Marriage and Divorce Entitlements

Political Philosophy
61

How did we get derailed into gay marriage? It’s very simple - The purpose of Government is to protect rights. Two people getting married doesn’t violate my rights and I certainly don’t need Obama to protect me from the happy couple. That makes who gets married a non-issue.

I beg to differ…

The issue at hand, “Marriage and Divorce Entitlements”, questions the justification of entitlements which favor heterosexual marriages, on the presumption that the role of gender falls outside the context of what a marriage is: "The idea that marriage is the union of one male and one female has been thought to be so basic that it is not ordinarily specifically expressed by statute. This traditional principle has been challenged by gays and lesbians who, until recently, have unsuccessfully sought to legalize their relationships. In Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971), the Minnesota Supreme Court sustained the clerk’s denial of a marriage license to a homosexual couple."http://legal-diction…ry.com/marriage

My position is that a significant element of context (pairing by gender) regarding what marriage currently is, is being dropped to promote an inconsistent view of what marriage ought to be. The presumption that heterosexual marriage and gay unions are the same thing, is a false premise for reasons already given (and not yet rebutted). The rights of those who marry according to the legal recognition of traditional marriage, are violated by those who attempt to alter the identity of marriage, essentially diminishing the value of their marriage earned by their effort to maintain it. In terms of property value, redefining marriage can be viewed legally as trespassing or vandalism.

Everyone agrees that the purpose of Government is to protect rights, and not meddle in consensual relationships; what I’m challenging in this thread is:

  1. The repeated presumption that heterosexual marriage is the same thing as gay marriage; this claim has yet to be established.

  2. Why should the legal value and identity of traditional marriage be altered to accommodate those groups who don’t share traditional values?

It seems to me that we are assessing the value of apples according to the identity of oranges.

62

My rights are not violated by someone getting married. People get married everyday and my life or property doesn’t sway in the balance of who gets married and why. There are no legal repercussions for me based on who gets married, and if it ever did that would be the fault of statist laws by autocrats playing social engineer, not marriage.

The idea that the value me and my wife have for each other is increased or diminished by others based on if they get married is also ridiculous. That is the opposite of egoism as it places values in others first, as if their status would magically alter our life and our marriage would become less because two ladies got married. A guy could decide to court a lawn tractor for that matter and it still does not affect my life - There is no causal relationship between me and the happy couple. In the later case that is a good thing!

1.The presumption that one kind of marriage is the same thing as the other is because it is a very simple fact that it simply is. Who needs to even clarify or build a chain of reasons when it is painfully obvious that two people getting married does not somehow reach out across space and time and violate my rights? Two people fall in love. They get married. They live happily ever after. It happens every day and my life does not hang in the balance as if we were collectively connected some how. The only reason I can see that people put their nose into the business of these relationships is because A) Tribalism - The collectivist standard of pressuring relationships has been the norm for most of humanities existence (which is why romantic love is a distinctly Western phenomena in origin), or B) God(s) said so thus we need to find a way to pretend it matters so which ever of the 3000+ God(s) we seek to appease will not send a storm to punish us.

2.The legal value of marriage? Value to whom? By whose authority? Evidently not the couple in love who is, you know, the only two people really involved. The idea dangerously cascades back into the classic tribal view of relationships and I don’t think you meant that so I’ll assume I’m missing something here or you misspoke.

But I mean, really. Marriage is about romantic love. It’s hard enough for people in today’s philosophic and psychological vacuum to find it when they have a hard enough time finding themselves. Let’s not start adding legal restrictions too… Let it soar!

~ Spiral the Romantic

63

The presumption that one kind of marriage is the same thing as the other is because it is a very simple fact that it simply is.

In the context of gender relationships, would you say that father/daughter relationships are the same thing as father/son relationships? That gender is equally irrelevant to all parent/child relationships??

64

  1. I wouldn’t say that same-sex relationships are the same as opposite-sex relationships, for the same reason I wouldn’t say that your marriage is the same as Dan’s: different individuals are involved and each relationship is unique. But why should that matter? There’s plenty of opposite-sex couples who have non-traditional marriages: some have open relationships, while other are into some really, really weird stuff. Does that mean these couples should no longer be allowed to get married, because they don’t fit inside the traditional man=breadwinner, woman=housekeeper box?

  2. What traditional values do you mean? Living together, loving each other, raising a family? That’s usually what comes to mind when I think of marriage. Why else would anyone marry anyone, straight or otherwise, except to ‘attain’ these values? I imagine that same-sex couples desire the same things that traditional married couples do, with few exceptions!

The rights of those who marry according to the legal recognition of traditional marriage, are violated by those who attempt to alter the identity of marriage, essentially diminishing the value of their marriage earned by their effort to maintain it.

Is this really your premise: it’s easier to be in a gay relationship than a straight one? As I said above, each relationship is unique and has it’s own challenges. Just because your marriage might be harder than Dan’s, that doesn’t mean the value of your marriage somehow diminishes because his is easier.

65

Is this really your premise: it’s easier to be in a gay relationship than a straight one?

No, my premise is that it’s different, i.e. not the same thing. Marriage presumes a heterosexual partnership, and to include gays requires additional identification; gay marriage. Changing the traditional definition of “marriage” to include gays is context dropping. The idea that you can blank out the role of gender in marriage, and everything else about the relationship will remain the same is, well… let’s say it’s questionable according to the standard Objectivists usually apply to the process of identification. The argument that traditional marriage and civil unions ought to share the same legal entitlements has merit. The argument that traditional marriage and civil unions are the same thing, so we should drop the term ‘civil union’ and refer to every pairing of gender as being married, doesn’t have merit.

66

No, my premise is that it’s different, i.e. not the same thing. Marriage presumes a heterosexual partnership, and to include gays requires additional identification; gay marriage. Changing the traditional definition of “marriage” to include gays is context dropping. The idea that you can blank out the role of gender in marriage, and everything else about the relationship will remain the same is, well… let’s say it’s questionable according to the standard Objectivists usually apply to the process of identification. The argument that traditional marriage and civil unions ought to share the same legal entitlements has merit. The argument that traditional marriage and civil unions are the same thing, so we should drop the term ‘civil union’ and refer to every pairing of gender as being married, doesn’t have merit.

There’s no question (at least none that I’m aware of) that marriage has historically referred to a pairing of man and woman.

But is there a good argument that it must remain so? You say that “blank[ing] out the role of gender in marriage… [is] questionable…”

Okay. But don’t leave it there.

Yes. The case for “gay marriage” is to recognize marriage as a relationship between two individuals without respect to gender. And you find that transition from what you correctly identify as “traditional marriage” to be “questionable” at least. But on what grounds? Simply because it is a change?

Human institutions do change, routinely. What constituted a “citizen” in ancient Athens is different from what “citizenship” is today in the United States. To say that a change is proposed is not to argue that this change is good or bad, or should be adopted or dismissed.

So, given that the recognition of “gay marriage” does indeed represent a change from a traditional perspective, do you think that change is good or bad, and on what grounds?

67

A father’s relationship with his daughter would be different than his son, of course. I’ll give you the next line of thinking and that I also agree that a romantic relationship between a man and a woman is going to be different in subtle ways than a relationship between two guys. Everyone is different but in this case there will be obvious psychological/physiological issues that change based on the exact nature of the people involved in the relationship. But that is interpersonal between the two people involved in the relationship and only effects how the happy couples deal with each other (and that is a private matter).

Politics, which is ethics applied socially, has nothing to say accept what needs to be done for the equal protection of rights of all people within its jurisdiction. As far as a “social standard” goes, marriage has only a practical purpose in a social context: It is in people’s rational self-interest to have protections and definitions in place when property is jointly owned or dispersed (for example legal proof of a relationship for insurance reasons). But this practical application is not the reason, of course, the reason is romantic. Whether a couple is man/woman or woman/woman is their concern (they are the ones in love) and has no affect on me or anyone else. Changing something as unnecessary as the reproductive organs of the married couple don’t alter the social application of marriage since rights are not altered by the additional presence or lack thereof a penis. I’d be scared of a society in which property identification was rationed in such a way.

OK, now I can’t stop thinking about the Mel Brooks film set in WWII where one guy was forced to wear a pink triangle since he was a homosexual. What film was that again?

Anyway, are the people different? Yes. But that is between them and still does not affect me. As a political issue of socially applying ethics, it also has no effect no more than it would in some other field of protecting rights like theft or murder.

~ Spiral “The Germans would have made me wear a dollar sign”

68

So, given that the recognition of “gay marriage” does indeed represent a change from a traditional perspective, do you think that change is good or bad, and on what grounds?

I think it’s unnecessary. The onus is on those proposing to change the definition of marriage to justify the need. Legal expediency is insufficient, as civil unions have already been defined to cover all non-traditional marriages. The objection to marriage and divorce entitlements isn’t resolved by combining groups of relationships for the purpose of expanding objectionable government entitlements. So, if the argument falls to one of recognition, i.e. identification, forcing traditional marital couples to identify gay relationships as being the same as heterosexual relationships is not only irrational, but unjustified coercion.

69

I think it’s unnecessary. The onus is on those proposing to change the definition of marriage to justify the need. Legal expediency is insufficient, as civil unions have already been defined to cover all non-traditional marriages. The objection to marriage and divorce entitlements isn’t resolved by combining groups of relationships for the purpose of expanding objectionable government entitlements. So, if the argument falls to one of recognition, i.e. identification, forcing traditional marital couples to identify gay relationships as being the same as heterosexual relationships is not only irrational, but unjustified coercion.

Let’s go a step at a time so I can examine my own rationale, and hopefully we can find those places where we disagree. (This may get messy as I tend to be a little discursive… please forgive.)

I imagine myself as a gay man. I’m in a romantic relationship with a partner I love. I examine my relationship with my partner, and it seems analogous to relationships I’ve observed among heterosexual couples with respect to several criteria: we share love and fidelity; live together; have arranged our household in a particular manner, reflecting shared tastes and compromise; expect to be with each other for the extent of our lives; we may have an extended family, like shared children, or plans to create one.

When heterosexual couples possess those criteria, they often get married. Is there any reason for me to get married? There is the potential romance of a formal expression of those things I’ve listed, and whatever it may be worth to a person to have a traditional expression of those things as well. There is a social recognition of that same relationship. What might that social recognition be worth? I’m unsure, though one aspect might have an engagement akin to a verbal commitment, and the wedding a formal “Letter of Intent” in college football recruiting (if that example is worth anything to you). There are rules within recruiting about competing schools contacting those athletes who have already made commitments and issued a Letter of Intent… and socially it may be acceptable to court an unattached woman or man, but possibly less so someone who is engaged or married. The engagement/wedding ring, as much as anything else, can be a signifier to someone who might not otherwise know (like a stranger) that this person is not interested in new romance.

Further, there can be political dimensions to marriage, as tax codes may be written to reflect how people manage their households in practice, or whither fall military benefits for the deceased, or other issues of property inheritance, etc. (This is not to take up the argument for or against any one of these policies specifically, or to say whether, as an example, relief from an unjust tax is an “entitlement” or not. This is merely to posit why I, in my guise as a gay man, might want to get married to my partner.)

In terms of lifestyle, when I and my same-sex partner can describe ourselves as “all but married,” or see ourselves in the same roles as a heterosexual couple who would then get married… then it appears to make sense for me to seek marriage itself. If some aspect of it is denied by others (such as legal recognition, and the consequent adjustment to tax codes or inheritance policy), we may opt to still perform our own extra-legal ceremony. If the world is hostile enough, it might be a secret one. But indeed, we would be “married” to each other, which in this case is a recognition of the reality of our relationship – that of spouse to spouse – just as a heterosexual couple might be married to each other, though in some frontier situation without the benefit of a formal government capable of codifying the institution.

Beyond that, why would we “need” legal institutions to reflect this reality, and to treat us as they do heterosexual unions? What of “civil unions” as my relief?

I suspect that there’s a case to be made about “equal protection,” and maybe related to Brown v. Board as against Plessy v. Ferguson*, and the doctrine of “separate but equal.” Earlier I suggested citizenship as an institution that has changed over time, in terms primarily of who is allowed citizenship. Imagine that we had a society in which only whites were allowed citizenship, and that we were confronting a movement to extend citizenship to blacks.

Suppose, in response, we said that we would identify these so-called “black citizens” as “civil members of society” rather than citizens, for after all, citizenship has traditionally been reserved for whites only, and it is unfair to whites to impress upon them this new meaning. But a “civil member of society” will receive every legal benefit of citizenship, so there is no reason to complain or need anything different.

Were I a black man in such a society, I would be worried that it would be all-too-easy to devise different legal approaches for a “civil member of society” as against a citizen, if those approaches didn’t already exist. But beyond that, I would wonder why the government would feel it necessary to codify a difference between “citizen” and “civil member of society” if the only actual difference is skin color. Why would the government deem it necessary to treat people differently according to the color of their skin, and should it? Isn’t this a statement that this distinction is not just historical or traditional, but real and worth preserving? That there is a *real* difference between “citizen” and “civil member,” accounting to skin color and thus demonstrated in our terminology? If this is not discrimination itself (the bad kind, I mean), doesn’t it almost demand it?

To bring this back to marriage, if we say that heterosexual couples who treat themselves and each other in every respect as a “married” couple may do, can in fact be married, but a homosexual couple who acts likewise may only enter into a “civil union,” then aren’t we (in our capacity as “government”) saying that there is a meaningful difference between these pairings that we must reflect with our laws? But where is that meaningful difference? When I initially posited my scenario, I said the following: “we share love and fidelity; live together; have arranged our household in a particular manner, reflecting shared tastes and compromise; expect to be with each other for the extent of our lives; we may have an extended family, like shared children, or plans to create one.” So what is it that a heterosexual couple has that entitles them to marriage, that such a homosexual couple, alike in everything but gender, lacks? Where is the meaningful difference between these two relationships that justifies two separate terms to describe them (if not legal strategies, though that will almost certainly follow, if we’re being honest)?

Please note, when you say “forcing traditional marital couples to identify gay relationships as being the same as heterosexual relationships is not only irrational, but unjustified coercion,” that this is not at all what we’re talking about. I don’t care at all about the beliefs of any specific “traditional marital couple.” They can view gay relationships in any manner they please. They can hate blacks, and consider them not to be “real citizens.” They may think whatever they’d like, and I wish them well in their intolerance. But when we’re talking about how we administer the governance of our country, then I must insist upon equal protection before the law, and that separate is not equal. With regard to marriage, I find that a homosexual couple can have a relationship that is in every important respect the equivalent to a heterosexual couple. And so to treat them differently (or as a “civil union” suggests, to treat them the same yet call it something different, which I find disingenuous on its face) is not only a failure to recognize the reality of the situation, it is an affront.

There is another argument to be made that government ought not be involved in marriage at all, and perhaps that’s true. But just as I do not believe the government ought to be educating children, yet I will insist upon equality of education for children without respect to skin color, so long as the government *is* educating children, I must similarly argue for equal treatment for homosexual and heterosexual couples.

***

*Odd trivia: Plessy triggers spellcheck, but Ferguson does not. Spellcheck likewise triggers spellcheck.

70

So, if the argument falls to one of recognition, i.e. identification, forcing traditional marital couples to identify gay relationships as being the same as heterosexual relationships is not only irrational, but unjustified coercion.

Really? As someone who has been with my wife for 20 years I have never felt coerced into anything about marriage. No one has ever showed up at the door, pointed a gun at me, and said, “Mr. Spiral you are now forced to believe about marriage”.

About as close as it gets is in fact the fundamentalists that project this imaginary line that, but for other reasons. For example, my Catholic family seems to think that marriage turns me into a stud horse and my wife into a broodmare and they we have some duty to procreate by virtue of being married. The fact me and my wife do not have children might bothers their definition of marriage but it certainly doesn’t force them at gun point into accepting our version of it, not should the law have a say in the matter as well.

71

For clarity, I don’t see marriage as a civil rights issue. In terms of discrimination by race or gender, legal reform was accomplished by asserting individual rights; not by renaming members of all races and genders, “white males”. The only thing redefining marriage will do is add another check box titled, “Sexual Preference”, to loan applications and jointly filed tax returns.

72

But it is an issue of rights. The purpose of Government is to protect rights so it has to be about rights. Two people getting married does not violate my rights and I don’t need Obama to protect me from the happy couple. I keep coming back to this point because it is the final arbitrator of political action in a moral society – Whether force will be initiated by the state of be used ethically for retribution.

Blocking people from getting married is initiating force, not retaliation.

As for the check box, I see no reason for forms to have a sexual preference. Who cares? An insurance carrier only needs to know who is enrolling in their benefits, not something completely useless to insurance like sexual preferences. If they do care then they likely issues and you should do business with a company that is run better.

As for Government forms, if the Government is big enough to care about your sex or it’s preference it is too big to begin with.

73

Spiral and DonAthos, I think you’re missing a big premise of Devil’s, which is that gender is a significant portion of one’s self-identity and way of acting, thus it has fundamental affects upon long-term romantic relationships. The fundamental differences can’t be ignored when discussing marriage. It’s important to note that marriage and its historical existence is primarily heterosexual in nature, with very few exceptions (although, the exceptions are pretty cool!). The reason is views on what relationships are supposed to provide for those involved. Supposed to provide, of course, varies throughout societies and history. Ability to procreate, financial security, binding families together as a property agreement with the woman being more like a symbol of the agreement, ability to raise kids, etc. These viewpoints are shaped by gender norms to a large extent, and I’d even say marriage is specifically aimed at heterosexual, monogamous, long-term relationships. Heterosexual is relevant there, because that’s the terms marriage has developed under, as well as what people in society say a marriage ought to provide if the marriage is to remain valid. Generally these days, “ought to provide” has evolved into just a romantic relationship that’s long-term. Which is very messy, because a legal agreement shouldn’t take into account feelings like love. So, what should be done is maintain marriage as one concept, and use a different concept for non-heterosexual relationships.

I actually agree with all of the above (insofar as I understand what Devil is saying), *except* the premise marriage rests on! I do not think gender is fundamental to one’s self-identity, so heterosexual relationships are not inherently different than non-heterosexual relationships. Any differences are only due to what people believe based on cultural influence.

As a whole, I do not think marriage is benefiting anyone on a societal scale because of how (traditional) marriage unreasonably constrains ideas on how romantic relationships are supposed to operate. That’s why I’m opposed to marriage as such. If the relationship is not traditional marriage of monogamy/longterm/heterosexual, then it’s not marriage in my eyes. At least, if you call it marriage, I’ll say you’re wrong, but that isn’t to say the relationship is wrong or immoral.

Lest DonAthos’ citizenship example is brought up to me, the concept of citizenship (as far as I know) comes from significantly different origins than marriage. As people here should know, concepts develop over time and generations. Although a concept’s definition may change over time, and some particulars will be discovered or removed, what a concept refers to does not change, even if the essential is wrong. Man is defined as rational animal, while others could say man is defined as a featherless biped. Whatever the case, the referrent of man is still those two-legged things that wear clothes, eat food, type on keyboards, discuss disagreements, etc. A definition with nonessentials doesn’t mean the characteristics identified are wrong - humans *are* featherless bipeds. To try to put it succinctly, while it isn’t false that marriage often refers to long-term, romantic relationships, heterosexual really should be included in the *definition* of marriage because of what the concept has referred to for so long.

74

Blocking people from getting married is initiating force, not retaliation.

This example is not a good one. Is blocking incorporation of a company an initation of force when the company isn’t operating as an incorporated company in the first place? The government ought not give favors to incorporated companies, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t standards to what can be considered an incorporated company.

75

Thank you Eiuol, for helping to clarify what I’ve been struggling to state. Context is everything and words have meaning. I’ve added about enough to this thread, so I’m going to retire to the sidelines for awhile.

76

As a whole, I do not think marriage is benefiting anyone on a societal scale because of how (traditional) marriage unreasonably constrains ideas on how romantic relationships are supposed to operate. That’s why I’m opposed to marriage as such. If the relationship is not traditional marriage of monogamy/longterm/heterosexual, then it’s not marriage in my eyes. At least, if you call it marriage, I’ll say you’re wrong , but that isn’t to say the relationship is wrong or immoral.

But people who participate in non-traditional relationships (where partners are not monogamous, for example) can get married, regardless of your beliefs. In other words, whether or not you believe these relationships should be referred to as marriage or not, is irrelevant, because they are.. granted they get a marriage license and go through all the other necessary steps.

That’s why I believe the whole concept of “traditional marriage” is merely a subset of “marriage.” For example, if traditional marriage means that the man is the breadwinner, and the woman is the housekeeper and child raiser, that is just one subset of marriage labeled “traditional.” Another subset might be the opposite, where the man is the child raiser, and the woman is the breadwinner. Further, both individuals may work and decide not to have any children. The list goes on..

So in my eyes, “traditional marriage” no longer encompasses “marriage” as a whole, because of all these other non-traditional arrangements that people choose to make. I see no reason to treat same-sex arrangements any differently. Women are now apart of the workforce. Dads stay at home to raise kids. Lesbians adopt children. Point in fact: this isn’t the '20s.

This example might have been used previously, but it is still very much relevant to the conversation: interracial marriage was fully legalized in the '60s. Notice that it wasn’t and isn’t called civil interracial unions , it’s called interracial marriage (a subset of marriage). People back then recognized that the union of two people shouldn’t depend on color, just like people are now starting to realize that the union of two people shouldn’t depend on sexual preference.

And just as a reminder:

Civil unions work fine to accomplish the former, and jumping over a broom works fine for the latter, but marriage accomplishes both.

But asking someone to have an equitable civil union under the law lacks the romantic gesture needed to say “My heart belongs to you”, at least in my mind.

DA and Dan both previously said that civil unions don’t accomplish everything that marriage does, neither romantically nor legally, and I also pointed out that civil unions are only recognized in 13 states. So saying that the current unequal status (one which is completely dependent upon sexual preference) is OK, is not right.

77

Spiral and DonAthos, I think you’re missing a big premise of Devil’s, which is that gender is a significant portion of one’s self-identity and way of acting, thus it has fundamental affects upon long-term romantic relationships. The fundamental differences can’t be ignored when discussing marriage. It’s important to note that marriage and its historical existence is primarily heterosexual in nature, with very few exceptions (although, the exceptions are pretty cool!). The reason is views on what relationships are supposed to provide for those involved. Supposed to provide, of course, varies throughout societies and history. Ability to procreate, financial security, binding families together as a property agreement with the woman being more like a symbol of the agreement, ability to raise kids, etc. These viewpoints are shaped by gender norms to a large extent, and I’d even say marriage is specifically aimed at heterosexual, monogamous, long-term relationships. Heterosexual is relevant there, because that’s the terms marriage has developed under, as well as what people in society say a marriage ought to provide if the marriage is to remain valid. Generally these days, “ought to provide” has evolved into just a romantic relationship that’s long-term. Which is very messy, because a legal agreement shouldn’t take into account feelings like love. So, what should be done is maintain marriage as one concept, and use a different concept for non-heterosexual relationships.

I actually agree with all of the above (insofar as I understand what Devil is saying), *except* the premise marriage rests on! I do not think gender is fundamental to one’s self-identity, so heterosexual relationships are not inherently different than non-heterosexual relationships. Any differences are only due to what people believe based on cultural influence.

As a whole, I do not think marriage is benefiting anyone on a societal scale because of how (traditional) marriage unreasonably constrains ideas on how romantic relationships are supposed to operate. That’s why I’m opposed to marriage as such. If the relationship is not traditional marriage of monogamy/longterm/heterosexual, then it’s not marriage in my eyes. At least, if you call it marriage, I’ll say you’re wrong, but that isn’t to say the relationship is wrong or immoral.

Lest DonAthos’ citizenship example is brought up to me, the concept of citizenship (as far as I know) comes from significantly different origins than marriage. As people here should know, concepts develop over time and generations. Although a concept’s definition may change over time, and some particulars will be discovered or removed, what a concept refers to does not change, even if the essential is wrong. Man is defined as rational animal, while others could say man is defined as a featherless biped. Whatever the case, the referrent of man is still those two-legged things that wear clothes, eat food, type on keyboards, discuss disagreements, etc. A definition with nonessentials doesn’t mean the characteristics identified are wrong - humans *are* featherless bipeds. To try to put it succinctly, while it isn’t false that marriage often refers to long-term, romantic relationships, heterosexual really should be included in the *definition* of marriage because of what the concept has referred to for so long.

Well, if you want to discuss whether people who are the same sex should get married or relationships in general, that is an entirely different question. I would disagree but I can understand the debate then.

But we are discussing marriage as a social institution, which means the realm of politics. In politics the answer is clear.

As for why these relationships have been built historically, that is interesting from a historical perspective (I like history so I get it) but it is no reason to build an argument around. Historically people also had tons of kids to insure survival or provide for the elders as they got older. Historically early tribes encouraged sex and promiscuity for propagation but shunned real love as hurting the collective since it hindered propagation of the tribe. Historically at one time love was separated from sex, featuring the Christians considering sex as evil and love to be a purely non-physical gift from God(s). Or we could jump to the classic French tragedies of the Renaissance that deiced love should be non-physical and with someone else’s wife in the age of the troubadour.

These real world historical views of relationships obviously have no place in a real romantic relationship. The last thing we should be doing is allowing history to define our relationships.

As for traditional marriage, I can understand why you would oppose that. We should be opposed that that as it is no different than my Catholic relatives looking at me cross-eyed since I don’t have kids. Evidently getting married in their eyes turned my into a stud animal and my wife a broodmare, something I have in fact scolded a few people on for its absurdity and insult to both of us.

As I said earlier – If you don’t accept their ethics then in the name of the God(s) they invented don’t accept their definitions or standards. Make it your own!

But honestly if it bothers you too much then don’t do it. Perhaps a simple civil union and a party or dinner with a few friends is all you want. That is cool too. I have freinds who did that and I supported them in fact. I’m simply telling people you can make marriage your own and that is OK. It’s supposed to be about being in love so focus on that and not what some religious fundie thinks it is since he lives his life out of duty, resulting in damning lesbian marriage in public then running home to cruise the internet for the honeymoon videos.

It is about you, not them.

78

This example is not a good one. Is blocking incorporation of a company an initation of force when the company isn’t operating as an incorporated company in the first place? The government ought not give favors to incorporated companies, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t standards to what can be considered an incorporated company.

I’m honestly missing what you mean by this…

79

Thank you Eiuol, for helping to clarify what I’ve been struggling to state. Context is everything and words have meaning. I’ve added about enough to this thread, so I’m going to retire to the sidelines for awhile.

You’re doing just fine. You and Eiuol are making me think about this in a way I haven’t for awhile and that is always a treat :slight_smile:

80

I see no reason to treat same-sex arrangements any differently

Right, but my “therefore” is let’s forget marriage entirely. That isn’t gonna happen anytime soon, so I’m personally fine with gay marriage for the interim, insofar as special considerations are made when there shouldn’t be for marriage.

Gender appears to be an essential element of marriage. Race was never really part of how marriage norms came about, so it was nonessential, and shouldn’t have ever been an issue in the 60s. That is, being against it was protesting an inessential issue. Tradition might not have been the best word choice for me to use, but I have no reason to say the essentials are anything other than longterm/monogamous/heterosexual. The history is also very important, because that’s what the concept marriage comes from. The same with capitalism as a concept. Marriage is built around heterosexual norms, and trying to make marriage work for all relationship types simply can’t be done well with a good ending.

Well, if you want to discuss whether people who are the same sex should get married or relationships in general, that is an entirely different question. I would disagree but I can understand the debate then.

You misunderstood, I think. The premise (that I disagree with) is that because gender is so important to self-identity, there is no way you could consider heterosexual and non-heterosexual marriage to be both the same kind of relationship even. It’s not about if you allow people to get married, it’s about what you call marriage. I would opt for having gay marriage in our current system, but ultimately I don’t think marriage even should be around as a legal institution of its own, precisely because I don’t think gender identity is nearly important as Devil (or the majority of people) believes.

Historically, love has nothing to do with marriage. It’s not part of the concept. Love is nonessential and incidental. You can be married with or without love. No-fault divorce is a new thing, so really marriage is growing to be *anything* you want it to mean. This isn’t a problem to me, because I don’t think marriage is something that can last in a world that grows more capitalistic over time - there is less restriction on how people can live, and more openness to individual differences.

Your historical examples are fine and all, Spiral, but that’s why marriage was seen as heterosexual in nature by (almost) all societies (and it’s questionable that any early tribes ever had marriage). Whatever incidental characteristics have changed, the essentials are still there, so you’d have to demonstrate by I’m wrong about longterm/monogamous/heterosexual being the essential points. All I’m sensing is “well, that’s not nice for nonhetero relationships, let’s not exclude them!” when it probably makes better sense to reject marriage as such. You’ve said make it your own before. I agree! Who needs marriage when a relationship ought to be what works best for the people you uniquely value?