Thoughts on the nature of discrimination

[Guest]

I was disputing the specific claim that allowing same-sex marriages will affect opposite-sex marriages in any way.  I suppose some heterosexuals could say, "Well, allowing gay marriages will change the definition of marriage, and that will hurt my feelings," but that seems like a cop-out to me.  And leave out children and adoptions, that's a separate debate.

 

Like I say, I'm skeptical of same-sex marriage, but in a secular society with separation of church and state I'm more skeptical of people who claim that certain rights apply only to some people for no good reason.

 

PV, I understand what you're saying and if it was just civil unions then I would completely agree with you.

 

The beef really is not about the feelings getting hurt but the redefinition of Marriage.  It's like the Sherbet thread... I did not know that Sherbet and Sorbet are different (there's no difference in the Philippines).  But, if you talk to an ice-cream connoisseur, a Sorbet is not a Sherbet and it will be a big deal to the Sorbet to add a tad bit of milk to it because that's not Sorbet anymore, that's Sherbet.

 

Make sense?

[The Folk Prophet]

I was disputing the specific claim that allowing same-sex marriages will affect opposite-sex marriages in any way.  I suppose some heterosexuals could say, "Well, allowing gay marriages will change the definition of marriage, and that will hurt my feelings," but that seems like a cop-out to me.  And leave out children and adoptions, that's a separate debate.

 

Yes. My feelings are hurt. That's exactly what I meant. 

 

People want to relegate every issue to the lowest simplistic common denominator. But things are just, plainly, not that simple. Cause and effect reaches fairly wide.

 

I'm reminded of the Economics of Sex video skalenfehl posted the other day: http://lds.net/forums/topic/56350-any-matt-walsh-fans-here/?p=810002

 

Cause and effect.

 

Now can I draw a conclusive cause and effect prediction that will convince everyone of the danger? No. But I have enough trust in the warnings and teachings of our prophets and apostles to feel quite confident.

 

Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. - Proclamation on the Family

 

But, of course, those calamities won't affect me or my spouse, so why should I worry?

[The Folk Prophet]

The beef really is not about the feelings getting hurt but the redefinition of Marriage.

 

That's not really my beef. See my above thread. I'm more worried about the reckoning that is promised by the Lord to the wicked inhabitants of this continent.

[NightSG]

If two men or two women get a piece of paper from a county clerk that slightly changes their taxes, rules for inheritance, and visiting rights in hospitals, then I don't see how this affects heterosexual couples at all.

 

IMO, that should have existed all along; there have been many cases where it would have made sense for non-romantic pairings (i.e. roommates or even neighbors) to have essentially the same treatment as married couples under the law.  One I can think of in particular was a pair of childhood friends, both widowed, who moved in together.  Since they weren't related, it took quite a bit of legal creativity to set up everything so that their grown offspring couldn't make trouble over the house when one died, and ensure that either would always be able to visit the other in the hospital or manage each other's affairs if one was incapacitated.  I personally don't see anything wrong with having some single, simple contract they could enter into that would give them exactly the same legal treatment as a spousal relationship, though I don't think it should be called marriage in that case.  (And I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have wanted it called that either, since they were both fairly active on the Baptist singles scene.)  I could see limiting adoption privileges to existing close family members of either partner, (for example, if either of them had had any minor children at the time) but other than that, it would essentially be a legal equivalent of marriage under a different title.

[askandanswer]

 I could see limiting adoption privileges to existing close family members of either partner, (for example, if either of them had had any minor children at the time) but other than that, it would essentially be a legal equivalent of marriage under a different title.

 

That's pretty much what we've done here in Australia - limiting, and almost eliminating, the difference between conventional marriage and defacto relationships, but not allowing defacto relationships to be called marriage. So marriage and defacto relationships are almost the same in law, but not in symbolism.

[Guest]

That's not really my beef. See my above thread. I'm more worried about the reckoning that is promised by the Lord to the wicked inhabitants of this continent.

 

Right.  By those who try to redefine what Marriage is.

[bytebear]

I am all for civil unions.  The government involvement in marriage was not to declare them, but to use them as evidence in property disputes and inheritance.  But even with gay marriage, the single person is at a disadvantage.  Civil unions shoudl be used to determine who gets your benefits and property.  It should be independent of any religious rites, and should be open to couples who don't consider their relationship to be marital.

[Capitalist_Oinker]

The government doesn't need to legislate everything.  It should only legislate as far as public resources are concerned - housing, employment, welfare, etc.

 

Private resources should remain free to the dictates of the private owner.  If a privately-owned apartment complex want to house only Filipinos and nobody else - they should be free to do so.

 

So you might ask - well, then segregation between races, orientation, religious preferences, etc. etc. will continue to occur in the private sector!  You address all that through EDUCATION, cultural outreach, etc., instead of legislation.

 

Bravo!!! 

[Traveler]

I was disputing the specific claim that allowing same-sex marriages will affect opposite-sex marriages in any way.  I suppose some heterosexuals could say, "Well, allowing gay marriages will change the definition of marriage, and that will hurt my feelings," but that seems like a cop-out to me.  And leave out children and adoptions, that's a separate debate.

 

Like I say, I'm skeptical of same-sex marriage, but in a secular society with separation of church and state I'm more skeptical of people who claim that certain rights apply only to some people for no good reason.

 

 

I would address this post specifically.  As a scientist I am well aware that nothing will happen without incentive.  Water will not even flow downhill without the incentive that gravity gives it to do so.  The simple fact is that the human species will cease to exist in one generation is there is no incentive to reproduce.  I also believe that the best environment for children to learn and continue to preserve the human species for generations is a family setting with incentive of a loving relationship existing with the biological parents of the children caring for them.

 

I see good reason for society to add incentive for such families with strong support of marriage between a man and a woman for the purpose of preserving our species.  I cannot see any logical reason for society to give equal incentive to any other relationship and think that there will be no impact to the Darwinian concept of survival of our species.

[NightSG]

I am all for civil unions.  The government involvement in marriage was not to declare them, but to use them as evidence in property disputes and inheritance.  But even with gay marriage, the single person is at a disadvantage.  Civil unions shoudl be used to determine who gets your benefits and property.  It should be independent of any religious rites, and should be open to couples who don't consider their relationship to be marital.

 

This, and really, it should require nothing more than a single, simple yet comprehensive contract, nor should it be limited to a simple pairing.  For example, I have a friend whose parents died shortly after he turned 18.  Some close friends of the family more or less adopted him, but of course there's no legal recognition of it since he was an adult at the time.  The couple has no children of their own, and while they can leave their property to him in their wills, that doesn't grant him "family" status when it comes to hospital visits.  I see no reason they shouldn't all be able to enter into a binding contract that would, for all legal purposes, make him their son.  The same contract with slight alterations would, in my previous example, make the old friends domestic partners, with the same access, inheritance and survivorship rights as immediate family.

 

Obviously, there are other potential issues if, for example, children are involved, but AFAIK, most states already have some sort of case law in place from adoptions, etc. that would adapt to the situation.