Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 12:06 pm
Good point Avocado. That reminds me that this isn't the only limitation on marriage. There are also restrictions on marrying age, and restrictions limiting how close of relatives you can marry.
Your Questions...Your Answers
https://www.theboardboard.org/
I think you're confusing God-given privileges (having babies) with government-given privileges (driving). Comparing them is sort of irrelevant to the topic.Nanti-SARRMM wrote:I say being able to have a child and raise a baby is not a right, it is a privilege. Things like tax breaks and divorce protection and what-not can be considered rights, but I'd say that the ability to have a baby is the same category of driving, it is a privilege, where are all able to do so, but not all should.
So is marriage simply an arrangement in which the government says "it's okay for you to have sex"? Because frankly, societal norms today seem to suggest that marriage isn't a requirement for sexual intimacy. (We're obviously talking about governmental and societal recognition here, since the religious issues aren't going to change much.) We've already established that the government doesn't think marriage is important for raising a family, as single-parent adoption is permitted.Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are sanctioned with governmental, social, or religious recognition.
but we can make our family (to an extent). we CHOOSE who we marry, we choose who we're friends with (and i believe friends ARE family). the definition of family in one's life is always changing. so why do you get to decide what family means? it means something different to everyone. and i don't think the government gets to decide who is a part of the family i make, whether it's through marriage or otherwise.Yellow wrote:So, can someone give me a definition of marriage? Wikipedia says:So is marriage simply an arrangement in which the government says "it's okay for you to have sex"? Because frankly, societal norms today seem to suggest that marriage isn't a requirement for sexual intimacy. (We're obviously talking about governmental and societal recognition here, since the religious issues aren't going to change much.) We've already established that the government doesn't think marriage is important for raising a family, as single-parent adoption is permitted.Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are sanctioned with governmental, social, or religious recognition.
So why is it that interpersonal relationships need governmental recognition? If it's just about next of kin rights in cases of medical emergencies and inheritance issues, I don't really have a problem with that; it's your money, you can do what you want with it. My problem with same-gender marriages is that in my mind, the words "marriage" and "family" are inextricably connected, and I do not believe that a same-gender couple constitutes a family. Attempts to legalize same-sex marriage feel to me like an attempt to say that the traditional family (with a mother and a father in the home) is not important.
Please understand; I'm not saying that gay couples are inherently non-loving and unable to encourage good values in others. I understand that these are people just like anyone else, and they come in all varieties. But I do not believe that a family should be redefined to be "a group of people who love each other and might live together." I believe in the family as the fundamental unit of society. NOT the individual. And in my mind, the acceptance of same-gender marriages is simply further evidence that the "me" generation has forgotten about "us."
It was a bit of stretch yes, I was just trying to say that for both, there are things that should be done in order to do both. But yes, it probably is irrelevant to the topic, which is what I get for writing something when I first wake up.Darth Fedora wrote:I think you're confusing God-given privileges (having babies) with government-given privileges (driving). Comparing them is sort of irrelevant to the topic.Nanti-SARRMM wrote:I say being able to have a child and raise a baby is not a right, it is a privilege. Things like tax breaks and divorce protection and what-not can be considered rights, but I'd say that the ability to have a baby is the same category of driving, it is a privilege, where are all able to do so, but not all should.
But what is love? I can say I love many of my friends, and there are some, both guys and girls, that I would help and be with at any hour of the day if it were necessary. But that doesn't mean I am going to marry them. It is like two pieces of the puzzle, where the man and the woman complement each other and strive to be one in purpose, with two girls, or two guys, it is going to be different. I'm not saying it won't work between them, that is fully possible, it's just that is how we are designed. We're not androgynous, but for the most part we have a clear gender, and to be frank, for the vast majority of the people in the history, things between man and woman have worked pretty darn fine, so why make changes if it isn't broken?and all this talk of "marriage is legal for everyone." why would i marry a man if i'm in love with a woman? that makes no sense. people should marry the person they love, not marry for tax benefits.
Imogen, I disagree with your definitions. Spouses are distinct from other family members, both legally and socially. And friends are unquestionably not family. For certain purposes (legal status, qualified benefit recipients, etc.) the government can and should decide who is family, precisely because many people (such as yourself) have fluid concepts of family. These concepts are impracticable and unworkable in the sphere of governmental administration.Imogen wrote:but we can make our family (to an extent). we CHOOSE who we marry, we choose who we're friends with (and i believe friends ARE family). the definition of family in one's life is always changing. so why do you get to decide what family means? it means something different to everyone. and i don't think the government gets to decide who is a part of the family i make, whether it's through marriage or otherwise.
No offense Benvolio, but it seems like you are just spitting out a bunch of learned ideals. My question to you is why? Why should the government decide who is family, why is a fluid definition of family impracticable?Benvolio wrote: For certain purposes (legal status, qualified benefit recipients, etc.) the government can and should decide who is family, precisely because many people (such as yourself) have fluid concepts of family. These concepts are impracticable and unworkable in the sphere of governmental administration.
There are certain legal benefits and responsibilities attached to certain family relationships, such as inheriting property in the event of dying intestate, having the right to terminate life support, visitation rights, child support responsibilities, the right to make medical decisions for minors, the right to donate organs, etc., etc. Without a clear legal definition of what constitutes a "parent," "spouse," "father," "next of kin," etc., lawyers and judges would have to hammer out rights and responsibilities every single time any of these cases came to court, or every time certain medical situations presented themselves. This is not to say that there isn't some fluidity in the situation, as evidenced by the fact that step-parents and partners can become legal guardians, minors can be legally emancipated, parents can decide not to leave their assets to their children, and you can assign power of attorney to someone besides your next of kin. But it's better for these exceptional situations to be handled on an exceptional basis and for judges not to have to decide who you "felt" that your next of kin was, if there's a clear legal definition.Fredjikrang wrote:No offense Benvolio, but it seems like you are just spitting out a bunch of learned ideals. My question to you is why? Why should the government decide who is family, why is a fluid definition of family impracticable?Benvolio wrote: For certain purposes (legal status, qualified benefit recipients, etc.) the government can and should decide who is family, precisely because many people (such as yourself) have fluid concepts of family. These concepts are impracticable and unworkable in the sphere of governmental administration.
I'm all for families being the base unit of society, and really think that that is how it should be, but I get a little lost when people start insisting that it is so because the government does or should dictate it so.
Well, I'm just expanding on what I think Benvolio meant in the first place. I mean, he is a lawyer, so he's going to be concerned with the legal definitions of things. (E.g., you can consider whoever you like to be "family," connotatively, but you can't file taxes jointly with anyone you please.)Fredjikrang wrote:See now, Katya's comment makes more sense to me.
In regards to married students? Or how so?Fredjikrang wrote: Domestic partership laws have interesting side effects though. Primarily that almost all BYU (or any college for that matter) student would likely benefit from them.
This is actually unlikely. Domestic partnerships, as they exist in California, require that the two participants "have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring." Cal Fam Code § 297(a). Even though the legislative history and amendments indicate that the statute is to be construed liberally, most BYU students would still fail to meet the intent requirements.Fredjikrang wrote:Domestic partership laws have interesting side effects though. Primarily that almost all BYU (or any college for that matter) student would likely benefit from them.
Well said, Yellow. Besides the "fundamental unit" phrase (which one of my favorite professors hated--thought it sounded robotic--and it rubbed off on me), I think that is a good summation of what the LDS Church believes. Have sex with whoever you want, as long as it's of age and not abusive. Do what you want with your money. But families are rather important to Mormons not just on a sociological level, but an salvational one.Imogen wrote:but we can make our family (to an extent). we CHOOSE who we marry, we choose who we're friends with (and i believe friends ARE family). the definition of family in one's life is always changing. so why do you get to decide what family means? it means something different to everyone. and i don't think the government gets to decide who is a part of the family i make, whether it's through marriage or otherwise.Yellow wrote:So, can someone give me a definition of marriage? Wikipedia says:So is marriage simply an arrangement in which the government says "it's okay for you to have sex"? Because frankly, societal norms today seem to suggest that marriage isn't a requirement for sexual intimacy. (We're obviously talking about governmental and societal recognition here, since the religious issues aren't going to change much.) We've already established that the government doesn't think marriage is important for raising a family, as single-parent adoption is permitted.Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are sanctioned with governmental, social, or religious recognition.
So why is it that interpersonal relationships need governmental recognition? If it's just about next of kin rights in cases of medical emergencies and inheritance issues, I don't really have a problem with that; it's your money, you can do what you want with it. My problem with same-gender marriages is that in my mind, the words "marriage" and "family" are inextricably connected, and I do not believe that a same-gender couple constitutes a family. Attempts to legalize same-sex marriage feel to me like an attempt to say that the traditional family (with a mother and a father in the home) is not important.
Please understand; I'm not saying that gay couples are inherently non-loving and unable to encourage good values in others. I understand that these are people just like anyone else, and they come in all varieties. But I do not believe that a family should be redefined to be "a group of people who love each other and might live together." I believe in the family as the fundamental unit of society. NOT the individual. And in my mind, the acceptance of same-gender marriages is simply further evidence that the "me" generation has forgotten about "us."
and all this talk of "marriage is legal for everyone." why would i marry a man if i'm in love with a woman? that makes no sense. people should marry the person they love, not marry for tax benefits.