<p>Would you be satisfied to have the right to a civil union equal in government benefits to a "civil marriage," recognized in all states?</p>
<p>If I understand what you're basically saying, then yes, absolutely. Personally, I feel that the government should not differentiate between unions of same-sex and opposite-sex couples, in rights given to them or in name. However, I understand that "marriage" is a word that can be very controversial these days, apparently, so in an ideal world, I'd like to see the government only giving civil union licenses (with the same rights as current marriage licenses), and leaving it up to individuals to call themselves, or recognize other people, as "married."</p>
<p>Of course, I know that this is a very unlikely option, so I'd be willing to settle for civil unions equal in rights and benefits to marriages. Of course, it's still discrimination to a certain extent in my book, but the point is to be able to make medical decisions for a partner in emergencies and so on, and that would be a huge step in the right direction.</p>
<p>I'm very pleased that you joined the discussion, CremeDeLaMe! Thanks for sharing your perspective.</p>
<p>Cremdelame, Nom, TheDad,</p>
<p>Should civil-unions or marriages only be granted to people who are actually having sex with each other, or would you include long term committed friends or adult family (sisters, brothers, widows, widowers, friends, partners, neighbors etc.) who are not sexually active with each other but would be served by the benefits afforded to those in recognized civil unions or marriages; that is to say, any two people who find it either emotionally or socially advantageous to be involved in a recognized union of two individuals due to the social benefits they will receive? </p>
<p>Why not grant civil unions or marriages to any two people who co-habitate? Widowers and widows who choose to live together in later-life, or sisters or brothers who never married but live together and support and take care of each other, no matter what combination of gender: or is having sex the new litmus test for union? </p>
<p>Historically, marriages were granted to people for the purpose of pro-creation and the socially safe raising of families (children). Certainly things have changed if the new definition limits itself to "two people who have sex."
If its not all about sex why not let the new definition of marriage include any two people committed to co-habitat with each other, regardless of whether or not they desire to have sex with each other and thus free it from the sex-act altogether? </p>
<p>As I said I in an earlier post, perhaps we should even offer civil union or marriage to, say, two long-haul truckers who are socially and emotionally committed to each other even if they are not physically hot for each others bodies.</p>
<p>gay people can still have families.</p>
<p>"Historically, marriages were granted to people for the purpose of pro-creation and the socially safe raising of families (children). Certainly things have changed if the new definition limits itself to "two people who have sex." '</p>
<p>Well, we don't forbid infertile senior citizens from marriage, nor do we require proof that elderly gentlemen are using Viagra before granting a marriage license. Celibate couples have also existed throughout the ages. </p>
<p>Stop the whole "historical" thing. Marriage has radically changed over the years. It used to be used, in the upper classes, to build alliances. It was quite rare for spouses to be fond of each other.</p>
<p>gay people can still have families</p>
<p>so can single people and grandparents, etc, whats your point?</p>
<p>Marriage has radically changed over the years.</p>
<p>My point exactly, so why not remove sex as a requirement, too? </p>
<p>Again, do the two people who want to share their lives together have to be having sex with each other to form a civil-union or marriage? Why?</p>
<p>Why not other styles, or all styles of co-habitation?</p>
<p>I'll take meltingsnow's bait. Yes, eventually I would like to see marriage (or some synonymous "federal union") be as inclusive as you describe it. If both parties have the legal authority to sign a current marriage contract, they ought to be able to be partners. People will not exploit the system any more than they do the current one. Will people marry an unwanted partner for citizenship? Well, do they now? Yes. But in net, a weight will be lifted off of society's back.</p>
<p>I'm not sure I understand meltingsnow's point. What makes tweaking the definition of marriage so radical that friends, or coworkers, or any of the people you mentioned would want to get "married"? If your point were valid, then wouldn't the same situation be happening now, involving opposite-sex couples? Obviously, marriages even now do not have to be sexually proven in the eyes of the law, so why would same-sex marriages, if given equal distinctions as current marriages, have to be?</p>
<p>I think that removing the sexuality as a given from marriage would not be a bad idea, in the long run, although it isn't a particularly plausible idea, given the emotional connotations the idea of marriage has. I'm just not sure why it's particularly relevant to the topic of gay marriage, as even if gay unions do not produce offspring, the sexual aspect is still very important to the relationship.</p>
<p>Because the tangible benefits of marriage/civil unions are real not imagined or simply felt: Tax standing, inheritance rights, hospital rights, immigration, passports, etc are what are at stake in a legal, not an emotional or simply accept me for who I am union.</p>
<p>Wouldnt these benefits be advantageous to a couple of widows living together, or siblings who share a home, or care taker--care givers amongst many other co-habitational arrangements? </p>
<p>Why would we deny these people these rights simply because they were not having sex with each other? </p>
<p>And, moreover, this argument has been made buy just such people as I have mentioned.</p>
<p>Where do you draw the line? Incest? Polygamy? Beastiality? </p>
<p>Can I marry my computer desk?</p>
<p>Once you move the traditional grounding it does become an open question, doesn't it</p>
<p>I realize that Maize&Blue22 is trying to provoke, but the point he makes is valid (albeit solved). To begin with, neither your cat nor your computer desk can consent to any legal contract. Next, with a non-sexual definition of marriage, "incest" becomes a non-issue. Siblings could marry, sure, but that does not translate into incest. Siblings can already have sex with one another (and have children). It isn't the smartest thing biologically, but I know of no laws forbaying it. I have only social concerns when it comes to polygamy. Marriage, according to the new defintion we've applied in this mind game, is designed to remove ambiguity. In custodial issues, which is all this is about, really, polygamy would undermine the system's intent (no, not historical intent; contemporary intent).</p>
<p>Incest is a "non-issue" if marriage is defined as platonic? That's patent nonsense. In contemporary days, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Read a ***** and a vagina. Is the issue of gay marriages solved? Hardly. Well if the definition of a non-sexual marriage can resolve the pro-creational defects of incest, why is it that gay marriages isn't considered an infringement upon the current idea of marriage. Marriage should be exclusively a religious ceremony between two people of different sexes. Gays have been granted civil unions. It's legal and protects their rights. What more do they want?</p>
<p>Excuse me? Gays have NOT been granted civil unions. Maybe you don't read the newspaper, but there are over a dozen states that have banned gay marriage officially, and only a handful allow it in any form. Even the "civil unions" that exist, while legal, do not fully protect rights guaranteed to same-sex marriages.</p>
<p>I have to say, I'm continually amazed by the offensive things gays are compared to. Am I, because I like men, on a moral par with being attracted to my sister, a border collie, or a computer desk?</p>
<p>I'd write more in response to meltingsnow's (civil, logical) argument, but it's past my bedtime and Nom's already said it very well, I believe.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Siblings can already have sex with one another (and have children).[...]It isn't the smartest thing biologically, but I know of no laws forbaying it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>no they can't it's illegal in all 50 states...</p>
<p>Theoretically:</p>
<p>Marriage is about having and raising children. If you want to start marrying people with "equipment" that cannot or should not be used to procreate, than, yes, homo or heterosexual incest is the same (assuming they agreed not to have babies etc). </p>
<p>Why shouldn't a brother and sister be able to marry if they promise not to have children? As the gay's so succinctly put it, "why won't they just let two lovers wed?"</p>
<p>Hell, incest could be genetically determined you incestophobe!</p>
<p>Practically:
In the US system of government there will be VERY little (Re: nothing) to prevent incestious couples, polygyamists and (less likely but possibly) statutory rapists (assuming they were old enough to give informed consent). I'm not making this stuff up - it was in the decision handed down by the guy that originally overturned the ruling for gay marriage in MA (which was then overruled again).</p>
<p>You seem to be under the impression that "should not" and "cannot" mean the same thing. Incest SHOULD NOT occur when procreation is the desired result, as it has a negative effect on someone other than the participants: the child, who has a serious chance of genetic defects leading to disabilities, mental or physical. Homosexual relations CANNOT result in procreation. No one but the participants are affected by it, and there is no possible way for offspring to exist, let alone be affected by it.</p>
<p>And I don't understand how polygamy or statutory rape could possibly occur from gay marriage being allowed. Polygamy involves more than the standard two people that would be involved in marriage, either homo or heterosexually based. And... statutory rape? I can't even fathom how that would occur. Could you explain that more? It seems to me that if you're old enough to consent to marriage, then statutory rape laws wouldn't apply to you. Am I missing something?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Polygamy involves more than the standard two people that would be involved in marriage, either homo or heterosexually based.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually Polygamy goes farther back historically and is more prevelant throughout history than homosexuality - if you're using you're using historically as "standard". Either way, why should we be able to arbitrarily define a "standard" number of people anymore than we can arbitrarily define what gender the couple needs to be?</p>
<p>Logically - it actually seems like there is more common sense going against homosexuality than there is going against polygamy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Incest SHOULD NOT occur when procreation is the desired result, as it has a negative effect on someone other than the participants: the child, who has a serious chance of genetic defects leading to disabilities, mental or physical. Homosexual relations CANNOT result in procreation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree - I thought I made that distinction. I think homosexuality is on the same legal ground as incestious relationships where there is not going to be children (if one or both siblings got "fixed" first).</p>
<p>On the statutory thing I can't remember all the exact argument, but it was in a court ruling I have somewhere in my books. I'll try to find it tomorrow.</p>
<p>No, CremeDeLaMe, you are missing nothing. Maize&Blue22 has adopted Senator Rick Santorum's slippery slopes argument. According to marriage's LEGALLY defined requirements, his examples are forbidden already. Regardless, I have never seen slippery slope actually emerge and I challenge you to find me a counterexample.</p>
<p>Santorum's argument, distilled and mocked for easy consumption:
"We'd better not own anything. If we permit the trade of ideas, who knows what could happen? People might start buying each other again. . ."</p>
<p>Then again, he would be the last person on Earth to outlaw owernship.</p>
<p>EDIT:
I just explained how polygamy negates "marriage" as a system founded in practicality. I didn't even have to reference morals "loose and fast."</p>
<p>Ohh, please - it's a far cry from saying:</p>
<p>If we're no longer allowed to enforce the arbitrary judgement that marriage must be between a man and a woman we won't be able to enforce the arbitrariness of "2 people = marriage" or siblings can't wed.</p>
<p>...yet you say I'm somehow saying that it would abolish property rights?</p>
<p>If you're going to tackle straw men - at least don't give them my name.</p>