Maine Gay Marriage Law Repealed

Lady Anne wrote:

This reminds me of a letter I read in Ms. magazine once that said that same sex marriage should be banned because having the same sex all the time was boring.

Yes, the letter was firmly tongue-in-cheek. Yes, I loled at it.

*snerk*

Skillet, in the interests of honest debate, what do you see the purpose of marriage as being?

I see marriage as a sort of mini-herd, that makes raising child(ren) easier. .

unskilled78 wrote:

I see marriage as a sort of mini-herd, that makes raising child(ren) easier. .

And what, intrinsically, makes marriage necessary to that end? There's all kinds of mini-herds. I rely on my parents a lot to help raise my child, after all.

Not to blame you, but your arangement puts responsability to raise to the child on those who did not make the kid in the first place.
In my mental utopia, everyone would make amends for his or her screw-ups and "burdening" them (In my opinion, I have no idea how they feel about it) with your child just seems impolite to me

Also, what's so wrong with marriage that IT MUST BE DESTROYED?

unskilled78 wrote:

Not to blame you, but your arangement puts responsability to raise to the child on those who did not make the kid in the first place.
In my mental utopia, everyone would make amends for his or her screw-ups and "burdening" them (In my opinion, I have no idea how they feel about it) with your child just seems impolite to me

Also, what's so wrong with marriage that IT MUST BE DESTROYED?

Well, a lot of people share that utopia. However, I just recently read an interesting article on the subject in the Chronicle of Higher Education (thing lies around in the breakroom where I eat lunch, so I need something to leaf through while waiting for the microwave), which points out that the nuclear family so cherished by conservatives is actually quite unnatural for human beings. It pointed out that living and functioning in an extended family setting such as the one myeerah describes is much more natural than dad, mom and 2 1/2 children living by themselves.

Furthermore, studies have shown that marriage, contrary to propaganda, does NOT lead to better health and affluency, but that it's the other way around - healthier and more affluent people seek the state of marriage more often than those of lesser privilege. And finally, they pointed out that the life expectancy in the middle of the last century, when these values were purported strongly with TV shows such as "Leave it to Beaver" etc., was quite a bit lower, which meant that "marriage for life" was a bit easier to pull off than nowadays, where you might end up being married for thirty, fourty years if you're actually aiming to stay married until you fall into the coffin. They made a couple more interesting points talking about how marriage can actually be a detriment, however, I'm afraid that my memory is failing me (it's been a few days since I last read it).

This is the article I'm talking about; it is sadly not available without paying for it online, but if you are a student, the paper should be accessible in your university library. And no, it does not argue against gay marriage (as the beginning might imply), but against the concept of marriage being a generally positive force for everyone. Quite a few people might actually be better off living in different circumstances, whether these be the extended family setting, as singles or even in polyamorous relationships.

tl;dr - Marriage isn't inherently horrible (of course not, or no one would get married), but it's definitely not for everyone and shouldn't be elevated to this insane podium it's been placed on.

That said, in my opinion, gay rights are, at the end of the day, human rights. "Separate but equal", as stated various times, doesn't cut it, because "separate" is inherently unequal. Homosexual couples in a devoted relationship should be allowed the same tax cuts and same familial privileges such as hospital visits etc. as heterosexual couples in the same situation. These rights, right now, are only provided by what the US law defines as "marriage", and therefore, I fully understand and support the gay community's struggle for same-sex marriage.

Of course, in an ideal world, we would change all the laws mentioning marriage in that way so there wouldn't be all these obstacles for people who refuse to conform to an outdated and artificially elevated ideal (there are, after all, also quite a few heterosexual couples who would be perfectly happy without a piece of paper tying them together in the eyes of the law, but feel they have to get married in order to receive these privileges). However, since that's not going to happen, equality in marriage rights it is. And the good people of Maine have spit on the very thought of the Pledge of Allegiance with their vote. Whatever happened to "One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for ALL" (NO, fundies, that does NOT mean "white middle class heterosexual males!")?

unskilled78 wrote:

Not to blame you, but your arangement puts responsability to raise to the child on those who did not make the kid in the first place.

In my mental utopia, everyone would make amends for his or her screw-ups and "burdening" them (In my opinion, I have no idea how they feel about it) with your child just seems impolite to me [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

That's a different argument. Let me turn the concept sideways and see if you get what I'm saying then: why must the parents of a child be married in order to care for it? What does a legal construct have to do with a child's welfare?

Quote :

Also, what's so wrong with marriage that IT MUST BE DESTROYED?

What's so right with it that it must be maintained in the exact same form?

I am married. I got married for legal purposes: I was in college and couldn't file as an independent for financial aid even though I was supporting myself. My boyfriend and I, with whom I was living, decided to go ahead and marry. Our relationship didn't change one bit. Our living situation didn't change one bit. The only thing that changed was a bit of paper that said I could now have recourse to aid that wasn't dependent on my parents' income. Children had nothing to do with anything—we were married seven years before we even considered having a child.

Marriage, as a legal construct, offers benefits beyond child-rearing. It's a gross injustice to deny those benefits to anyone who sees fit to partake of them, especially as children are not a part of every marriage, and marriage is not a part of all children's lives.

It's the word 'marriage'. Them there religious types want it as theirs, which is why in England you have to call it a civil partnership. I think somebody earlier (forget who) said that everyone should get a civil partnership and it should only be called marriage if you want it as a religious ceremony. Which I think is a good idea. It should be opt in, not forced out.

unskilled78 wrote:

Also, what's so wrong with marriage that IT MUST BE DESTROYED?

I'd never have to hear the phrase "sanctity of marriage" again, and that would probably take a little of the grr!rage out of my daily life, so I'm all for it.

Fitchsticks wrote:

It's the word 'marriage'. Them there religious types want it as theirs, which is why in England you have to call it a civil partnership. I think somebody earlier (forget who) said that everyone should get a civil partnership and it should only be called marriage if you want it as a religious ceremony. Which I think is a good idea. It should be opt in, not forced out.

That might be a really good idea (it's also quite intriguing) and maybe a better way to go about it? Hm.



Unskilled: In your mind, marriage is a means to build a family. A family which is a man (the husband and father), a woman (the wife and mother), and children.

Go for it! You have and will always have the freedom!
So why are you trying to take other people's away?

I've heard the "marriage is about children" argument many times, and I always have ask--if marriage is just about rearing children, then how come it's okay for older people to marry? They sure won't be having children. Why are infertile people allowed to marry (and stay married)? How come parents are allowed to marry people other than the father or mother of their child(ren)? Why, if marriage is about people raising their biological children together, are polygamy and polyandry illegal, when so many people have multiple partners and thus multiple parents for their offspring?

Verandering wrote:

Unskilled: In your mind, marriage is a means to build a family. A family which is a man (the husband and father), a woman (the wife and mother), and children.

Go for it! You have and will always have the freedom!
So why are you trying to take other people's away?

I have literally no opinion on the matter. I'm egocentric. I didn't post until I saw something that aroused my curiousity,

Fitchsticks wrote:

It's the word 'marriage'. Them there religious types want it as theirs, which is why in England you have to call it a civil partnership. I think somebody earlier (forget who) said that everyone should get a civil partnership and it should only be called marriage if you want it as a religious ceremony. Which I think is a good idea. It should be opt in, not forced out.

I agree, especially as there's more and more atheists around these days.
I'd suggest keeping the terms "husband" and "wife" rather than "civil partner" though because they're shorter. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Lady Anne wrote:

I've heard the "marriage is about children" argument many times, and I always have ask--if marriage is just about rearing children, then how come it's okay for older people to marry? They sure won't be having children. Why are infertile people allowed to marry (and stay married)? How come parents are allowed to marry people other than the father or mother of their child(ren)? Why, if marriage is about people raising their biological children together, are polygamy and polyandry illegal, when so many people have multiple partners and thus multiple parents for their offspring?

The problem there is that those are sane questions and the "marriage is about children" argument belongs to frothing lunatics.

I'll add that, personally I believe that if most people had the choice what they'd really want rather than one partner is a harem but because it isn't actually practical it doesn't happen and so no one really thinks about it.
Well, it's my theory anyway.

Fitchsticks wrote:

I think somebody earlier (forget who) said that everyone should get a civil partnership and it should only be called marriage if you want it as a religious ceremony. Which I think is a good idea. It should be opt in, not forced out.

C.S. Lewis said something along those lines WRT Christian and civil marriages.

Fairlight wrote:

I'll add that, personally I believe that if most people had the choice what they'd really want rather than one partner is a harem but because it isn't actually practical it doesn't happen and so no one really thinks about it.
Well, it's my theory anyway.

Oh, I'm theoretically in favor of polygamy, but I think that everybody should be married (civil union doesn't have a nice verb form, does it?) to each other. Consenting adults and all that.

myeerah wrote:

Fairlight wrote:

I'll add that, personally I believe that if most people had the choice what they'd really want rather than one partner is a harem but because it isn't actually practical it doesn't happen and so no one really thinks about it.
Well, it's my theory anyway.

Oh, I'm theoretically in favor of polygamy, but I think that everybody should be married (civil union doesn't have a nice verb form, does it?) to each other. Consenting adults and all that.

Oh yeah, of course. When I said the harem thing, I was referring to people (or at least people of the geek persuasion) imagining their fantasy lives. When it comes to real-world polygamy everyone should be equal in the relationship, socially and legally.

Queers, poofters, buggerers, and inverts should be put to death. Oscar Wilde got what was coming to him and so should all this lot.