Politicians in my state are looking to ban same-sex marriage

Page 1 of 1 [ 12 posts ] 

CubsBullsBears
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2016
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 983
Location: Iowa

06 Mar 2023, 12:08 am

*facepalm*


_________________
Early 20s male with Asperger’s and what feels like a mood disorder


Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

06 Mar 2023, 1:21 am

Well marriege as a social and legal institution exists for the purpose of making children and raising them. Otherwise it's just a relationship.



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,558

06 Mar 2023, 2:11 am

I don't really think of marriage as having much to do with children. There are already laws to force a deserting parent to support their kids financially, and the legal liability of parents for what their children do is much the same whether it's a marriage or not AFAIK. I think it's more to do with the death of a spouse leading to a degree of automatic right to the deceased's assets. If they're not married then that's rather more difficult in some jurisdictions, and it can lead to severe hardship. I suppose a deserted spouse can force the one who left to support them if there's a need, and maybe that's harder for somebody who's unmarried, but maybe that can be sorted out by drawing up a legal contract.

Rather more worryingly, if you fall in love with somebody from another country, marriage is one of the simplest ways of securing the right to remain together, immigration laws being what they are, so in that sense those politicians could do a lot of damage.

Banning same-sex marriage is hard on the religious couples affected, if they feel strongly that they should be married for religious reasons. But if the church they've signed up to doesn't sanction same-sex marriage, they probably need a different church.

As for social standing where the couple lives, if they're bigoted enough to look down on unmarried couples, they also probably hate same-sex couples, so the only practical solution is to live somewhere that's more tolerant.

Still, I don't like it that politicians want to interfere with marriage. Sounds like they're trying to pander to bigots so they get their vote. Personally I don't see it as anybody else's business to say who can get married and who can't.



IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 65,880
Location: Chez Quis

06 Mar 2023, 2:13 am

ToughDiamond wrote:
I don't really think of marriage as having much to do with children. There are already laws to force a deserting parent to support their kids financially, and the legal liability of parents for what their children do is much the same whether it's a marriage or not AFAIK. I think it's more to do with the death of a spouse leading to a degree of automatic right to the deceased's assets. If they're not married then that's rather more difficult in some jurisdictions, and it can lead to severe hardship. I suppose a deserted spouse can force the one who left to support them if there's a need, and maybe that's harder for somebody who's unmarried, but maybe that can be sorted out by drawing up a legal contract.

Rather more worryingly, if you fall in love with somebody from another country, marriage is one of the simplest ways of securing the right to remain together, immigration laws being what they are, so in that sense those politicians could do a lot of damage.

Banning same-sex marriage is hard on the religious couples affected, if they feel strongly that they should be married for religious reasons. But if the church they've signed up to doesn't sanction same-sex marriage, they probably need a different church.

As for social standing where the couple lives, if they're bigoted enough to look down on unmarried couples, they also probably hate same-sex couples, so the only practical solution is to live somewhere that's more tolerant.

Still, I don't like it that politicians want to interfere with marriage. Sounds like they're trying to pander to bigots so they get their vote. Personally I don't see it as anybody else's business to say who can get married and who can't.


I love this answer. :heart:



Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

06 Mar 2023, 4:23 am

ToughDiamond wrote:
I don't really think of marriage as having much to do with children. There are already laws to force a deserting parent to support their kids financially, and the legal liability of parents for what their children do is much the same whether it's a marriage or not AFAIK. I think it's more to do with the death of a spouse leading to a degree of automatic right to the deceased's assets. If they're not married then that's rather more difficult in some jurisdictions, and it can lead to severe hardship. I suppose a deserted spouse can force the one who left to support them if there's a need, and maybe that's harder for somebody who's unmarried, but maybe that can be sorted out by drawing up a legal contract.

Rather more worryingly, if you fall in love with somebody from another country, marriage is one of the simplest ways of securing the right to remain together, immigration laws being what they are, so in that sense those politicians could do a lot of damage.

Banning same-sex marriage is hard on the religious couples affected, if they feel strongly that they should be married for religious reasons. But if the church they've signed up to doesn't sanction same-sex marriage, they probably need a different church.

As for social standing where the couple lives, if they're bigoted enough to look down on unmarried couples, they also probably hate same-sex couples, so the only practical solution is to live somewhere that's more tolerant.

Still, I don't like it that politicians want to interfere with marriage. Sounds like they're trying to pander to bigots so they get their vote. Personally I don't see it as anybody else's business to say who can get married and who can't.


Yes there are legal benefits that are associated with marriage. Those legal benefits were introduced exactly to help couples with the raising of children. If not for creating and raising children, those laws wouldn't exist.

But before those laws existed there was marriege as a social institution. It arose spontaneously specifically for the purpose of procreation and rearing children.

You can call e relationship between two people of the same sex whatever you want but it's not marriege.



Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,419
Location: New York City (Queens)

06 Mar 2023, 8:01 am

Dengashinobi wrote:
But before those laws existed there was marriege as a social institution. It arose spontaneously specifically for the purpose of procreation and rearing children.

You can call e relationship between two people of the same sex whatever you want but it's not marriege.

What about a relationship between a woman and a man who have decided not to have kids, or who are physically unable to have kids for one reason or another? Does a heterosexual marriage cease to be marriage when the woman reaches menopause, at least if she didn't have kids already?


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
- My Twitter / "X" (new as of 2021)


Quantum duck
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 8 Dec 2022
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 208

06 Mar 2023, 8:17 am

My Dd says she got married for tax reasons.

My friend never married her partner. When he died, the legal paperwork giving her power of attorney and medical decision making became irrelevant. His will disposed of his belongings and spelled out his wishes for the handling of his remains. But it turns out, in my state your remains become the property of your next of kin. My friend was considered a “legal stranger”. Her minor child had to take his grandparents to court in order to claim his father’s body and carry out the man’s last wishes.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,746
Location: London

06 Mar 2023, 3:37 pm

First up, it's important to remember that a couple of nutjobs who are even being denounced by the Republican Party is very different from there being any actual threat. Wingnuts are constantly proposing bills they know will fail as a way of "virtue signalling" to their base.

The procreation argument is obviously meritless. I mean, for starters, there's no shortage of same-sex parents out there.



Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

06 Mar 2023, 3:46 pm

Mona Pereth wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
But before those laws existed there was marriege as a social institution. It arose spontaneously specifically for the purpose of procreation and rearing children.

You can call e relationship between two people of the same sex whatever you want but it's not marriege.

What about a relationship between a woman and a man who have decided not to have kids, or who are physically unable to have kids for one reason or another? Does a heterosexual marriage cease to be marriage when the woman reaches menopause, at least if she didn't have kids already?


This is a good argument end I have heard it before. The lines become blurry as it is with human affairs. Such cases though do not alter the fundamental nature of marriage. It's like arguing that a dictatorship can still be considered a democracy, because even in a democracy people either choose not to vote or for medical reasons they can't vote.



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,180
Location: Abbottistan

06 Mar 2023, 4:03 pm

I thought SSM was codified into law last year.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,746
Location: London

06 Mar 2023, 4:08 pm

Tim_Tex wrote:
I thought SSM was codified into law last year.

It was - one of the many reasons why this is stupid.

(Others being that this is already unconstitutional, that this wouldn't pass the Iowa congress anyway, and that banning same-sex marriage is morally wrong)



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,558

07 Mar 2023, 1:17 am

Dengashinobi wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
I don't really think of marriage as having much to do with children. There are already laws to force a deserting parent to support their kids financially, and the legal liability of parents for what their children do is much the same whether it's a marriage or not AFAIK. I think it's more to do with the death of a spouse leading to a degree of automatic right to the deceased's assets. If they're not married then that's rather more difficult in some jurisdictions, and it can lead to severe hardship. I suppose a deserted spouse can force the one who left to support them if there's a need, and maybe that's harder for somebody who's unmarried, but maybe that can be sorted out by drawing up a legal contract.

Rather more worryingly, if you fall in love with somebody from another country, marriage is one of the simplest ways of securing the right to remain together, immigration laws being what they are, so in that sense those politicians could do a lot of damage.

Banning same-sex marriage is hard on the religious couples affected, if they feel strongly that they should be married for religious reasons. But if the church they've signed up to doesn't sanction same-sex marriage, they probably need a different church.

As for social standing where the couple lives, if they're bigoted enough to look down on unmarried couples, they also probably hate same-sex couples, so the only practical solution is to live somewhere that's more tolerant.

Still, I don't like it that politicians want to interfere with marriage. Sounds like they're trying to pander to bigots so they get their vote. Personally I don't see it as anybody else's business to say who can get married and who can't.


Yes there are legal benefits that are associated with marriage. Those legal benefits were introduced exactly to help couples with the raising of children. If not for creating and raising children, those laws wouldn't exist.

What are those benefits? I was under the impression that married couples had no particular tax breaks or extra benefits, though maybe that's only true in the UK, where I think there used to be a "married man's allowance" that was done away with.

Quote:
But before those laws existed there was marriage as a social institution. It arose spontaneously specifically for the purpose of procreation and rearing children.

Maybe. But married couples without children have always been a thing, and I hope nobody objected to that. Society certainly used to object to unmarried couples with children (and even to cohabiting), for reasons best known to those who did the objecting, though there are so many such couples these days that they don't get so much flak, unless they're unlucky enough to be living in an old-fashioned region.

Quote:
You can call a relationship between two people of the same sex whatever you want but it's not marriage.

Perhaps not legally in some jurisdictions, but socially I would think it depends on the attitude of the people in the area. Personally I don't see marriage itself as being anything much more than a legal matter. I used to mostly live with my partner before we married, I still mostly live with her, nothing changed except one or two legal things. It didn't change the way we feel about each other or the way we treat each other. But I'm fine with individuals who feel strongly that their own marriage means something very important to them emotionally, because as long as they're not hurting anybody then why should I mind?