Human Right and Gay Marriage

[Fredjikrang]

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.

[Darth Fedora]

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.

I think you're confusing God-given privileges (having babies) with government-given privileges (driving). Comparing them is sort of irrelevant to the topic.

[Yellow]

So, can someone give me a definition of marriage? Wikipedia says:

Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are sanctioned with governmental, social, or religious recognition.

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.

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."

[Imogen]

So, can someone give me a definition of marriage? Wikipedia says:

Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are sanctioned with governmental, social, or religious recognition.

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.

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."

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.

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.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

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.

I think you're confusing God-given privileges (having babies) with government-given privileges (driving). Comparing them is sort of irrelevant to the topic.

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.

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.

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?

[Yellow]

Imogen... so what is, in your opinion, the purpose of marriage? I still think we're just working under a different set of assumptions.

[Benvolio]

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.

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.

[Fredjikrang]

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.

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?

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.

[Katya]

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.

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?

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.

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.

None of this means that you can't be closer to some family members than others, or consider some of your friends as family in an emotional sense, but those relationships mostly come into play in situations which aren't subject to legal jurisdiction (or to legal definitions), anyway.

[Hobbes]

...to say nothing of the fact that there is a clear, literal and provable definition of "family" in biology. The only ambiguity there is how far extended one can still be considered "family."

[Fredjikrang]

See now, Katya's comment makes more sense to me.

[Katya]

See now, Katya's comment makes more sense to me.

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.)

[Nanti-SARRMM]

And so coming to the church point of view, I know the church supports an amendment defining what marriage is in the constitution, but has the church said anything about allowing domestic partnerships with legal rights such as tax benefits, and most other legal rights?

That may be best, allowing domestic partnerships and calling it that so it isn't marriage, but having almost all the legal rights and benefits the law provides for marriages. I am just not sure what the church's stance is on this part of the issue.

[Fredjikrang]

Katya, could be, but the first thing that came to mind when I read Benvolio's post was unnecessary, though welcome, legislation such as tax breaks and so on. Your clarification was welcome.

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.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

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.

In regards to married students? Or how so?

[Fredjikrang]

No, it wouldn't help married students at all, but it would help single students. After all, there is no difference (as far as can be legally and constitutionally defined) between six homosexual couples living together and six heterosexuals of the same gender. So, any law that would aim at any kind of domestic partnership would probably also apply to college students sharing a place of residence.

There is a way to avoid this (requiring domestic partners to register) but I find that option unlikely.

[Benvolio]

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.

[Portia]

So, can someone give me a definition of marriage? Wikipedia says:

Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are sanctioned with governmental, social, or religious recognition.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

However, I think Imogen raises a good point in saying why would you marry a man if you're in love with a woman? I think on the official level, the Mormon church has gotten away from the idea that homosexuality can be somehow "cured" by marrying someone of the opposite gender, but I'm not so sure it has gone away on the un-official level. People in an ethics class of mine made the argument that Imogen is refuting: "you can get married, right?" Well, that just turns out poorly for both parties, probably. I definitely wouldn't want to be married to someone who wasn't physically attracted to me!

I think it's good that the LDS Church has emphasized more recently that gay people have the same shot as straight people at exaltation, given they follow the commandments, but it still makes me wonder how easy it would be to deal with that and be a member. You would face not only the reality that you could never have physical fulfillment that is sanctioned by your church--you'd also face bigotry from the laymen in your ward.

Definitely not a boat I would choose.

I think it's hard to think of too sound of an argument (maybe somewhat, but not completely) against gay marriage without the religion card. If marriage is a right granted by the government to citizens, along with being a sacrament of many religions, I think even the staunchest conservative would have to grant that gay people shouldn't be denied fundamental rights, however distateful/unrighteous you may find homosexual sex to be.

[Imogen]

well said, portia. my dear friend is catholic and gay. when he came out to his parents, they sent him to his priest who know gives him dirty looks at mass. he's probably going to switch churches because he said he feels like he can't enjoy mass (which he loves) because he's being watched. and it's not like he comes in wearing rainbow clothes and singing "i'm every woman." i can't imagine going to church to find solace and hear God's word, and then being treated poorly because of something you have no control over. and before people say "you can choose to be gay" think about this: would someone really CHOOSE to be part of an oppressed minority? like, would you have CHOSEN to be black before 1964? i wouldn't have.

and just so people know, i don't think churches should be forced to recognize gay marriage. i think that should be left up to the members. i believe that's how it works in canada: individual churches have the right to turn down anyone for a marriage ceremony, but a justice of the peace can't. the GOVERNMENT does have a responsibility to treat all of its citizens equally and offer them equal rights as long as said citizens are productive and law abiding members of society.

i think a lot of arguments about gay marriage involve religion, but as i said before, broadly applying judeo-christian beliefs into the laws of a nation as diverse as the US is wrong. ESPECIALLY since christian churches don't even agree on what is "right" half the time. i'm not christian. i believe in God, but i have yet to find a church that upholds the values i find important. i've found individuals who do, but never a church or religion as a whole. so i pray and what have you, but i don't go to church. and i don't think some people in DC who i'll never meet have the right to push their religious agenda on me. that's why i hate Focus on the Family. maybe they should focus on their OWN families, and let me take care of mine. *sassy snap*

oh! and this just irks me about the debate as well. everyone quotes that line from leviticus. i'm so sick of hearing it because it seems like people pick and choose which verses to abide by. "well, i'll take this line from leviticus, but ignore the one that says i can't eat shrimp." how do you justify that? i'm honestly asking because it seems like if you're going to take one old testament verse, you have to take them all. and if the argument is that society has changed to make certain things in the bible obsolete (which i've heard before) than why isn't THIS obsolete too? and who decides what's obsolete? who decides i can eat mussels for dinner, but i can't marry a woman? and since those two things are both called "abominations," who decided one was ok to ignore and one wasn't? i really don't get it. really and truly. thoughts? (that got rant-y. i apologize. my confusion usually manifests itself into rants)

[Imogen]

oh and i never answered yellow!

i don't really know what marriage is for, honestly. some would say it's for procreating, but then people who are infertile or don't want kids shouldn't get married.
i think marriage is for companionship. it's to make a solid commitment to someone you love.