Would you have a second wife?

[Skar]

JK: If we are going to redefine it (because our modern sensibilities have changed) as simply "a vow of commitment between two individuals that happen to like eachother", then it no longer serves any function that might need regulating in the form of the institution as it currently stands, and we, frankly, would be better off without it.  Let's strip the gilt from an otherwise invaluable trinket, yes?

I didn't suggest redefining it as you describe.  And marriages/civil unions do/would have a function beyond the silly.  Many of those purposes, even ones that don't have direct beearing on the ability to produce children, have been listed by you so I don't really know where you're coming from here.

And think about this, Skar:  What function does marriage serve a woman who will bear no children?

All the legal reasons, taxes, hospital visitation inheritance, insurance, etc... But you yourself have already said all that so, again, I'm not sure what your point is.

It's simply a matter of words and titles, and holds no meaning.

If this is true, why not let it go?

Why are "progressive" homosexuals clinging to an empty, outdated institution?

Why are you?

Ah, but you've got it wrong—that's not equal, as it applies to women, and not to men.  It would be equal if both men AND women had to follow the law.  This, however, would result in no one getting married.  Ah hah! The current laws are equal for everyone, Skar (if arbitrary).

You've got me there. So just make the law require that the spouse be either 20 years older OR younger. Same reasoning still applies.

But instead, let's try this. The ideal is equality for all yes?  And you've said that we already have it, yes? (in the quote above actually) So, imagine that the law is suddenly changed to allow only couples of the same sex to marry. It would still be equal across the board because the same-sex stipulation would apply both to men and women (in the same way that the opposite sex stipulation currently applies to both men and women). You would be free to marry any dude who would have you under the law, but not females. Religions could still marry, spiritually not legally,  whomever they chose.  But the fathers couldn't be recognized as legal guardians or have parental rights over the children, wouldn't have legal rights to visit the wife while in hospital and vice versa, no legal standing for the wife as inheritor should the father die or vice versa, no insurance coverage from one spouse to the other, adnauseum.  I assume that since you're OK with it for homosexuals you'd be OK with it for yourself yes?

And that's exactly what I'm asking.

Very good then.  We're in agreement.

And my argument is that they have a problem because they don't understand the fundamental purpose of marriage, which a study of the institution of marriage through history helps make more clear.

Possible.  It certainly hasn't been openly discussed on a national level.  And perhaps the same-sex marriage movement would go away if it were.  Who can tell?

[Skar]

JK: but the government has nothing to do with it any more than it has with any other business-style contract.

This doesn't make sense. How is the government less involved in a business contract than in a marriage contract?  You're aware that the enforcement of said contract is entirely up to the government right? All the laws that bind the participants are created and enforced by the government.  Without the government, no contract has any force whatsoever beyond the personal integrity of the people involved.

I personally think that the government should recognize partnership agreements and accomodate that agreement when it comes to things like inheritance and guardianship and taxes.  But in order for everyone to be equal under the law the government can't place restrictions on who it allows to enter into those agreements, any more than it can place restrictions on who can enter into a verbal agreement to buy their neighbor's lawnmower.  It's the nature of the rule-of-law as opposed to the rule of one group's moral opinion.

[Eerongal]

JK: but the government has nothing to do with it any more than it has with any other business-style contract.

This doesn't make sense. How is the government less involved in a business contract than in a marriage contract?  You're aware that the enforcement of said contract is entirely up to the government right? All the laws that bind the participants are created and enforced by the government.  Without the government, no contract has any force whatsoever beyond the personal integrity of the people involved.

I personally think that the government should recognize partnership agreements and accomodate that agreement when it comes to things like inheritance and guardianship and taxes.  But in order for everyone to be equal under the law the government can't place restrictions on who it allows to enter into those agreements, any more than it can place restrictions on who can enter into a verbal agreement to buy their neighbor's lawnmower.  It's the nature of the rule-of-law as opposed to the rule of one group's moral opinion.

from what i can tell, that's what they're saying.

They're saying that government shouldn't regulate marriage, instead it should be based on private contracts that can set whatever parameters both parties agree too. The "Less government" involvement from their statements comes from the fact that the government cant tell you what you can and can't do in a private contract, as long as both parties sign it

[Peter Ahlstrom]

But the fathers couldn't be recognized as legal guardians or have parental rights over the children, wouldn't have legal rights to visit the wife while in hospital and vice versa, no legal standing for the wife as inheritor should the father die or vice versa, no insurance coverage from one spouse to the other

All of these rights are available through non-marriage arrangements (well, the last one depends on what state you're in).

I think it's important for both sides of the argument not to cloud the issue with extraneousness.

[The Jade Knight]

But instead, let's try this. The ideal is equality for all yes?  And you've said that we already have it, yes? (in the quote above actually) So, imagine that the law is suddenly changed to allow only couples of the same sex to marry. It would still be equal across the board because the same-sex stipulation would apply both to men and women (in the same way that the opposite sex stipulation currently applies to both men and women). You would be free to marry any dude who would have you under the law, but not females. Religions could still marry, spiritually not legally,  whomever they chose.  But the fathers couldn't be recognized as legal guardians or have parental rights over the children, wouldn't have legal rights to visit the wife while in hospital and vice versa, no legal standing for the wife as inheritor should the father die or vice versa, no insurance coverage from one spouse to the other, adnauseum.  I assume that since you're OK with it for homosexuals you'd be OK with it for yourself yes?

This would be equal, yes, but what would be the function of it?  How would such an institution serve national interests, in specifically discouraging couples which are able to bear children, and encouraging only couples which are not?

If you live in China, perhaps this might make some sense, if you think that population reduction is a national imperative.  However, if heterosexual couples were entirely prevented from having children, such a population collapse would be catestrophic economically.

Again, Skar, the question you keep ignoring in your hypothetical examples:  What is the function?

[And, for the record, I do not feel that the institution of marriage, in its original form, and with its original purposes, is outdated.  I do, however, feel that a lot of the current ritual, pomp, circumstance, and sentimentality which surrounds modern marriages is outdated, and I reject these things (insofar as my fiancée will let me).  As some mild examples:  There will be no garter toss at my wedding/reception, and there will be no line.]

Realize, Skar, that tax differentials are arbitrary, and the only reason I can see a government for taxing married and non-married couples differently I can think of which might at all be justifiable is to encourage them to produce children.  This is not applicable to homosexual couples.  Insurance companies insure families as a unit primarily to allow single-income families to still have insurance on all members.  The reason single-income families are not discouraged is because many believe that it's important to have one parent home to bear and raise children.  Once again, this is a non-issue for homosexual couples.  Hospital visitation is entirely arbitrary, and hospitals could change their rules in a heartbeat, if they so desired.  And inheritance can be handled by a will just as easily as by a marriage contract.

So, I ask you again:  What function would it serve?

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I have to agree with everything Jade says there. Also, I have heard it reported that the hospital visitation thing is mostly bunk and that no hospital surveyed actually has any such rules—which, if do they exist anywhere, can be overcome by a notarized power of attorney anyway.

One thing people bring up is that if marriage is only for having children, shouldn't people who can't have children be barred from getting married? Someone else said that any couple that isn't pregnant within a year of marriage should be automatically divorced, or something like that. There are any number of heterosexual couples that don't have children at home; why should they continue receiving a tax break? Also, there is an additional tax break for each individual child, so why should there be one for a married couple if the only reason is to promote having children, when the one for the child does so more directly?

Again, I agree with Jade, but these are the questions that are asked.

[The Jade Knight]

Well, those are great questions.  Our tax code is nonsensical on a number of levels, but that's another issue, I think.

And realize that "tax breaks" are relative.  In a household with two serious income earners, being married can actually increase their tax liability, instead of reducing it.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Isn't that why there's the "married—filing separately" option? Though I hear there are couples that get divorced every year for tax reasons.

[CthulhuKefka]

My whole stance on same sex marriage is this:

Churches shouldn't be forced to perform same-sex marriages if it goes against their religion.

However, if a church does support same-sex marriages, shouldn't that church have the right to marry them?

I honestly don't understand some of the more wacko arguments coming from the anti same-sex marriage side. Seriously, the people who believe that all the homosexuals are plotting to take over the world and indoctrinate their children into a society where the "gays" rule are just plain stupid. All they want to do is get married. Don't get me wrong, there are wackos on the other side of the argument too. I personally cannot stand the people who demand that all churches be required to marry them.

This is coming from someone who isn't really religious to begin with. I just firmly believe that there should be nothing stopping two consenting adults from getting married, regardless of gender.

As for the whole "second wife" thing.... yeah probably not.  

[The Jade Knight]

"Married—filing seperately" still frequently gives people a higher tax burden than two single individuals filing separately, Ookla, though it can (depending on your situation) be better than filing jointly.

Kefka:  Out of curiosity, have you read my posts over the last several pages?

[CthulhuKefka]

Kefka:  Out of curiosity, have you read my posts over the last several pages?

I read most of the thread before posting. My comments weren't in response to anything anyone had previously posted, just my own thoughts. I try not to get too tangled up in these debates, as both sides are usually pretty stalwart in their defenses.   

[mtlhddoc2]

But the fathers couldn't be recognized as legal guardians or have parental rights over the children, wouldn't have legal rights to visit the wife while in hospital and vice versa, no legal standing for the wife as inheritor should the father die or vice versa, no insurance coverage from one spouse to the other

All of these rights are available through non-marriage arrangements (well, the last one depends on what state you're in).

I think it's important for both sides of the argument not to cloud the issue with extraneousness.

But the courts routinely override these "arrangements" in favor of blood family members. Something that almost never happens with married partners. It is most definately, unequivocally, not good enough. Marriage is the only true protection life partners can give each other. Everything else is just a shadow.

[The Jade Knight]

But the courts routinely override these "arrangements" in favor of blood family members.

Mind providing some examples?

[mtlhddoc2]

I have read hundreds of articles where the courts (mostly in more conservative areas) refuse to acknowledge these documents when presented with blood relatives who object to them. I have even read an article where an adopted person was in a coma in an ICU and the birth-mother, via the courts, had the adoptive parents banished.

[Eerongal]

But the courts routinely override these "arrangements" in favor of blood family members.

Mind providing some examples?

I don't know about examples of that specifically, but i do know that same-sex civil unions aren't recognized federally, and due to the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, states are not required to recognize them either.