Quote: Original post by Zahlman

Quote: Original post by Bersicker
I don't understand why family would want to date each other. That's a little pathetic isn't it? It seems like a total cop out to me...it's not that hard to find somebody else. If you really want to, then do what makes you happy. Just seems like an excuse to me.

What you're ignoring is the possibility that two family members could find themselves more attracted to each other than to anyone else they've met. (Just because it's inconceivable for you personally doesn't mean it doesn't happen.)

EDIT: C-c-c-combo... refactorer?

I guess for some people it just simply is that way. I'd like to quote some prophetic quote but there really isn't one for or against that sort of thing. It simply is the nature of some people, so going back to what I said before...do what makes you happy.

Quote: Original post by Zahlman

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
I think you pretty much nailed it here. Marriage should be a religious or spiritual cermemony and should not pertain to the state in any way. This means any permutation of social congress should be allowed. So long as both parties enter into it willingly and can cancel at anytime.

I don't agree with this at all. If marriage is a religious ceremony, then whose religion? Are you saying that two atheists can't get married? ...

Why the jousting at windmills? any permutation of social congress is all inclusive. Why not open a different thread to bash whatever variety of religions you want to bash, or at least not append my post and act as if you made any statement of signifigance.

Other than your religion bashing you seem to restate my position that "you don't agree with at all"

He apparently objects to your implication that marriage should necessarily be "religious or spiritual". Perhaps just a bad choice of wording on your part?

Thanks Zahlman, that's exactly what I object to. I've heard the same implication that a non-religious marriage is somehow less than a religious ceremony for a while now and frankly, it's getting tired.

There is more to the argument than just genetic risks to children, or to the mental health of the individuals.


Mostly I'm concerned with the definition of the word being altered too much, too rapidly.

The free legal dictionary says marriage is "The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship."

So that would be a legal contract between one man and one woman, and it is accompanied by a huge list of legal rights and legal responsibilities.

Let's assume for argument that the "one man and one woman" clause of the marriage contract did not exist.

The marriage agreements include many areas. There are local, national, and international legal rights and responsibilities that include privileged conversations, financial obligations, sexual elements, and so on. There are religious rights/responsibilities that are defined by every religion. There are social rights, customs, and notions about marriage.



For the legal rights and responsibilities, nearly every one of those can be conferred through other legal means. Marriage has just been a convenient place for governments to attach those rights.

If those governments want to have some way to designate those rights, then great. I have no problem with anybody sharing those legal rights.

I personally know a case of adult siblings (brother and sister) who never married and never moved out. After a few years their parents died. Now they share their family home and are living similar to a traditional family with one person earning an income and supporting both. In this case they could not legally wed, although many of the legal rights would probably be appropriate for them. They have taken the legal steps to bind most of their legal rights, such as probate rights, power of attorney, and so on. They cannot get his insurance to cover her, since they aren't legally bound to. I still don't know if that is appropriate. They are still single, and have a non-sexual relationship as far as I know.





But there are other definitions of marriage.


Marriage is not just a collection legal rights within a country. The word has many non-legal rights and connotations. Religious rights and social rights, customs, and notions cannot be so easily assigned. There are international legal rights to consider. The word with a known definition is used by insurance companies, employment contracts, business contracts, loan contracts, and other areas, where changing the legal definition could introduce major problems.



Even if a law permits the joining of two siblings for all legal rights, the law cannot force religions to accept it as marriage.

Nor can the law force social groups to accept them as equal to marriage.

Nor can the law in this country force the definitions upon other nations, just as our nation does not respect plural marriages performed in other countries today.

A change to the definition would alter and potentially destroy countless contracts and agreements that depend on the existing definition.



The current word marriage is reserved for a larger scope of rights than just the small set of legal and sexual rights.


Because the definition of marriage includes other NON-LEGAL rights and responsibilities, I strongly disagree that those legal rights should be called "marriage". Call it a civil union, or call it an adult designee, or call it whatever else you want.

Can they have the legal rights? Sure, if they want them. Should the assignment of the legal rights be called marriage? No way, the word already has a different meaning.



You also asked about polygamy.

I feel the same applies to that. If the people want to include additional people in their legal contract, let them do so.

This would be a much more complex set of legal changes. For example, would the rights and responsibilities be associative and reflexive? Given a polygamy with MFFF, if the man dies or divorces are the other women legally responsible for children of another? What about a MMFF group that splits into two traditional couples, how would the 'divorce' be handled? How many people could enter into the relationship? Since the legal rights include privileged communication, could gangs and organized crime use it to escape the legal system? Probate could be a nightmare. I'm sure that these legal issues could be worked out.



So:

Civil union or other name? Yes. Assigning legal rights is fine.
Civil unions with polygamy? Sure. Legal rights could be assigned.
Call it marriage? No. The word marriage refers to more than just legal rights.

Quote: Original post by Zahlman

Quote: Original post by Way Walker
I'm curious, if the legal concept of marriage is purely a legal contract, in what way is it fraud to enter the contract to gain the benefits of that contract (e.g. tax benefits, citizenship) so long as they fulfill the responsibilities of that contract (I don't know, what does the law require of a married couple?)?

Thanks. That's a point I wanted to make. If the government finds it obscene that any random set of people can "marry" and claim benefits, the government should rethink what those benefits are. If, for example, we allow the concept of "spouse" to be non-singular, but not the concepts of "next of kin" or "power of attorney", then spouses no longer assume those roles implicitly. Oh Well.

Quote: Do you lump in "Let's rename the legal concept of 'marriage' to 'civil unions' and let any two consenting adults be joined in this union," with, "The government should stay out of the marriage business"?

Stating it that way comes dangerously close to the views of those who don't understand (or claim not to) what the big deal is about the terminology. "Separate but I-ignorantly-assume-equal". That said, if everyone is genuinely treated equally, then the terminology should, actually, no longer matter. That could well take a few generations of cultural and social change even beyond all the legal restructuring, though.

I assume the views you're referring to are those that don't know what the problem is with "marriage" being the heterosexual union and "civil union" being the homosexual union? I always thought that was a silly distinction if they were equal or a disingenuous one if they weren't. However, if they are equal, to say it's more than a silly distinction implies an important connection to the social practice. Barring fears of it becoming unequal, why else would homosexual couples care about whether they were legally "married" or "unioned"? They can already be sacramentally/socially married, assuming their belief system allows it (which means what's been called the "sanctity of marriage" that so many fight for is long gone).

Quote:
It also makes it sound like it would be easy to do, when in fact there are a zillion explicit references to "marriage" in existing law. (I recognize that I'm being an idealist, and I'd like to think that others with similar views have similar recognition.)

I don't think it would be easy, I just think it's the nearest we'll come to the change being feasible for some time. It's like saying that the possible is always easier than the impossible.

Quote:
Oh, and you tip your hand here WRT your stance on polygamy. ;)

The only part of my hand I'm in any way trying not to show is the religious parts because I don't think they're relevant to my point (and, to tip my hand, would likely confuse my point). Legally, I think, as you suggest, it may be useful for "spouse" to be singular if it is connected with singular rights and responsibilities.

Quote:

Quote: I'm a supporter of the former since the sacramental/social practice of marriage is so pervasive that it seems useful to have a legal recognition of it but also minimizes the implication that the government is saying anything about the particulars of the sacramental/social practice.

Unfortunately, we can't really wave a magic wand and have it be so. If we do a search-and-replace on all the laws and then make the necessary revisions to say "ok, now everyone can has civil union, and it does what marriage used to do", I'm confident there would still be weird legal issues.

I'm sure you're right and I agree that it's unfortunate.

Quote:

Quote: I don't see any reason they shouldn't have enjoyed the benefits of a legal marriage. I think my gut reaction against the idea is that the we are then using the term "marriage" for a legal concept that is out of sync with the sacramental/social concept of "marriage". That's pretty much what I have against calling the legal concept "marriage".

Fair enough. But what do you think those benefits should be? I think they've gotten far out of sync with what makes sense.

I don't know, most of what I can think of probably already go to a sibling, them being "next of kin". Perhaps, in that particular case, it would guarantee those rights to that particular sibling and not another sibling, child, or parent? It might not be a useful concept when it's with a blood relation that's too close to marry under the current laws.


And, whatever intellectual arguments can be made for a legal marriage between any pairing, the thought of a marriage (in any sense) between parent and child just sent a shiver down my spine. Irrational or not, that's too much for me right now. I need to go.

One more before I go...

Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine

Quote: Original post by Zahlman

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
I think you pretty much nailed it here. Marriage should be a religious or spiritual cermemony and should not pertain to the state in any way. This means any permutation of social congress should be allowed. So long as both parties enter into it willingly and can cancel at anytime.

I don't agree with this at all. If marriage is a religious ceremony, then whose religion? Are you saying that two atheists can't get married? ...

Why the jousting at windmills? any permutation of social congress is all inclusive. Why not open a different thread to bash whatever variety of religions you want to bash, or at least not append my post and act as if you made any statement of signifigance.

Other than your religion bashing you seem to restate my position that "you don't agree with at all"

He apparently objects to your implication that marriage should necessarily be "religious or spiritual". Perhaps just a bad choice of wording on your part?

Thanks Zahlman, that's exactly what I object to. I've heard the same implication that a non-religious marriage is somehow less than a religious ceremony for a while now and frankly, it's getting tired.

Yeah, I remember you jumping on me for making a flippant "see a priest" comment. Took a while before we realized we had no disagreement (other than, perhaps, whether the comment was in poor taste).

Quote: Original post by Zahlman

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
The "the government needs to get out of the marriage business" argument favors the homophobes. You only ever hear it as an alternative to legalization of gay marriage.

That's only because (a) the only people who come up with the idea or support it already are in favour of equal rights for homosexuals, so it's "alternative" in that sense;

No. It is possible that someone who is in favor of the government preventing homosexuals from marrying will pretend to endorse this position knowing full well that it's never gonna happen in order to achieve two things: changing the subject and presenting themselves as more moderate than they really are. Not only is it possible, given the dishonesty and behavior of some people (and the unfortunate effectiveness of the tactic), it's a certainty that some are doing this.

Quote: (b) the only time the opinion is ever solicited is in the context of the discussion of legalization of gay marriage.

If the idea of government involvement in marriage is truly a bee in your bonnet, then discussion of heterosexual marriage is also a reasonable context for introducing this opinion, as is any discussion regarding the role of government. That we never see "government needs to stay out of marriage" in these discussions says a thing or two.

Quote:

Quote: but who's fighting for it? It isn't on anyone's list of priorities.

Pray tell, how would we fight for it?

The same way the real fight, i.e. the legalization of gay marriage, is taking place: introducing propositions, lobbying your representatives, etc. You know, the way our democracy has worked for a couple centuries.

Quote:

Quote: It's disingenuous to try to replace the current, people-deserve-their-rights-today proposal (legalize gay marriage), with a cousin proposal (get the government out of marriage) which you and all the rest of its proponents are apathetic about, and act like the cousin proposal will in practice render the primary proposal moot.

It's disingenuous to be an idealist?

My "disingenuous" description wasn't referring to merely holding the position, it was referring to the act of shifting the discussion towards your solution when, and this is the important part, you know full well that nobody's even tried fighting for your solution and nobody plans on fighting for it. And always without so much as a "Good luck with your real-world activism, marriage-minded gay folks" It damages, however slightly, the prospects of the real fight for rights taking place in which you presumably would like to see those who are currently denied of their rights victorious.

I was also referring to the group of people I described at the top of this post with my "disingenuous" comment, but it's my fault for not making that clear at the time.

Quote:

Quote: I'd be more likely to believe that these people are concerned about the current, real-world denial of the right of homosexuals to marry if they simply owned up to reality and said something like "My ideal preference is that government completely divorce itself from marriage, but since this is less practical than legalizing gay marriage under the current system, and nobody, much less me, is even waging a fight for my proposal, I throw my support behind efforts to legalize gay marriage."

Because people can't be trusted to be in favour of equality a priori. Or because you must be an activist for a cause in order to have a plausible claim to support it. Sure thing.

You completely missed my point. I'm not saying everybody needs to be an activist for all of their ideals. What I'm saying is that nobody is an activist for this one particular ideal, and so presenting this ideal as the solution to a problem which has an alternative solution which does have strong activism behind it is at best nonproductive, and at worst it's a momentum killer for the real-world activism and as such favors those who would deny gays the right to marry.

[Edited by - BerwynIrish on April 8, 2009 11:02:01 PM]

Quote: Original post by slayemin

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I don't think genetic risk alone is why most people don't agree with a brother and sister getting married. That taboo was established long before people had an inkling of genetics. But if you want to entertain genetic factors, the disposition against incest might well involve evolutionary forces in that offspring produced via incest are less likely to survive and reproduce. This angle might seem to sidestep your question, but if the assumption behind the question lacks foundation then so does the question. Consider also, modern methods of contraception mean that an incestual relationship between a brother and sister need not carry any genetic risk at all, yet that would not make a marriage between them legit.

At any rate, there is a psychological pathology to incest that provides sufficient reason to ban such marriages, gay or straight. And if two brothers or two sisters got married simply for tax purposes, that would be fraud, the same as with a gay or straight couple who did so for tax purposes or immigration status or similar.

Not true. (Washington Post: In Afghanistan, New Misgivings About an Old but Risky Practice, 17 April, 2005)

If there was a psychological pathology which causes the idea of incest to be revolting to us, then it would be universal to humanity. Yet, in Afghanistan, its common practice for families to marry cousins (~10%-25%). Therefore, I will argue that incest is revolting to us because it is a cultural value ingrained into us through socialization processes. Where and when that began, I'd guess to be some time in the medieval period.

That's not what I said. Let me rephrase. In my view, and I think in the view of many others, sibling incest constitutes a psychological pathology and that this is sufficient reason to ban the practice. I did not say that the revulsion to incest constituted a psychological pathology. What the story about cousin marriage in Afghanistan shows is the genetic risks to the offspring of first cousins as well as the capacity for culture to override nature. In that regard, consider the following paragraphs from an article that I linked with earlier.

Oedipus Wrecked: Was Freud wrong about boys and their mothers?

Quote:
...
But people are not innately incestuous, insists Mark T. Erickson, M.D. They acquire a "natural aversion" to incest during the first few years of life, and it is activated by early dose proximity of parents and other kin. According to Erickson, the process of attachment, or bonding, establishes a familial bond that operates later in life not only to ensure incest avoidance, but to foster altruism to one's near and dear.

Freud simply assumed that animals, including early humans, mated incestuously. But that was before ethology evolved as a science.

Starting in the mid-1960s, a number of studies began to examine whether incest is in fact common in nature. Since then, observers have decreed that mother-son, father-daughter, and sibling incest are rare in our first cousins, the primates, and all the way down the animal kingdom. The prevalence of incest avoidance in nature suggests it has biological underpinnings conserved through evolution.
...

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
The "the government needs to get out of the marriage business" argument favors the homophobes. You only ever hear it as an alternative to legalization of gay marriage. I'm sure there's folks who genuinely believe this argument, but who's fighting for it? It isn't on anyone's list of priorities. It's disingenuous to try to replace the current, people-deserve-their-rights-today proposal (legalize gay marriage), with a cousin proposal (get the government out of marriage) which you and all the rest of its proponents are apathetic about, and act like the cousin proposal will in practice render the primary proposal moot.

I'd be more likely to believe that these people are concerned about the current, real-world denial of the right of homosexuals to marry if they simply owned up to reality and said something like "My ideal preference is that government completely divorce itself from marriage, but since this is less practical than legalizing gay marriage under the current system, and nobody, much less me, is even waging a fight for my proposal, I throw my support behind efforts to legalize gay marriage." Otherwise, it's simply a change of subject that doesn't really look like a change of subject, and as such, it provides cover for the extremists.

There's a principled position that holds that the government should not be involved in marriage at all. I hold it. Having said that, government should allow gay marriage barring doing the sensible thing which is to butt out completely.

I think many people that are against gay marriage fear that once it is legalized it will start to stomp on the rights of whichever church they believe in. I actually agree with this fear.

That's what makes government butting out the best option. It eliminates the coercive aspect of the law. Churches that choose to marry gays can but since marriage isn't a government program any longer the coercive element is removed.

Then marriage becomes rightfully an expression of commitment which shouldn't involve the state in any way.

@Chaos - It seems pointless to crusade against a couple of words in my post and distort its intent. At no point was I guilty of your fable. The term "spiritual" is also all inclusive.

Quote: I think many people that are against gay marriage fear that once it is legalized it will start to stomp on the rights of whichever church they believe in. I actually agree with this fear.

I'm not being sarcastic, but what rights are you talking about?

Quote: Original post by Demosthenes

Quote: I think many people that are against gay marriage fear that once it is legalized it will start to stomp on the rights of whichever church they believe in. I actually agree with this fear.

I'm not being sarcastic, but what rights are you talking about?

perhaps the right to refuse to marry homosexual couples?

Quote:
Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
There's a principled position that holds that the government should not be involved in marriage at all. I hold it. Having said that, government should allow gay marriage barring doing the sensible thing which is to butt out completely.

As long as marraige carries with it a legal component, government will have to be involved. Of course, we could always remove all legal powers from marraige, and have the actual legal civil service care for those. In that way you're free to marry (but not be contractually connected to) anyone you want in any way you want with no government involvement.