Newsflash: Civil Unions come to New Hampshire. The Don in full support

Quote:

---

What the episode said basically was that if civil unions and marriage was essentially the same things, why can't homosexual couples get married? It is not like there is anything different between the two so why are people still against have homosexual couples getting married? Is it just the word that the people like which allows them to support civil unions and not marriages?

---

Because most people still know that marriage is all about procreation. At least they do here in the US. Sure theres lots of other reasons but thats why marriage was invented. So the state would know who belongs to who and what belongs to who. They could give to :daisy: if your in love or having sex unless this sex is producing children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Because most people still know that marriage is all about procreation. At least they do here in the US. Sure theres lots of other reasons but thats why marriage was invented. So the state would know who belongs to who and what belongs to who. They could give to :daisy: if your in love or having sex unless this sex is producing children.

---

"[Name], do you take [Name] to be your wedded [husband/wife] to live together in marriage. Do you promise to love, comfort, honor and keep [him/her] For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health. And forsaking all others, be faithful only to [him/her] so long as you both shall live AND HAVE LOTS OF BABIES?"

Which part did I add?

Quote:

---

"[Name], do you take [Name] to be your wedded [husband/wife] to live together in marriage. Do you promise to love, comfort, honor and keep [him/her] For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health. And forsaking all others, be faithful only to [him/her] so long as you both shall live

---

Is that part of a civil union? I dont think so. Thats the whole point. You can say what you like at the ceremony be it civil or church but its all meaningless. The state does not require any of that. If it did there wouldnt be divorce. I bet there isnt divorce for people joined in civil unions. They just end the contract. The state can not regualte an emition such as love nor require it. Now is there still any question why weve had so many long debates on this issue? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Which part did I add?

---

The whole thing.


I dont see why its so hard for many of you to realise why marriage was invented. It wasnt invented by any church but by the state. Remember theres always been a power struggle between church and state.

Those are marriage vows. You said marriage is all about procreation. This is clearly not the case.

Why not call the government contract a marriage? That's what that kind of union between two people is called.

Quote:

---

Those are marriage vows. You said marriage is all about procreation. This is clearly not the case.

---

Duh......Those are marriage vows written solely to join a man and a woman. They were written by the church not the state. Theres nothin in any state marriage license requiring any of that. Its a contract just like a civil union. The vows are personal not legal.

Quote:

---

Why not call the government contract a marriage? That's what that kind of union between two people is called.

---

Because its not. There are lots of contracts between two people. And the whole point is that currently its not called a marriage because they dont meet the requirements for getting a marriage license. That being it takes a man and a woman. Now why do you think humans all over the world since the invention of the institution have required at least one person of each gender? Is there something inherent or that can be expected from such a union that would make it different from other unions or contracts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Duh......Those are marriage vows written solely to join a man and a woman. They were written by the church not the state. Theres nothin in any state marriage license requiring any of that. Its a contract just like a civil union. The vows are personal not legal.

---

Do you sincerely believe that the legal definition of marriage is make babies?

You mean to say that all this time I could have been married and not had babies? Now you tell me?

All one has to do is look into the history of Marriage and how the state uses the institution of marriage.

Civil Unions is a good solution to the legal rights being transfered between two willing partners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

You mean to say that all this time I could have been married and nothad babies? Now you tell me?

---

What?!? You mean all this time you've been an Orgah you haven't been popping out lemurites outside the bonds of holy matrimony? And here I thought you were the furriest, third person talkin' playa on the block... ~:pimp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

All one has to do is look into the history of Marriage and how the state uses the institution of marriage.

Civil Unions is a good solution to the legal rights being transfered between two willing partners.

---

Yup. To me it's not about equal rights or anything of the sort. It's about extending new privileges to certain peoples. If the people of New Hampshire want to do that, then it's their business- so long as they do it fairly.

Quote:

---

It's about extending new privileges to certain peoples.

---

Certain people as in "everybody"?

Quote:

---

Certain people as in "everybody"?

---

Isnt that what you want?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I've been saying all along that I oppose gay marriage but support civil unions...

---

Why do you support civil unions?

I support civil unions because at the end of the day, regardless of how people choose to frame it, married couples get granted certain priveleges. The ability to make medical decisions; the right to carry each other on one's insurance; an expectation of an equitable division of marital assests when said union dissolves. All of these things are 'perks' to getting married. I view it as discriminatory that a homosexual couple wouldn't be elligible to receive the same privileges, provided they make the same commitments and assume the same responsbilities as heterosexual couples.

You can claim that society, or the government, has a vested interest in seeing heterosexual couples in permanent relationships. Sure. But I would argue by the same logic that society also has a vested interest in seeing homosexual couples in a stable, permanent relationship. Because society benefits not necessarily from child rearing, but domestic partnership in general.

What's more, I don't think our rights are 'qualified' by the equivalent value that society or the government gets in exchange. If we have the right to marry, that's a stand-alone right, regardless of whether society or the government want us to have it or not.

See, at the end of the day, i would end legal marriage all together. As for health insurance, I would argue you should be able to claim one other adult you wish to provide for, regardless of who they are or what their relationship is. As for making medical decisions, doesn't power of attorney do that, if you structure it to do so? Inheritance is already possible, you don't need legal marriage to name somebody as your beneficiary.

Where does the assumption that marriage is fundementally religious come from?

Gee, I don't know Sasaki. Thousands of years of religious services called weddings, perhaps? Where was Jesus at when he changed the water to wine again? Something tells me it wasn't a Justice of the Peace executing a strictly civil governmental contract...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I support civil unions because at the end of the day, regardless of how people choose to frame it, married couples get granted certain priveleges.

---

Do you feel all consensual relationships made by adults should be granted the same privileges?

Quote:

---

The ability to make medical decisions; the right to carry each other on one's insurance; an expectation of an equitable division of marital assests when said union dissolves. All of these things are 'perks' to getting married. I view it as discriminatory that a homosexual couple wouldn't be elligible to receive the same privileges, provided they make the same commitments and assume the same responsbilities as heterosexual couples.

---

All law discriminates by definition. For example, that an 18 year old can vote and a 17 year old cannot is discriminatory. The issue is whether one feels the discrimination is justified or no. A discrimination argument moves the discussion into the moral arena.

Quote:

---

What's more, I don't think our rights are 'qualified' by the equivalent value that society or the government gets in exchange. If we have the right to marry, that's a stand-alone right, regardless of whether society or the government want us to have it or not.

---

Does this mean you take the position rights are derived independent of any polity i.e. via natural law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Gee, I don't know Sasaki. Thousands of years of religious services called weddings, perhaps? Where was Jesus at when he changed the water to wine again? Something tells me it wasn't a Justice of the Peace executing a strictly civil governmental contract...

---

I didn't say traditionally I said fundamentally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I didn't say traditionally I said fundamentally.

---

We're going to argue in circles with this one. It's like the God argument. I'm going to argue that it's the divine recognition of the union that makes it a valid marriage in the first place. You're going to argue that since the existence of a divinity cannot be proven empirically, there is no divinity to recognize in the first place, and you'll ask what fundamentally alters the relationship (sanctioned marriages versus marriages in name only). Using nothing but empirical observation of human behavior, which I suspect is all you'll allow into this discussion, nothing. A divine institution requires a belief in a divinity to exist in the first place.

My point would be without a belief in a divine being to bless the union in the first place, what is the point of marriage at all? What is 'civil marriage'? Nothing really, at least not to me. I think the Scandanavians are correct if that's all you're going for. Why not just cohabitate? What is the point of marriage? What is the point of wanting to get married if you don't believe in it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Do you feel all consensual relationships made by adults should be granted the same privileges?

---

Yes, I do.

Quote:

---

All law discriminates by definition. For example, that an 18 year old can vote and a 17 year old cannot is discriminatory. The issue is whether one feels the discrimination is justified or no. A discrimination argument moves the discussion into the moral arena.

---

That is correct. And to me, in order for the government to grant itself the right to discriminate, i.e. enumerate itself a new power/authority not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, it needs to demonstrate an overwhelmingly compelling interest. In your example, the government has an overwhelmingly compelling interest to make certain that elections are conducted among those that are likely to understand the choices being posed to them.

Quote:

---

Does this mean you take the position rights are derived independent of any polity i.e. via natural law?

---

Yes. Any rights we hold exist with or without a government in existence to recognize and respect them (or not respect them, as the case may be).

The big difference between the two is that Marriage is a trap. That and there are no shotguns at Civil Unions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

We're going to argue in circles with this one. It's like the God argument. I'm going to argue that it's the divine recognition of the union that makes it a valid marriage in the first place. You're going to argue that since the existence of a divinity cannot be proven empirically, there is no divinity to recognize in the first place, and you'll ask what fundamentally alters the relationship (sanctioned marriages versus marriages in name only). Using nothing but empirical observation of human behavior, which I suspect is all you'll allow into this discussion, nothing. A divine institution requires a belief in a divinity to exist in the first place.

My point would be without a belief in a divine being to bless the union in the first place, what is the point of marriage at all? What is 'civil marriage'? Nothing really, at least not to me. I think the Scandanavians are correct if that's all you're going for. Why not just cohabitate? What is the point of marriage? What is the point of wanting to get married if you don't believe in it?

---

I honestly had no clue that people thought it was important that god sanctify their marriage.

It's important because it's a public ceremony where they pledge to be together. They are telling everyone that they are married and will have to explain if they decide to break up.

Quote:

---

We're going to argue in circles with this one. It's like the God argument. I'm going to argue that it's the divine recognition of the union that makes it a valid marriage in the first place. You're going to argue that since the existence of a divinity cannot be proven empirically, there is no divinity to recognize in the first place, and you'll ask what fundamentally alters the relationship (sanctioned marriages versus marriages in name only). Using nothing but empirical observation of human behavior, which I suspect is all you'll allow into this discussion, nothing. A divine institution requires a belief in a divinity to exist in the first place.

---

I hate to disagree with you Don but religion really has no place in this argument. Marriage was invent4ed by the state not the church. This whole disscussion is about legal terms.It has nothing to do with religion at all. The state neither requires you be religous nor that a church marry you in order to be legally wed and recieve the benifits of marriage.

The whole point is the state is really only concerend with property rights and inheritances. In other words whos responsible for who and what. Once more if the union of a man and a woman never produced children there would be no suchthing as marriage as we know it today.

Quote:

---

Yes, I do.

---

So then we could all join in one big civil union? This is the problem people. It makes marriage nothing special at all anymore.

Quote:

---

That is correct. And to me, in order for the government to grant itself the right to discriminate, i.e. enumerate itself a new power/authority not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, it needs to demonstrate an overwhelmingly compelling interest. In your example, the government has an overwhelmingly compelling interest to make certain that elections are conducted among those that are likely to understand the choices being posed to them.

---

Ive told you what that interest is.

Quote:

---

Yes. Any rights we hold exist with or without a government in existence to recognize and respect them (or not respect them, as the case may be).
Today 20:05

---

There is no "right" to marriage. I thought you were a conservative :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

So then we could all join in one big civil union? This is the problem people. It makes marriage nothing special at all anymore.

---

Errr....so what ?

besides, you're only supposed to do it once in a lifetime, which should make it pretty special, no matter how many gays get married, it's still going to be a unique and special event in your life.

(Pretty much) everyone loses their virginity at some point in time, does that mean it sin't anything special to the person ? It's all about how you look at it, personally, it's not about what other people do.

Marriage was invented by the State, not the Church? Interesting position. So let me ask you what I asked Sasaki... what exactly was Jesus doing at Cana? Deuteronomy and Leviticus date back to approximately 1500B.C. English Common Law, maybe 500 A.D at best. You're still going to argue that there was a civil institution prior to a religious one?

As somebody who is fairly devout, I really could care less about the institution of civil marriage. It was a mistake to introduce a religious institution into the laws of a constitutionally secular nation in the first place. I would correct the mistake by ending the secular version tomorrow. What is the point of marriage between two agnostics? How does it differ in any way then a long term two-party agreement (no State oversight)? Do you need the local government to declare your love for your wife is valid? I don't. I'm only interested in God's approval.

As for my conservative credentials, well, I'm not worried about them. If you are, I appreciate your concern. ~:pat:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I honestly had no clue that people thought it was important that god sanctify their marriage.

It's important because it's a public ceremony where they pledge to be together. They are telling everyone that they are married and will have to explain if they decide to break up.

---

Everybody else is just there for the great exchange of food & booze versus presents. ~:D My only thought in getting married was the recognition of the union between by wife and I before our God. If we had been married by a priest in the woods, with no witnesses, it would have been every bit as valid to me. What can you or 1000 other witnesses possibly have to say about the relationship between my wife and I? Don't take offense to that, I lump my extended family in that same category. They were just there for the party as far as I was concerned. The service itself, that was between my wife, my God and myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Everybody else is just there for the great exchange of food & booze versus presents. ~:D My only thought in getting married was the recognition of the union between by wife and I before our God. If we had been married by a priest in the woods, with no witnesses, it would have been every bit as valid to me. What can you or 1000 other witnesses possibly have to say about the relationship between my wife and I? Don't take offense to that, I lump my extended family in that same category. They were just there for the party as far as I was concerned. The service itself, that was between my wife, my God and myself.

---

I don't have any stats on this, but I would bet most atheists get married with a ceremony and vows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I don't have any stats on this, but I would bet most atheists get married with a ceremony and vows.

---

Oh, they do. I'll wager probably 95% of them do. I'm simply saying I personally have no idea WHY they do. What's the point, to them? Do they need my approval or yours or their local city council's on their relationship?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Oh, they do. I'll wager probably 95% of them do. I'm simply saying I personally have no idea WHY they do. What's the point, to them? Do they need my approval or yours or their local city council's on their relationship?

---

For the same reason we celebrate Christmas?

If you want to throw a party to have everybody celebrate that you're commited, great. But what is the point of pledging yourselves to each other for eternity before God when you don't believe in God or eternity?