Gay marriage: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Gay marriage » Gay marriage

Gay marriage
Should be banned? Nicley though

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Gay marriage

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 241

Posted 11/05/09 - 11:59 AM:	#51
davidasearles wrote: The historical basis of marriage was as a private contract. This is for the most part as it remains. The involvement of the state with marriage is microscopic. There isn't even a central registry of marriages in any state that I am aware of. A couple could go their whole lives saying that they were married, and in fact never have been married in the first place, or became married by default though common law marriage as some states recognize and some don't. The main point that it becomes an issue is when the marriage ends. At that point the services of the state are most often called in, to sort things out. Just as what happens quite often when any legal entity breaks up. You are joking, I hope. All states maintain marriage records, either as public or sealed records depending on the preference of the married couple, which remain on file and are accessible to varying degrees. Marriage licenses determine all manner of important legal and economic matters, from taxes, to insurance costs, hospital visitation rights, to distribution of property after death. The state has a role in all of these concerns. Marriage, as it exists today, is thoroughgoingly a state institution.

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 11/05/09 - 12:50 PM:	#52
Even if it were the case that there were no legal benefits for homosexuals to get married, I would still support their right to do so. Gay people want marriage for the same reasons straight people do, and I would think very few of them think about all of the legal aspects, and the division of property upon separation. People want marriage for idealistic, social, civil, image, acceptance, romanticism, recognition, and to made a family. I see no reason to deny them this.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 131

Posted 11/05/09 - 03:19 PM:	#53
davidasearles wrote: The historical basis of marriage was as a private contract. This is for the most part as it remains. The involvement of the state with marriage is microscopic. There isn't even a central registry of marriages in any state that I am aware of. A couple could go their whole lives saying that they were married, and in fact never have been married in the first place, or became married by default though common law marriage as some states recognize and some don't. The main point that it becomes an issue is when the marriage ends. At that point the services of the state are most often called in, to sort things out. Just as what happens quite often when any legal entity breaks up. thewatcher wrote: You are joking, I hope. All states maintain marriage records, either as public or sealed records depending on the preference of the married couple, which remain on file and are accessible to varying degrees. Marriage licenses determine all manner of important legal and economic matters, from taxes, to insurance costs, hospital visitation rights, to distribution of property after death. The state has a role in all of these concerns. Marriage, as it exists today, is thoroughgoingly a state institution. In the states that I am aware of, marriage licenses are issued at the local town or city clerk's office and that is no state registry is kept of persons to whom licenses were issued to or for which of those licenses a solemnization of marriage vows occurred. There are also states that recognize common law marriage so there is not even a marriage license or the fact of a ceremony to record under those circumstances. Granted there are benefits the government provides for persons who are married but the context of the discussion was what if any government intervention that there was in the marriage itself. The state has very little to do, if nothing with how the marriage contract itself is executed was my point. There ought to be zero discrimination by sex as to who can get married, but some of the discussants were talking not about actually and practically ending sex discrimination in marriage but only agreeing that it ought to be ended by the state having nothing to do with marriage at all, which would include I would assume getting rid of state recognition of the marriage contract itself. So they are against discrimination in marriage but only if will be ended via a libertarian or anarchist dream of the ending just about any state activity. A parallel would be that they might say that they are against racial discrimination in public schools but to end that discrimination would only call for the enactment of tax credits to send children to private schools or the end of taxes for the sufficient support of public schools. Edited by davidasearles on 11/05/09 - 06:32 PM

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 241

Posted 11/08/09 - 03:04 PM:	#54
davidasearles wrote: Granted there are benefits the government provides for persons who are married but the context of the discussion was what if any government intervention that there was in the marriage itself. The state has very little to do, if nothing with how the marriage contract itself is executed was my point. Entirely incorrect. The state recognizes marriage ceremonies, demands paperwork be filled out and, in some cases, mandates county-issued training for those preforming the ceremony (as in the case of a deputy commissioner of civil marriages). davidasearles wrote: There ought to be zero discrimination by sex as to who can get married, but some of the discussants were talking not about actually and practically ending sex discrimination in marriage but only agreeing that it ought to be ended by the state having nothing to do with marriage at all, which would include I would assume getting rid of state recognition of the marriage contract itself. So they are against discrimination in marriage but only if will be ended via a libertarian or anarchist dream of the ending just about any state activity. It does not follow that the elimination of state "marriage" would entail or necessitate the elimination of all state activity. On the contrary, as I demonstrated in an earlier post, it would be a simple matter for the state to do away with "marriage" (by that name) and establish a legal category that fulfills the same roles without presuming upon state intervention in and sanctioning of what is essentially a religious and cultural contract.

thepolisciguy
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/08/09 - 03:12 PM:	#55
well, the whole seperate but equal thing...

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 11/08/09 - 06:17 PM:	#56
thepolisciguy wrote: well, the whole seperate but equal thing... Indeed, hasn't apartheid worked so well in the past?
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 131

Posted 11/10/09 - 03:47 AM:	#57
thewatcher wrote: without presuming upon state intervention in and sanctioning of what is essentially a religious and cultural contract. could you please explain this phrase? especially at "presuming". Maybe if you could rewrite the phrase without using that word it would be more understandable to me. Thanks.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.