I like this one a lot! I know people who refuse to get involved in the gay rights movement because they argue that marriage is “religious” and shouldn’t be in a secular government in the first place. I say that’s a pretty ridiculous argument, they’re focus should be on equality and not on their own personal political philosophy. Plus it would be a lot more difficult to completely get rid of marriage than to just let gays get married.
Oh gosh, I am going to tread in the very dangerous waters of “there is a certain amount of logic to that argument.” The traditional institution of marriage (political, arranged) was not worth saving, and nor do I feel is the ‘new traditional institution of marriage.’ (religiously definied). I dislike the societal pressures that currently coerces women in to entering a lifelong agreement for fear of being weird or alone, and I dislike that the same societal pressures coerce men into buying overpriced rocks for fear of being inferior to other rock buyers. I like the idea of two fully grown and consenting adults deciding via emotion and logic that they want to spend their remaining lives together, but I find it sad that so many enter in to such an arrangement for reasons other than the love of their partner. I would rather do away with the institution of marriage altogether and focus on the actual feeling of never wanting to leave your partner. That is just my opinion, and I fully realize the validity of other opinions like Sally Lyons who correctly point out that altering the current philosophy on marriage is a lot easier and more beneficial for all populations than trying to abolish the idea completely.
I bought one of those oversized rocks; though I designed the ring myself and had the jeweller make it for me, and made sure the rock reflected LOTS of light. Well, we Neanderthal guys need to mark our territory somehow, and diamond rings beat peeing on trees at -40º.
None of those points have anything to do with the fact that some people can announce to the government that they are a single legal entity, for certain purposes, with the person of their choice while others can’t. Because as far as the government is concerned, that’s what marriage is. It’s saying “this person has legal access to these legal and physical things of mine and I to theirs.
Under the status quo, you are completely free to ignore the institution of marriage altogether and focus on the actual feeling of never wanting to leave your partner. Absolutely nothing prevents that. But if you don’t want to ignore that institution for whatever reason, your ability to do that is curtailed based on the gender of your partner. So while your argument has merit, it’s a social and cultural argument that really has no place in the conversation about the legal institution of marriage
The Institute of Marriage being talked about is religious only. They do not like any other kind. And marriage has legal rights involved that if your aren’t married you don’t get to have. That is why it is so important. You should remember that.
Gays were getting married long before it was legal anywhere. The issue was always with the government refusing to recognise the legal rights. \
If a straight husband dies, his assets all transfer to his wife (tax-free for the most part) unless otherwise specified in a will (ex: “My son get’s the antique car we worked on together” etc) A house is the best example. Daddy dies, but Mommy and the kids can still keep living in the house they owned.
If a gay husband dies, his assets all go to his “estate” which the government can tax much more heavily. Steve dies, and the house in his name doesn’t go to Jack. If he wants to keep the home they lived together for 30, he basically has to buy it back from the government/bank.
Governments and large companies and corporations don’t HAVE morality; they only think in terms of profits and losses. If they gain more by pretending to have moral standard, they’ll go through the motions, but if doing things in an immoral way makes them more money, they’ll do that, always.
The trick is always how to make being a scumbag unprofitable… and that’s an uphill battle.
The only actual argument here of any worth is the idea that voting for incremental improvement “legalize homosexual marriage” is better than choosing not to vote at all in favor of some perfect ideal “Abolishment of all legal marriage/replacing marriage with a far more flexible civil union model that allows the sharing of assets even between those not romantically involved”. But its wrong to mock those holding out for the ideal, because once you get gay marriage, you still need someone out there trying to work towards the ideal.
That last line? You’re my hero.
😀
I like this one a lot! I know people who refuse to get involved in the gay rights movement because they argue that marriage is “religious” and shouldn’t be in a secular government in the first place. I say that’s a pretty ridiculous argument, they’re focus should be on equality and not on their own personal political philosophy. Plus it would be a lot more difficult to completely get rid of marriage than to just let gays get married.
Oh gosh, I am going to tread in the very dangerous waters of “there is a certain amount of logic to that argument.” The traditional institution of marriage (political, arranged) was not worth saving, and nor do I feel is the ‘new traditional institution of marriage.’ (religiously definied). I dislike the societal pressures that currently coerces women in to entering a lifelong agreement for fear of being weird or alone, and I dislike that the same societal pressures coerce men into buying overpriced rocks for fear of being inferior to other rock buyers. I like the idea of two fully grown and consenting adults deciding via emotion and logic that they want to spend their remaining lives together, but I find it sad that so many enter in to such an arrangement for reasons other than the love of their partner. I would rather do away with the institution of marriage altogether and focus on the actual feeling of never wanting to leave your partner. That is just my opinion, and I fully realize the validity of other opinions like Sally Lyons who correctly point out that altering the current philosophy on marriage is a lot easier and more beneficial for all populations than trying to abolish the idea completely.
I bought one of those oversized rocks; though I designed the ring myself and had the jeweller make it for me, and made sure the rock reflected LOTS of light. Well, we Neanderthal guys need to mark our territory somehow, and diamond rings beat peeing on trees at -40º.
None of those points have anything to do with the fact that some people can announce to the government that they are a single legal entity, for certain purposes, with the person of their choice while others can’t. Because as far as the government is concerned, that’s what marriage is. It’s saying “this person has legal access to these legal and physical things of mine and I to theirs.
Under the status quo, you are completely free to ignore the institution of marriage altogether and focus on the actual feeling of never wanting to leave your partner. Absolutely nothing prevents that. But if you don’t want to ignore that institution for whatever reason, your ability to do that is curtailed based on the gender of your partner. So while your argument has merit, it’s a social and cultural argument that really has no place in the conversation about the legal institution of marriage
The Institute of Marriage being talked about is religious only. They do not like any other kind. And marriage has legal rights involved that if your aren’t married you don’t get to have. That is why it is so important. You should remember that.
Gays were getting married long before it was legal anywhere. The issue was always with the government refusing to recognise the legal rights. \
If a straight husband dies, his assets all transfer to his wife (tax-free for the most part) unless otherwise specified in a will (ex: “My son get’s the antique car we worked on together” etc) A house is the best example. Daddy dies, but Mommy and the kids can still keep living in the house they owned.
If a gay husband dies, his assets all go to his “estate” which the government can tax much more heavily. Steve dies, and the house in his name doesn’t go to Jack. If he wants to keep the home they lived together for 30, he basically has to buy it back from the government/bank.
Governments and large companies and corporations don’t HAVE morality; they only think in terms of profits and losses. If they gain more by pretending to have moral standard, they’ll go through the motions, but if doing things in an immoral way makes them more money, they’ll do that, always.
The trick is always how to make being a scumbag unprofitable… and that’s an uphill battle.
The only actual argument here of any worth is the idea that voting for incremental improvement “legalize homosexual marriage” is better than choosing not to vote at all in favor of some perfect ideal “Abolishment of all legal marriage/replacing marriage with a far more flexible civil union model that allows the sharing of assets even between those not romantically involved”. But its wrong to mock those holding out for the ideal, because once you get gay marriage, you still need someone out there trying to work towards the ideal.