Would you have a second wife?

[The Jade Knight]

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.

That has nothing to do with it; you're still working within the context of marriage.

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.

Marriages are not blood relationships: adoptive relationships are similar to marriages.  It doesn't seem like there's much of a difference between marriage and non-marriage, according to your examples.

[mtlhddoc2]

but marriage OVERRIDE blood relationships. A mother cannot keep a spouse from visiting her child in the ICU, but a spouse can keep a mother out, as it should be. But not in the case of "filed paperwork" or even civil marriage (under the current rules). A mother CAN prohibit a partner from visiting an ICU or other "spousal" priviledges.

For example: if my wife was in a coma, brain dead if you will, her mother cannot stop me from visiting, or even pulling the plug. But in a homosexual relationship, the mother can do both, whether there is a civil marriage, opartnership agreement or whatnot. Plus, the gay spouse cannot collect pensions and social security benefits, like I could should my wife pass away before me. and that is just wrong.

[The Jade Knight]

Social security and all of that is designed to enable single-income families to still be able to raise children and be okay.  As I've pointed out before, the entire purpose behind this is pointless with homosexual families, which have no reason to not have two incomes.

As for hospitalization issues, that's a totally arbitrary thing that hospitals do which they could change in a heartbeat if they wanted.

Additionally, if you had signed a contract with the individual explicitly assigning you those rights, and got it notarized by a lawyer, you could probably sue and win if you were in a sympathetic court (like the 9th curcuit court of appeals).

[mtlhddoc2]

"if you were in a sypathetic court" - which means that they only have rights in a sympathetic court.

and this: "Social security and all of that is designed to enable single-income families to still be able to raise children and be okay.  As I've pointed out before, the entire purpose behind this is pointless with homosexual families, which have no reason to not have two incomes."

This is untrue. Social Security is designed to get people out of the workforce to curb unemployment. When it was envisioned, we had unemployment of nearly 30% and older workers dying, literally, in the streets. If the whole point of things is "for the children" then immediately following the childrens rise to adulthood, the marriage should be null and void. Ditto to those who are barren or sterile and to those who decide not to have children. Marriage has nothing to do with children in this day and age. It may have, back in the 1800s, but not now, and not since the 50s or 60. And lets not forget the fact that, although they may be gay, they can sTILL have children. Many of the gay couples I know do have children, either through adoption or fertilization procedures, or from previous hetero relationship. Using "children" as an excuse to discriminate against a segment of a population is abhorrent.

[The Jade Knight]

"if you were in a sypathetic court" - which means that they only have rights in a sympathetic court.

This has always been true of the US Justice system, and it applies to all sides, in every conflict.

Mtlhddoc2:  Encouraging people not to work by paying them does NOT curb unemployment.  If anything, it's likely to increase it.

And there's a strong cry between "purpose" and "convenience".  Yes, current benefits designed to help single-income families frequently have benefits that carry beyond their purpose.  This is mostly because curbing these benefits is inconvenient AND there's a huge lobby of Americans who would lose out on these benefits if they were curbed.  It's a political thing, sure, and perhaps unjustified, but I'm not encouraging we increase these benefits.  I would certainly support scaling them back.

Marriage has nothing to do with children in this day and age.

You appear to have ignored a massive amount of legislation and ideological dogma that's been floating around.  Sure, this may be your opinion, but to claim such an absolute seems obviously incorrect to anyone who bothers asking couples with children why they got married.

[Renoard]

For the record, if it could solve issues rather than cause them and it were legal where I made my home, I would accept polygyny.  But it isn't one of my fantasies and I think most men who have been in a serious heterosexual relationship would not find it appealing.  Building a relationship with one woman is hard work. Two is work-a-holic.

I will say that my ex-wife brought up some sort of arrangement that went that direction, but I suspect it was her (then) repressed lesbianism rearing it head.

Yeah Yeah TMI but it is pertinent.

[mtlhddoc2]

"Encouraging people not to work by paying them does NOT curb unemployment.  If anything, it's likely to increase it."

Well, duh, of course it does, but that is not the point. That is the reason legislation was enacted, I did not say it was GOOD legislation. No more than welfare "helps people get on their feet" actually does. But that is a seperate discussion. Seems we have similar politicl views, at least economically.

[Epistemological]

What the government is doing in restricting marriage to heterosexual unions is taking a moral stance, not a pragmatic one. Murder, rape, theft, all these things are illegal because they are immoral, not because they are detrimental to societal harmony. It is the same with marriage.

Why, then, does the government have the power to determine my morality and how that morality will be enacted in law? Isn't that contrary to the stated aim of a seperation between church and state?

[Patriotic Kaz]

That is interesting especially considering that many of the founding fathers were Theist...

[mtlhddoc2]

epist: murder rape etc are illegal, yes because they are immoral, but also because the do the opposite of what this country was founded on: Freedom. We have freedom in all things, or we should, with one glaring exception: when it affects someone else. the old saying "your right to free speech stops at my nose" or soemthing to that effect. Restricting immoral behavior between two consenting adults is restrictions on freedom, regardles of how you view it. Many straight couples engage in immoral behavior in their bedrooms, consentually. And most of the laws restricting these things have been eradicated.

Marriage has nothing to do with sex, or sexual orientation or moral/immoral behavior. What it is is legally and/or religious joining with another person to become one entity, whatever the purpose may be, it could be sex, or finances, healthcare, conveinience, joining of families, or eradications of lonelieness. People get married for many different reasons and we do not judge them for it, since they can do whatever they want....... Unless they are gay of course.

[Renoard]

But of course your initial premise is wrong.  Marriage is the only morally acceptable context for sex for anyone following any of the worlds major religions (e.g. Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Chinese Animism etc).  Pure Buddhism is an anomaly because it would suggest that sex, even in marriage, is wrong because it feels good and leads one to enjoy life. ;P

Not that religion should dictate to government, but sexuality outside of marriage was once illegal in the US.  This was because government is made of people and morality is always informed by religious beliefs.  Murder is illegal because it's considered immoral by the faiths people follow. 

[The Jade Knight]

Murder, Rape, etc., are also illegal in Iran, Mtlh.  Does that mean that Iran was founded on freedom?

[mtlhddoc2]

Jade: not in every case.

[Eerongal]

Murder, Rape, etc., are also illegal in Iran, Mtlh.  Does that mean that Iran was founded on freedom?

Actually, I'm sure that at some point of their governmental switching of power over the centuries they may have been founded on some idea of "Freedom", however, chances are the idea was perverted beyond what *WE* would call freedom.

Though I'm no expert on their history, but I'm sure there have been plenty of people who overthrew the government at some point and time for "Freedom"

[Patriotic Kaz]

Darn it Reonard stop making points i agree with...