Caporegime
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 25,703
Koolpc and Mitzy, enough.
Gay marriage legalised in the whole US by the supreme court
- Thread starter thebennyboy
- Start date
- Status
Caporegime
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 25,703
This.
Well, yes and no.
"Marriage" is a cultural/religious concept. As such it is sort of a club membership thing. It is wrong for the "State" to define what the rules for such club membership should be.
OTOH, there are serious practical issues here. While I do feel the the issue of "Gay Marriage" is forced and therefore wrong, I have absolutely no problem with the idea of Civil Partnerships, in deed, I feel that the scope of civil partnerships should go far wider than simply people who share a bed.
It is essentially about inheritance and tax liability.
These are not trivial issues!
For instance, If I chose to look after my elderly Mother, Live in her house, care for her needs (And all that) then I think I should have the same tax free inheritance rights rights as a "Civil Partner". Civil Partnerships should encompass this sort of situation too.
Since the whole argument is over a single word (and that is what it's about, as shown by civil partnerships in the UK), the simplest solution is to stop using the word.
'marriage' slops three different things together, so why not label them as the different things that they are?
1) Personal. Vows to each other. Call it 'wedding', since that means 'to vow'. This would have no legal status and would be open to any adults.
2) Legal. State recognition of a formalised private relationship. Call it 'civil partnership' as that's what it is. This is where all the legal rights and responsibilities would be. It would be open to whoever the government decides it would be open to. Personally, I think you're right about how the scope of civil partnerships should be wider.
3) Religious. A religious organisation granting approval of the relationship. Call it whatever they like (as long as it isn't something intended to be misleading). 'blessing', maybe. This would have no legal status and would be open to whoever any religious organisation decides it would be open to.
Simple, accurate and fair. So it's useless to people who want a fight and won't happen any time soon if ever.
GENERALLY THEY MAKE THEM UP THEMSELVES IVE HEARD FANTASITICALY LONG STRONGS OF LABLES FROM ONE PERSON.
meh caps logs
nopt really cause thatwould just become an inheritence tax doge.
the partners should get the inheritence because its unepected for one to sudenly die on the other and they';re luikley to need the aditional finance.
normal;y p[eople are expected to outlive thier parents by a good few decades so there no reaon to cut inhreetence tax just because yo still live at home.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,634
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
Just so that you are aware the American College of Pediatricians is not, as its name would suggest, just a professional body for US Paediatricians but a socially conservative organisation.
It is a political organisation not a scientific one, one with a specific Judeo Christian agenda that is Pro-Life and anti-homosexuality.
One of the problems of the internet is it provides too many easily accessible echo chambers for those that want their views confirmed rather than challenged.
"The College itself has maintained that a significant body of research has demonstrated that “same-sex marriage deliberately deprives the child of a mother or a father, and is therefore harmful.” - What a load of rubbish.
For a start the debate around same sex marriage is not the same as the debate around same sex parenting, something which can occur inside or outside of marriage.
The entire basis of the argument is logically incoherent.
Without even knowing the details on the American College of Paediatricians it's plainly obvious that their assertions fall flat under critical scrutiny.
For a start the debate around same sex marriage is not the same as the debate around same sex parenting, something which can occur inside or outside of marriage.
The entire basis of the argument is logically incoherent.
Indeed.
Without even knowing the details on the American College of Paediatricians it's plainly obvious that their assertions fall flat under critical scrutiny.
So, you are suggesting that the inheritance rules should be waived should the partners in a "marriage" be of significantly different ages (which is not uncommon)
Civil partnerships should be about people who choose to share their lives, not about people who simply share a bed. And that should include extended families in my book
As RDM pointed out there is a big difference between:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians
That one is a right-wing conservative group of nutters, and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Pediatrics
That one is a professional academy of Pediatricians.
And specially for all the 'special' OCUK members who aren't the brightest buttons in the box (because let's face it they've done this several times before) paediatrics/pediatrics is about the provision of medical care to people under the age of 18 and nothing to do with kiddy-fiddlers ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians
That one is a right-wing conservative group of nutters, and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Pediatrics
That one is a professional academy of Pediatricians.
And specially for all the 'special' OCUK members who aren't the brightest buttons in the box (because let's face it they've done this several times before) paediatrics/pediatrics is about the provision of medical care to people under the age of 18 and nothing to do with kiddy-fiddlers ...
there is obviously physical and biological issues with that hence why society has made it taboo / discouraged.
However, like Laurence Krauss said provided they use protection what would morally be wrong with it?? Arguably nothing, I kinda agree with him
Well, in a sibling relationships there is a huge potential for the abuse of power in the case of older siblings/given authority by parents for one over another. A family is a hierarchy, it's also the environment in which different family members at times play the roles of teachers & guides.
There are not always ideal situations & some taboos are still socially useful to create a barrier to prevent abuse.
Not that it's relevant, it's largely red herring & a slippery slope fallacy.
There are not always ideal situations & some taboos are still socially useful to create a barrier to prevent abuse.
Not that it's relevant, it's largely red herring & a slippery slope fallacy.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 13,300
- Location
- Near Winchester
This was maybe true until the church which pays no tax to the state got marriage incorporated into the state to the extent that only married couples can receive certain financial benefits from the state or be allowed by the state to raise children as a family. Religion can't claim a monopoly on tax breaks or family, and they can no longer claim a monopoly on "marriage".
Further, the church does not even globally say marriage is between a man and a woman, many gay couples are religious and have religious weddings!!
Your argument is invalid, marriage most certainly is a matter for the state to define and they aren't defining it against the wishes of religion.
Wow, I can only assume the name choice was driven by the deliberate intention to mislead people?
What absolute tosh, marriage pre dates religion, and in Christianity wasn't even official recognised till the council or Verona.
Countries which allow incest between consenting adults include France, Spain, the Benelux and Portugal. Ok just a red herring & a slippery slope fallacy.
Countries which allow incest between consenting adults include France, Spain, the Benelux and Portugal. Ok just a red herring & a slippery slope fallacy.
Incest between children is illegal in those nations, not to mention many of those laws date back quite a long time & recent changes have actually tightened the law on the matter.
If you mean relationships between two consenting adults then in most nations that is indeed legal, but I fail to see how it's got anything to do with the legalisation of gay marriage.
Are you implying that if we legalise gay marriage we must therefore legalise everything without consideration to the potential risks? (Incest has fundamentally ingrained risks regarding the abuse of power due the he family dynamic & potential abuses of power), it's not straightforward like gay marriage which posses no additional risks compared to heterosexual relationships.
But what I do find telling is that you seem to believe them to be comparable.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I'm sure Angilion will be along to say but I didn't read it in that way, he isn't saying that marriage is specifically a religious issue but merely that there are three elements which are conflated in a typical marriage ceremony. There is a legal element - binding your worldly possessions together and setting up a legal relationship between the partners, there is a personal element - the commitment between partners but also there can be a religious element which is the partners being seen to be wedded together in the sight of their god.
Countries which allow incest between consenting adults include France, Spain, the Benelux and Portugal. Ok just a red herring & a slippery slope fallacy.
If you want to present it as compelling evidence against homosexual marriage then you really need some evidence to link the two things because otherwise it could just be a slippery slope fallacy and irrelevant to the current topic. As already said there's also a lack of comparability here.
- Status