That's all.  You don't have to eliminate anything.

Quoting Meadowchik:

Then if we accept your argument, then we must eliminate legalised marriage and adopt civil unions.  Because there are families who would still be excluded from the bundle of rights provided by marriage even if ssm is legalised.

Quoting jaxTheMomm:

The purpose of the law is to provide a married couple and their family with rights and protections that would be nearly impossible and very expensive and time consuming to get any other way.

There is no argument for denying one family the same protections the other gets with the stroke of a pen.

Speed limits are there for safety - if you ignore them, you could die or kill other people.  There are no such consequences with allowing a same sex couple the same rights and protections.  It means THEY and their children are safer, and you are no less safe.



Trueblu
by on Sep. 26, 2012 at 10:07 AM

OR we call ssm marriages, as well. Why can't the uniqueness of marriage be based on a couple committing their lives to each other no matter the gender? And even if we used some "catch-all domestic partnership" for legal purposes, what's the big deal? I think that the number of people who oppose the traditional definiton of marriage being changed/ammended is shrinking. Personally, I don't care what the govt refers to my "marriage" as, as long as I have all the rights that go along with it. 

Quoting Meadowchik:

Words communicate, and rightly so.  My point is that the legalisation of same-sex marriage is dichotomous. Either marriage is between a man and woman based on the uniqueness of that relationship, or we MUST do away with legal marriage and have some catch-all domestic partnership.  Otherwise it would still leave people with legal familial relationships out.

Quoting Trueblu:

My solution is based on not being hung up on a word. The meaning of marriage and what it entails personally and spritually should NOT be a part of the civil, legal rights of domestic partnerships. To me, your "rights" in society as a couple should be conferred upon completing your license paperwork, blood test, etc. The emotional, spiritual part should take place outside of that in whatever venue speaks to your beliefs. So everyone who's hung up on being called "married" can still be called that, but the legal protections would be offered to all committed couples. JMO, I don't expect you to agree...


Karin78
by Member on Sep. 26, 2012 at 10:12 AM

 

Quoting rccmom:

 

Quoting Meadowchik:

This argument, if applied logically and consistently, means that platonic friends and close relatives should be able to get married too.  It basically means that ALL legal, family-like relationships between adults, where two people share the household, should be allowed to get married.  Obviously, we know that marriage has never been this way.  It was never a way to codify the relationship between all types of adult family relationships.  This would represent a fundamental shift in the structure and legal purpose of marriage.

 

I find your argument interesting, but I don't agree with it. If two consenting adults fall in love, share their lives together, support each other, and want to share themselves physicallly via sex, if they are of oppositve sexes, they are allowed to get married. If they are of the same sex, though they want the same thing, and that is not a platonic relationship, they can't get married. This is not the same as 2 friends getting married, or relatives, or other family members wanting to be married. This is about falling in love, committing to each other, and sharing your life with another human being.

Marriage has changed over the years. Nowadays it is to recognize that committment between two people, and also allow them the legal means to support one another, ie insurance rights, ability to have a say in medical matters and visits in a hospital, and even spousal support if you get a divorce.

Deconstruction of marriage does not come from ssm, but rather from the view today that marriage is a convenience, and divorce is a simple solution. Many people do not take marriage seriously, both straight and gay. However, those who do take such a committment seriously should be allowed to marry, whether same or oppositve sex.

 I think this last paragraph, in purple, sums it up nicely.  I totally agree.

With regard to Meadowchick's post, I appreciate your thoughts on the subject, but too disagree.  I could be wrong, but I think it's legal right now to marry a platonic friend.  I don't remember having to sign a pledge to have sex with my husband.  So I would draw the conclusion that public opinion, not laws, dictate the perception of marriage.

I am for same sex marriage because I can't stand the idea of gay couples being denied the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.  It is deeply offensive to me.  I am constantly baffled by this debate when so much seems to come down to semantics.

So here's a question for both sides:  Is the word "marriage" important to you?   

To me, there is a very simple solution- make "civil union" legally equivalent to "marriage".    Or, even better, take the word "marriage" out of laws altogether, and give everyone a "civil union".

But obviously the word must be a hang up for some people (probably on both sides).  Otherwise this would have been settled ages ago. 

Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Sep. 26, 2012 at 10:12 AM


Quoting rccmom:


You are the one that brought up in a negative connotation how ssm would mean that platonic friends could get married too. However, there is something to be said about the physical, intimate side of marriage, and as far as I know about history and other cultures, that is one of the defining factors of marriage. Even the Catholic Church recognizes the importance of sex in a marriage, and lack of consumation is one reason allowed for an annulment if I heard that correctly in the past. Marriage is not just about a loving platonic relationship, but about sharing one's life, body and soul. Sex is how we share each other physically. That being said, I am sure there are marriages out there where sex does not take place, and if the 2 are perfectly happy and committed to each other in a monogamous relationship, they should be allowed to marry, whether they are same or oppositve sex.

One might also ask, same sex couples can love each other every bit as much as opposite sex couples, so why should society value their relationship less?

Sorry, your first sentence does not make sense.

Otherwise, you made a circle:

First, you are argue that sex is an important aspect of marriage.  Then you argue that it's not necessary.  Which is it?

Yes, a same-sex couple can love each other just as much as a hetero couple.  And a platonic couple can love each other just as much as a sexual couple.  Therefore, either we include ALL of them under the umbrella of something like a domestic partnership, or we single out someone. 

The only rational way to single out anyone is to single out hetero couples because of their unique impact on the world, generally, through procreation.  Any other form of singling-out would be one far shkier ground.  So it's either civil unions/domestic partnerships or hetero-only marriage.

romalove
by SenseandSensibility on Sep. 26, 2012 at 10:19 AM

 

Quoting Meadowchik:


Quoting rccmom:


You are the one that brought up in a negative connotation how ssm would mean that platonic friends could get married too. However, there is something to be said about the physical, intimate side of marriage, and as far as I know about history and other cultures, that is one of the defining factors of marriage. Even the Catholic Church recognizes the importance of sex in a marriage, and lack of consumation is one reason allowed for an annulment if I heard that correctly in the past. Marriage is not just about a loving platonic relationship, but about sharing one's life, body and soul. Sex is how we share each other physically. That being said, I am sure there are marriages out there where sex does not take place, and if the 2 are perfectly happy and committed to each other in a monogamous relationship, they should be allowed to marry, whether they are same or oppositve sex.

One might also ask, same sex couples can love each other every bit as much as opposite sex couples, so why should society value their relationship less?

Sorry, your first sentence does not make sense.

Otherwise, you made a circle:

First, you are argue that sex is an important aspect of marriage.  Then you argue that it's not necessary.  Which is it?

Yes, a same-sex couple can love each other just as much as a hetero couple.  And a platonic couple can love each other just as much as a sexual couple.  Therefore, either we include ALL of them under the umbrella of something like a domestic partnership, or we single out someone. 

The only rational way to single out anyone is to single out hetero couples because of their unique impact on the world, generally, through procreation.  Any other form of singling-out would be one far shkier ground.  So it's either civil unions/domestic partnerships or hetero-only marriage.

 Sex is an important part of marriage.

To some people.

To others, not so much.

Unless you are going to impose some sort of bedroom litmus test, we have to take people at their word that when they get married they are creating a legal family, with whatever rights and privileges other legal families are afforded.

That's it.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)