Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[Princess Artemis]

hahaha, this. So this. What an awesome phrase.

 

Even if someone does object to SSM on a religious basis, there is NO ACTUAL religious basis. Jesus taught that the most important commandment was to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. "Neighbor" being everyone in the world. Therefore, if you are trying to prevent SSM, you are directly disobeying your own scriptures because I bet you wouldn't want the gay people trying to prevent YOU from getting married.

 

LOGIC, wham.

Wait, what? Christianity is the only religion in the entire world? Since when?

[KageSora]

Alright, I have a question for anybody who opposes the legality same-sex marriage on a religious basis, and supports laws that ban it because of their religious basis. (As in, you actively support(/would if you were able to vote) laws that ban it, not those who don't care for it but respect the right of those who do to wish for it)

 

 

Why should I, as an agnostic with no religious-based issues with same-sex marriage, be legally banned from going out and marrying somebody of my sex just because YOUR religion is against it?

 

Please, tell me how it is fair for my legal rights to be restricted because of YOUR religion. You'd be pissed as hell, I'm sure, if somebody tried to pass a law rooted in their non-*insert your religion here* beliefs because then that would be forcing you to legally comply with the religious beliefs of another person. So how come it's acceptable for YOU to make everybody else legally comply with your religious beliefs, even if they don't follow the same religion?

[Walker]

I may not agree with philpot's stance, but I can agree there are many issues with the organized gay rights movement. For a movement focused on creating more equality, it's not accepting of a lot of things. I've seen people get yelled at for even having slight variations in opinion from the "accepted" stance for that side.

 

So yes, I'm admitting there is extremists in the gay rights movement just as there is in the christian community. But that's true of anything, now isn't it?

 

Question is, how would we ever reach progress without organization? I mean, civil rights would never have gotten anywhere without people coming together in groups and pushing for equality. It happens naturally.

 

Unfortunate that the gay rights movement isn't perfect, yes. Unavoidable, probably.

 

I can't condemn it, but I do find myself distancing myself from the "organized" protest. Am I wrong for doing this? I have no idea. Slag, some days I wish I could just join it and get it over with. It's easier that way, makes it feel like I have to think less and simply get caught up in the amazing feeling of fighting for "freedom, equality, justice" and all those other lofty words. But honestly, that's not right for me. However, for the people that CAN, I have to say I feel sorry and proud of them at the same time. Without them, we couldn't make any progress. But...

 

So yes, organized gay rights movement, both good and bad. Blah, blah, blah. Obligatory comment about how I'm not just some random person who has no idea what it's like to be gay since I'm homoromantic. You got it~

[philpot123]

Alright, I have a question for anybody who opposes the legality same-sex marriage on a religious basis, and supports laws that ban it because of their religious basis. (As in, you actively support(/would if you were able to vote) laws that ban it, not those who don't care for it but respect the right of those who do to wish for it)

 

 

Why should I, as an agnostic with no religious-based issues with same-sex marriage, be legally banned from going out and marrying somebody of my sex just because YOUR religion is against it?

 

Please, tell me how it is fair for my legal rights to be restricted because of YOUR religion. You'd be pissed as hell, I'm sure, if somebody tried to pass a law rooted in their non-*insert your religion here* beliefs because then that would be forcing you to legally comply with the religious beliefs of another person. So how come it's acceptable for YOU to make everybody else legally comply with your religious beliefs, even if they don't follow the same religion?

I'll roleplay. Why should I, a die hard EXTREMIST atheist (not many of me in the world, I know) who has no conscience-based issues with murder be legally bound to someone else's idea of morality?

 

Why should anyone be legally prohibited from doing ANYTHING? Basic laws typically have foundations in either morality or practicality. Don't do this because it's wrong, do this because it makes things easier. Clearly that's never been perfectly implemented (see weird laws thread...), but there has to be some basis for the law. More often than not, that's the prevailing moral direction in a country. Reading back to the original state constitutions and statutes, the prevailing religion was clearly Christian. Just because you have no moral objection to something doesn't necessarily mean it's okay, and just because you disagree with a law doesn't make it a bad one. We all have to follow them whether we like them or not, or whether we "think" we should be "restricted" or not. If the law says you can't marry a certain person, your rights aren't being restricted, because the "rights" you're referring to don't exist. My "right" to murder someone isn't being restricted by the fact that I'll be arrested for doing it.

 

hahaha, this. So this. What an awesome phrase. Even if someone does object to SSM on a religious basis, there is NO ACTUAL religious basis. Jesus taught that the most important commandment was to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. "Neighbor" being everyone in the world. Therefore, if you are trying to prevent SSM, you are directly disobeying your own scriptures because I bet you wouldn't want the gay people trying to prevent YOU from getting married. LOGIC, wham.

 

Um, there is an actual religious basis for believing homosexuality is wrong. Preaching love doesn't mean ignoring sin. Not only that, that's a completely illogical use of His teaching. That's like saying "nobody would want to be put in jail, therefore a judge shouldn't ever sentence someone to jail time based on the teachings of Jesus." Not logic.

 

1. You can remove people from your house, your business, your institution, etc. Don't give me that bs of 'lol what property rights' you know damn well what you can do with your 'patch of land'. Your complaint is that somehow two guys who happen to have dicks have romantic feelings that makes your old man upstairs feel that his jimmies are rustled, and that gives you the right to say that gay folk can't get married. As someone else mentioned, its a violation of the constitution to impress upon someone else marriage. Marriage wasn't even originally religious; it was far more governmental than religion first. 2. You treat homosexuals like their getting married to each other is like someone raping an 8 year old. Is that seriously how to treat people?

 

Not without being slapped with discrimination lawsuits I can't. And actually, being a Christian I would say marriage is the oldest institution on earth and is completely religious. My opinion is that a marriage is either legitimate or not legitimate in the eyes of God and God alone, and no laws will ever change that, whatever "legitimate" is in the eyes of God. Again, SHOW ME where it violates the constitution. People throw around words like "unconstitutional" so much that they lose their meaning. It's not unconstitutional unless it violates the constitution. THIS is not unconstitutional. Gun control, the FDA, and the national war on drugs ARE unconstitutional, but nobody seems to care about those.

 

The statement "they're people" is irrelevant. I don't have any gripes with them as people. I have moral objections to their actions based on my beliefs of absolute rights and wrongs. They're people like anybody else and I treat them as such, but that doesn't mean I have to condone behavior I consider immoral. Nobody on earth can make me change that stance, just like nobody on earth can make you change yours.

[Fuzzbucket]

You know - as an irreligious person, I would actually agree with philpot here (there's a first... ). Marriage IS a religious thing. I'd like to see it like it is in France - church weddings have NO legal validity. The LEGAL bit is done in the mayor's office. Why not just make the partnership side of it all the legal stuff - with next of kin/inheritance/tax etc things attached to that and give equal rights to all sorts of partners, and leave the thing called marriage as a churchy add-on for those who want it.

 

I am still mad as hell that I would not have been allowed to have a civil partnership - the option for gays and lesbians in the UK - which I would MUCH have preferred - instead I have to be referred to as married and I see that as having religious implications of which I want no part.

[philpot123]

You know - as an irreligious person, I would actually agree with philpot here (there's a first... ). Marriage IS a religious thing. I'd like to see it like it is in France - church weddings have NO legal validity. The LEGAL bit is done in the mayor's office. Why not just make the partnership side of it all the legal stuff - with next of kin/inheritance/tax etc things attached to that and give equal rights to all sorts of partners, and leave the thing called marriage as a churchy add-on for those who want it.

 

I am still mad as hell that I would not have been allowed to have a civil partnership - the option for gays and lesbians in the UK - which I would MUCH have preferred - instead I have to be referred to as married and I see that as having religious implications of which I want no part.

Yup. Well, I want the government out of marriage/unions altogether. But we're close to agreement

[auria]

@Philpot: As nice as that would be, there are far too many spousal rights afforded to a -married- couple, granted by the government. Unless those rights were to be removed (which is highly unlikely), marriage remains a government/legal institution, regardless of religious affiliation of the couple; which is why I have a problem with the bans on same-sex marriage.

 

And while our country's original laws seem to be based in Christian morality, Christianity is not the only religious doctrine that has a defined moral statute. As to your statement about the "die hard, EXTREMIST atheist": Have you ever considered that maybe people can choose to be a decent human being simply because they would like to be a decent human being, without the threat of otherworldly accountability?

 

Personally, I cannot wrap my head around the idea that someone else's religion should be dictating my -legal- relationship status, but that's just me. I mean, since certain faiths are all for polygamy...and we still can't legally do that, why should I not be able to marry a woman just because another (albeit more popular) religion says it's wrong?

 

 

[Fuzzbucket]

Yup. Well, I want the government out of marriage/unions altogether. But we're close to agreement

No can do. The point of unions is not only to express commitment but also to make sure of certain legalities - like one's partner being legally one's next of kin when it comes to medical procedures and other stuff, being able to inherit the family home without complications, both being the legal parents of the children; in some countries there are tax breaks for partners (which I don't actually support, but if such breaks exist they are government-related, and the partnership needs to have legal force for that).

 

I think I was just ninjaed...

[philpot123]

@Philpot: As nice as that would be, there are far too many spousal rights afforded to a -married- couple, granted by the government. Unless those rights were to be removed (which is highly unlikely), marriage remains a government/legal institution, regardless of religious affiliation of the couple; which is why I have a problem with the bans on same-sex marriage.

 

And while our country's original laws seem to be based in Christian morality, Christianity is not the only religious doctrine that has a defined moral statute. As to your statement about the "die hard, EXTREMIST atheist": Have you ever considered that maybe people can choose to be a decent human being simply because they would like to be a decent human being, without the threat of otherworldly accountability?

 

Personally, I cannot wrap my head around the idea that someone else's religion should be dictating my -legal- relationship status, but that's just me. I mean, since certain faiths are all for polygamy...and we still can't legally do that, why should I not be able to marry a woman just because another (albeit more popular) religion says it's wrong?

That would be my ideal. Remove the legal benefits of marriage, because the "benefits" involve things the government shouldn't be dealing with anyways like inheritance laws, income tax and the like.

 

They don't "seem" based. Currently, yes, we've deviated. Originally, they were explicitly scriptural. Often the laws would have the Bible references next to them in the state documents, thus proving the law legitimate, to the people of the time at least.

I'm aware atheists can be VERY decent, amicable, moral people. I have some lovely atheist friends. That's why I said "that" kind of atheist is extremely rare. In fact I've never met an atheist who took the "anything goes" stance. It was just an example.

 

Polygamy is often considered sinful in Christian circles, but it wasn't illegal in Biblical times, so a case could be made for the government to take a hands-off approach to that as well. There's a distinction to be made between crimes and sin. Some actions are both, some are neither, some are one or the other.

Edited May 12, 2012 by philpot123

[auria]

I can support your stance in that respect, at least

 

However, when I say "seem" I don't mean that they weren't implicitly Christian, according to the people who wrote them; I don't know, I wasn't there, I was unaware that they used to put the verses next to them.

By "seem" I mean: Christianity is not the only faith that prohibits murder, adultery, dishonoring one's parents, etc. Therefore, just because the authors of those laws were Christian and basing their laws on a Christian morality, they were also indirectly and unknowingly supporting the edicts of non-Christian faiths as well.

[Rosedamai]

By "seem" I mean: Christianity is not the only faith that prohibits murder, adultery, dishonoring one's parents, etc. Therefore, just because the authors of those laws were Christian and basing their laws on a Christian morality, they were also indirectly and unknowingly supporting the edicts of non-Christian faiths as well.

Not to mention that those laws are, well, universal.

 

An example of a religion of a certain kind being used for restricting human freedom: In a period of time in my own country's history, certain meats were prohibited (for the peasants at least) from being consumed because our country was predominantly Buddhist. However, currently there are no such laws (unless you're a Buddhist monk, of course) that prohibit a normal citizen from consuming them as we're not a Buddhist country any more-i.e. our country's constitution doesn't come out and say that "this country is Buddhist, and other forms of religion will not be tolerated."

 

IMHO, unless your country says something along the lines of "this country is (insert religion) and other religions won't be tolerated and there will be no separation of church and state", I don't think that one's religion should be used to restrict other people's freedom.

 

About your atheist example, philpot-there are plenty of other ways to justify not killing someone that's not related to any religion. Just because your morals aren't grounded on any religion doesn't mean that there's no way to justify morality.

 

ETA:

 

My grandmother was Buddhist. Didn't mean that she went around saying that any meat shouldn't be consumed because according to Buddhist belief's it's immoral. I don't think she wanted to or thought it was her place to say those stuff either. And I don't think that if you're living in a secular state that would have been tolerated.

Edited May 12, 2012 by ylangylang

[Fuzzbucket]

That would be my ideal. Remove the legal benefits of marriage, because the "benefits" involve things the government shouldn't be dealing with anyways like inheritance laws, income tax and the like.

If governments don't deal with inheritance laws and the like who the *** does ?

 

*puzzled*

 

Are you advocating anarchy ? If not - there have to BE such laws to protect people. I can think of quite a few nasty fights about which child should get the most when its parents died... Laws help here.

[philpot123]

Not to mention that those laws are, well, universal.

 

An example of a religion of a certain kind being used for restricting human freedom: In a period of time in my own country's history, certain meats were prohibited (for the peasants at least) from being consumed because our country was predominantly Buddhist. However, currently there are no such laws (unless you're a Buddhist monk, of course) that prohibit a normal citizen from consuming them as we're not a Buddhist country any more-i.e. our country's constitution doesn't come out and say that "this country is Buddhist, and other forms of religion will not be tolerated."

 

IMHO, unless your country says something along the lines of "this country is (insert religion) and other religions won't be tolerated and there will be no separation of church and state", I don't think that one's religion should be used to restrict other people's freedom.

 

About your atheist example, philpot-there are plenty of other ways to justify not killing someone that's not related to any religion. Just because your morals aren't grounded on any religion doesn't mean that there's no way to justify morality.

 

ETA:

 

My grandmother was Buddhist. Didn't mean that she went around saying that any meat shouldn't be consumed because according to Buddhist belief's it's immoral. I don't think she wanted to or thought it was her place to say those stuff either. And I don't think that if you're living in a secular state that would have been tolerated.

In early colonial America and in the early state's constitutions the laws were explicitly based on BIBLICAL precepts, taken straight from the Bible, not just "universal morals." They often placed death penalties on things that weren't even death penalties in scripture because they took it more seriously, things like blasphemy. The NATIONAL government is prohibited from making laws of that nature.

 

 

It was a response to his "why should my morals be bound by someone else's" idea. One could argue that your morals are ALWAYS bound by someone else's. We don't choose our laws directly, and we certainly don't always agree with them.

 

 

If governments don't deal with inheritance laws and the like who the *** does ? *puzzled* Are you advocating anarchy ? If not - there have to BE such laws to protect people. I can think of quite a few nasty fights about which child should get the most when its parents died... Laws help here.

 

No, I'm advocating the government taking a hands off approach to things that don't need to be regulated. Taking nearly half of a dead man's possessions is pure robbery. No, anarchy is bad. Small government is good. WHY does the government need to regulate that stuff? Who gave them the right? People are going to fight over stuff whether or not the government makes ridiculously inefficient, inconvenient laws. But we're getting off topic now.

[Rosedamai]

I can think of quite a few nasty fights about which child should get the most when its parents died... Laws help here.

There's been murder cases over these stuff, really.

 

Personally I don't buy into the small government thing, but that's just my personal idea and I don't think it needs to be expressed in this topic. Maybe there should be a politics topic somewhere else.

 

In early colonial America and in the early state's constitutions the laws were explicitly based on BIBLICAL precepts, taken straight from the Bible, not just "universal morals."

 

Yes, well times change. There's quite a strong argument for slavery based on biblical concepts, if I remember correctly, something about the sons of Noah and stuff.

[philpot123]

Yes, well times change. There's quite a strong argument for slavery based on biblical concepts, if I remember correctly, something about the sons of Noah and stuff.

Ew. The curse of Canaan thing, "Africans are cursed..." That's a silly idea. Pops up now and then. I'm not claiming to be a Biblical scholar, but IIRC, the Canaanites went to... yeah, the land of Canaan... and they were wiped out. Or were supposed to be. No relation to Africa at all, or African slavery. A Biblical argument for slavery comes from the Mosaic law permitting it, but Biblical slavery was more like bond-servanthood than the modern idea of slavery. The master owned the labor of the slave, not really the "person" of the slave, if they caused them permanent injury they had to release them, they had to care for them in old age, etc etc etc.

 

I would say times change, morality doesn't.

[Rosedamai]

I would say times change, morality doesn't.

To that I would say, what's immoral about two consenting adults who are able to make any other decisions by themselves freely admitting that they are in love and they want the government to legalize their partnership.

 

But I guess we've come to an impasse, then. You see it as a sin, I don't.

[philpot123]

To that I would say, what's immoral about two consenting adults who are able to make any other decisions by themselves freely admitting that they are in love and they want the government to legalize their partnership.

 

But I guess we've come to an impasse, then. You see it as a sin, I don't.

And we have arrived at the heart of the issue.

 

 

At that, I'll take my leave for the evening. I'm sure I'll have a slew of replies in the morning to reply to.

[Rosedamai]

And we have arrived at the heart of the issue.

 

 

At that, I'll take my leave for the evening. I'm sure I'll have a slew of replies in the morning to reply to.

One last question though (sorry) wasn't collecting interest a huge sin as well? Why are people not prohibiting that? If I remember correctly it was considered a huge sin in Dante's time at least, regarded worse than suicide victims.

[KageSora]

I'll roleplay. Why should I, a die hard EXTREMIST atheist (not many of me in the world, I know) who has no conscience-based issues with murder be legally bound to someone else's idea of morality?

 

Why should anyone be legally prohibited from doing ANYTHING? Basic laws typically have foundations in either morality or practicality. Don't do this because it's wrong, do this because it makes things easier. Clearly that's never been perfectly implemented (see weird laws thread...), but there has to be some basis for the law. More often than not, that's the prevailing moral direction in a country. Reading back to the original state constitutions and statutes, the prevailing religion was clearly Christian. Just because you have no moral objection to something doesn't necessarily mean it's okay, and just because you disagree with a law doesn't make it a bad one. We all have to follow them whether we like them or not, or whether we "think" we should be "restricted" or not. If the law says you can't marry a certain person, your rights aren't being restricted, because the "rights" you're referring to don't exist. My "right" to murder someone isn't being restricted by the fact that I'll be arrested for doing it.

Simple--murder causes harm to another person.

 

I fail to see how same-sex marriage is causing harm to anybody who happens to be opposed to it--it's not like same-sex marriage would cause people to suddenly become murderers, or it would actually cause real harm to a person just because they have gay neighbors.

 

 

Try using an example that's more on the same level as same-sex marriage--as in, won't actually cause harm to somebody.

 

And I've never actually known any hardcore atheists who supported murder. But I've know some conservatives religious people to endorse murder, and even genocide--and they cite scripture to back them up! Wow, such wonderful morals you find in religion! No scripture could possibly be outdated or morally corrupt because HUMANS wrote and translated and retranslated it countless times!

 

Morality doesn't have to come from religion. Morality can be boiled down very simply to "if it causes harm to another, then it is wrong. If it does not cause harm, then it is not wrong."

 

But this isn't the religion topic, so I'll avoid my little rant on why I hate when people use religion to hurt others. (I'm fully aware that many good things come from religion. Especially those that teach love and tolerance and acceptance and forgiveness for all, not just "the believers".)

 

So. If homosexuality was proven, beyond the ability to doubt, to be genetically caused... Would you still deny them being treated the same legally as other people? Would you still think that it's a "sin" even though your "god" made them that way?

 

 

Um, there is an actual religious basis for believing homosexuality is wrong. Preaching love doesn't mean ignoring sin. Not only that, that's a completely illogical use of His teaching. That's like saying "nobody would want to be put in jail, therefore a judge shouldn't ever sentence someone to jail time based on the teachings of Jesus." Not logic.

 

Depends quite a bit on your interpretation of scripture, and which translation(s) you're using. I've seen quite a few rather interesting arguments about homosexuality not actually being a sin, it just depends on what Bible-based sources you use. Yes, Bible-based. A number of more liberally-minded Christians have changed their views upon study of various scriptures and translations and the texts in other languages.

 

 

I'd like to see it like it is in France - church weddings have NO legal validity.

This I wouldn't mind. I just highly doubt it would go through because, like it or not, the term marriage has a weight to it that's not easy to deal with in other ways. People saying "I'm in a civil union" is looked at differently than saying "I'm married". And you can bet the fanatics will do their best to stomp out allowing anybody but straight people to have access to the legal side, too, if the religious ceremony and the legal part were separated.

 

 

I would say times change, morality doesn't.

 

I wouldn't say that. Once upon a time, it would be considered moral to kill somebody for cursing their father or mother. It was also considered moral to force a woman to marry her rapist.

[Princess Artemis]

To that I would say, what's immoral about two consenting adults who are able to make any other decisions by themselves freely admitting that they are in love and they want the government to legalize their partnership.

 

But I guess we've come to an impasse, then. You see it as a sin, I don't.

I guess here's my issue with that--why would anyone need the government to legitimize their partnership? Do they feel less human if the government doesn't intervene in their lives? Is, well, is government their god that they care so much if the government does or does not give them a piece of paper saying their relationship is real?

 

As nice as that would be, there are far too many spousal rights afforded to a -married- couple, granted by the government.

 

The government does not grant rights. At least, the US government does not: the US government recognizes that humans are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, rights which the government can only, at best, defend. At worst, the government tramples on rights. It never, however, grants them.

 

Spousal benefits, such as tax breaks, are not such a right. I believe that visiting a spouse when sick is such a basic, inalienable human right, so that any government that prevents this in any way is acting against the rights of humanity.

 

If governments don't deal with inheritance laws and the like who the *** does ?

 

*puzzled*

 

Are you advocating anarchy ? If not - there have to BE such laws to protect people. I can think of quite a few nasty fights about which child should get the most when its parents died... Laws help here.

 

I am uncertain that having a law telling people they can't be jackdonkeys will stop them from being jackdonkeys. Yes, laws do help ensure that the rights of the inheritors aren't trampled, but at the same time, current inheritance laws are an enormous trampling in themselves. And, of course, there aren't enough laws in the world to stop irresponsible, greedy dimbulbs from being irresponsible, greedy dimbulbs. It isn't the government's job to ensure that people are at all times inhumanly kind to one another.

 

That said...you know who are good people to deal with inheritance? Responsible adults. Responsible adults act responsibly, and do things like write wills so that the only way there can be nasty fights is if irresponsible adults abuse the legal system to start them. Or they share like they were taught to in kindergarten.

[Rosedamai]

I guess here's my issue with that--why would anyone need the government to legitimize their partnership? Do they feel less human if the government doesn't intervene in their lives? Is, well, is government their god that they care so much if the government does or does not give them a piece of paper saying their relationship is real?

Because the little slip of paper gives you benefits that would otherwise not be granted.

[olympe]

Jesus had two fathers and he did OK....

I'm laughing pretty hard at that one. Seriously, that man ended up being executioned for some crime or other - how can you say he did OK? Worse, one of his fathers wanted him to get executioned...

 

Personally, I think I'm going to agree with our Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle: "It's okay to marry gay." (Btw, he is married gay. I'm not.)

 

The statement "they're people" is irrelevant. I don't have any gripes with them as people. I have moral objections to their actions based on my beliefs of absolute rights and wrongs.

Granted, but what makes your beliefs of absolute rights and wrongs better than any other? Why do your beliefs have to be right for everyone? And don't tell me it's because of a piece of scripture. There are other pieces of scripture around that give you a whole different set of "rights" and "wrongs", and there's nothing obvious that makes your piece of scripture supersede all others.

 

Personally, I agree with the idea of "live and let live". As long as homosexuals don't do you (or anybody else) any harm, why not let them pursue their happiness in the way they deem appropriateas is their unalienable right?

 

And, last but not least, here's another thing to consider: Homosexuality is completely natural. Several birds, like swans and flamingos, are known for it, as are certain mammals (like dolphins).

[Fuzzbucket]

Many of us have pretty odd fathers.

 

Because the little slip of paper gives you benefits that would otherwise not be granted.

^this^

Spousal benefits, such as tax breaks, are not such a right. I believe that visiting a spouse when sick is such a basic, inalienable human right, so that any government that prevents this in any way is acting against the rights of humanity.

 

But about the hospital visiting - when they say "next of kin only" there have been no end of cases where a parent has insisted that they are nexter than the partner. Marriage MAKES you legally the next of kin. Also gives you the right to make treatment decisions when things get - really awful. There have also been cases where a parent has insisted they know their child and they would WANT TO LIVE at all costs when the partner - who often knows them WAY better, knows for a fact and has their "orders", to pull the plug in any given circumstance. I know if my blood family were involved, my wishes at those times would be overruled and I could spend years "living" on machines; luckily I AM married and SO WILL pull the plug at the point he has been instructed for YEARS to do so.

 

Sometimes the law is a VERY useful thing to have, whether or not it feels appropriate.

[Princess Artemis]

Because the little slip of paper gives you benefits that would otherwise not be granted.

"When you sit down to eat with a ruler, observe carefully what is before you, and put a knife to your throat if you are given to appetite. Do not desire his delicacies, for they are deceptive food."

 

That's what a certain king had to say about the subject a very long time ago, and human nature hasn't changed yet. The government doesn't give you its delicacies out of the goodness of its heart. They wants something from you, and they will get it, if you have the appetite for their little treats.

 

Note that I'm not just talking about same-sex marriage here. Straight people have been suckered for a good while into giving the government what it wants in exchange for that little slip of paper and a few benefits here and there. Things which the government does not get as often with civil unions and common-law marriage.

 

But about the hospital visiting - when they say "next of kin only" there have been no end of cases where a parent has insisted that they are nexter than the partner. Marriage MAKES you legally the next of kin. Also gives you the right to make treatment decisions when things get - really awful. There have also been cases where a parent has insisted they know their child and they would WANT TO LIVE at all costs when the partner - who often knows them WAY better, knows for a fact and has their "orders", to pull the plug in any given circumstance. I know if my blood family were involved, my wishes at those times would be overruled and I could spend years "living" on machines; luckily I AM married and SO WILL pull the plug at the point he has been instructed for YEARS to do so.

 

Sometimes the law is a VERY useful thing to have, whether or not it feels appropriate.

 

Yeah, there's another point where people aren't behaving responsibly and have the law step in for them like a guard at the playground. I understand that some parents have a really hard time letting go, but really, if their children are married, and have any respect at all for them, they should recognize that their children have gone to be one flesh with someone else, and now their spouse is the nextest of the next of kin.

 

I really do think if more people were responsible and had respect for one another, we wouldn't need to have labyrinthine laws to designate who was the next of kin. It would be the spouse, duh. With some obvious exceptions, of course, because life isn't perfect and there are criminally abusive spouses out there who shouldn't be making end of life decisions for people, but over all...yeah, this is a durrrhurrr situation which has been made complicated by overbearing parents who won't respect their children (and like as not, children who refuse to grow up).

 

I'm not saying that laws aren't useful. I'm saying that overbearing, nanny-laws ought not be necessary in a world of self-respecting adults. With a modified common-law marriage, there would still be such a law if it really were needed, but the government wouldn't get to poke its big fat nose into anyone's marriage by being the god who legitimizes relationships, the god who declares that this marriage is OK and this one is unacceptable because this person didn't get a blood test first (my parents couldn't marry without passing blood tests--I wonder what exactly the government needs to know about prospective spouse's blood before it will give its blessing), or this one has incompatible chromosomes.

[TPishek]

I really do think if more people were responsible and had respect for one another, we wouldn't need to have labyrinthine laws to designate who was the next of kin.

But the fact is that a lot of people AREN'T responsible or respectful. It's been that way throughout history, and it's not likely to change. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.

 

Re the blood test: it's to make sure everyone is being honest about what venereal diseases they might have (a positive result wouldn't block them from marriage, but it would ensure that both parties were aware). Doubtless something else that could be eradicated if only everyone would be respectful.