I just think that the direction we are going will destroy conventional marriage (more than it already is).
The Prop 8 ruling last year pointed out the inroads that had been made on marriage.
When you say "Conventional Marriage", are you speaking about a man at least 21 years of age, of a certain race subsuming the legal and economic identity of a woman at least 18 years of age, of the same race, with his part of the marital bargain being to support his wife and dependents by providing them with the goods of life, and her role being to serve and obey him, lend him all of her property, enable him to take all of her earnings, and to allow him to represent her in all legal or economic transactions?
That was the state of marriage circa 1950.
The state of marriage today is:
a man at least 21 18 years of age, of a certain race, subsuming the legal and economic identity of a partnering with a woman at least 18 years of age, of the same race, with his part of the marital bargain being to support his wife and dependents by providing them with the goods of life, and her role being to serve and obey him, lend him all of her property, enable him to take all of her earnings, and to allow him to represent her in all legal or economic transactions.
What in red would you add back to the marital bargain?
State-defined gender roles have been eliminated - marriage is now a partnership with roles defined by the individuals themselves, not dictated to them by the state, based on the nature of their genitalia. Coverture has been eliminated - men and woman are treated as equals; the wife is no longer required to bow to the husband's will in all matters. Racial distinctions have been eliminated. The differing ages of consent have been eliminated.
"Conventional" marriage has historically been emblematic of bigotry and suppression of civil rights. Today, it's far less so. A lot of the inequities have been eliminated. The major one remaining is sexist - A person is allowed to marry another person, but not permitted to marry a different person, based solely on the appearance of their genitalia.
I've asked twice before and haven't yet received a single comment. What happens to a marriage when one of the partners completes a sex change operation? Are these people forced to dissolve their marriage? What right does the government have to compel a couple to get a divorce?
I suggest you read the ruling on the Prop 8 trial from last August. It's a lengthy read and very dry, but covers a lot of issues. If you want to get straight to the heart of the matter, start at the findings of fact on page 54. California Prop 8 Ruling (August 2010)
That ruling is likely to be appealed to the supreme court in the next year or so. You talked about where this discussion is going; that's where it will ultimately land, and the ramifications will be felt throughout the nation.
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Quote:
What about people marrying animals? If you think no way because they aren't willing or whatever, ask PETA what they think about an animals ability to "choose". There are also folks who insist that animals always be referred to as "he" or "she" instead of "it". If they both get their way, what do you think COULD happen with marriage (eventually)?
this has no real value cuz I doubt 5 people are interested in marrying their basset hound.
Marriage is an act in which a man & woman make a vow to be with the other person until death.
huh? Guess that fell apart. Slightly more than 50% of marriages fail. Fail in this case means END.
Another 23% I believe it was are unhappy in their marriage but fear;
1. finding a new spouse
2. stay for the stuff and money
3. stay for the kids.
#3 rarely works well because kids are smart and don't miss much. My own parents stayed together in a violent, angry drunken marriage. I wish they had separated, all I got out of it was the discovery I could take a punch from an adult.
Do marriages FAIL because some gays are now married? Could it simply be that if gay people want to vow a lifelong committed vow it somehow lowers the street cred of the same institution that only 27% remain in and like.
We don't see that happening in all the countries that give gays equal rights.
Marriage has many problems but gays have never been one of them. We should not restrict the right of others based on bias, incorrect projections of possible future dangers or ignorance. What's fair and legal for me should be the same for others.
Be less concerned about protecting a failing institution and worry more about the 700 Club audience. After 911 Pat declared homosexuals were responsible for 911. Reverend Jerry Fullofit concurred.
This is not a defense of marriage, it is in most cases a way of keeping some people under their heel.
If you want to help people make good marriages start teaching them skills early. kids need coping skills, communication skills and the sense to know when to keep their mouth shut.
Both parties need to understand child abuse, spousal abuse and abuse of the elderly. At 21 a brain is still forming but we legally allow 14 year olds to marry. (forgot which state)
How many of us with good marriages knew our butt from a belly button at 14.
All of High School save maybe 4 or 5 classes were boring. Senile nuns can no longer teach. Math was almost all a lie after long division & fractions. How often do we use algebra or calculus?
Teach kids the skills to become parents but empathize that they need life skills to choose a partner, that few later discover the wisdom of their long gone youth. Maybe it's love, maybe infatuation but lets get the education skills you'll be needing soon out of the way first. A few years of life now may save heartaches in the future.
These things can enhance the number of successful marriages, not by denying gays an equal right.
__________________
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Be less concerned about protecting a failing institution and worry more about the 700 Club audience. After 911 Pat declared homosexuals were responsible for 911. Reverend Jerry Fullofit concurred.
Really? Did you read this in an article, or actually watch it?
__________________
Discover Scentsy at Lucky Lucy Scentsy Products - an independent Scentsy consultant!
I've asked twice before and haven't yet received a single comment. What happens to a marriage when one of the partners completes a sex change operation? Are these people forced to dissolve their marriage? What right does the government have to compel a couple to get a divorce?
I don't believe an actual sex change operation is possible. We can mutilate the body of a person to make them appear to have changed genders. We cannot TRULY change ones gender. Therefore, your question is technically invalid. No matter how much people change ID labeling from m to f or whatever, it does not make them that.
I don't believe an actual sex change operation is possible. We can mutilate the body of a person to make them appear to have changed genders. We cannot TRULY change ones gender. Therefore, your question is technically invalid. No matter how much people change ID labeling from m to f or whatever, it does not make them that.
Most certainly does! That's why they do it in the first place.
I don't believe an actual sex change operation is possible. We can mutilate the body of a person to make them appear to have changed genders. We cannot TRULY change ones gender. Therefore, your question is technically invalid. No matter how much people change ID labeling from m to f or whatever, it does not make them that.
I don't need you to accept the diagnosis of gender dysphoria as valid to make this point. There have been many cases where a person is born with genitalia that does not match their genes. These are readily quantifiable without relying on a person's word that they are trapped in the body of the "opposite" sex.
17 in 1000 births result in some sort of intersex condition. There are more people in America born with such a condition than there are Jews.
Typically, males have XY chromosomes, females have XX chromosomes. But there are people born with masculine genitalia and feminine chromosomal patterns. The reverse is also true. There are people born with various combinations of three sex chromosomes instead of two.
Is it mutilation of a person to surgically correct a birth defect, or is it mutilation only when that defect occurs in the genitals?
Go back to the question, presume a person with XX chromosomes and masculine genitalia, married to a woman. Is it mutilation of this person's body to cause this person's phenotype to match this person's genotype? When such a condition is discovered after marriage, should the state be forced to recognize a female/female marriage, or should the state force this couple to dissolve their marriage? That is the crux of the matter. Should the state's interests supersede the individual's interests when it comes to marriage? Because marriage is generally considered a human right, not a privilege granted by the state, the answer is a resounding "No".
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
In reality this debate isn't going to go anywhere.
The fact of the matter is that there are people who want same sex relations to be seen as being "normal" or the same as male and female unions.
There are other folks who want there to be a solid distinction between the two (for whatever reasons). There is absolutely no way for the two ends to coincide with one another. (unless of course, it were up to the individual states)
I will likely just leave it at this, because it is ringing true.
Linear Mode
