Gay Civil Union Discussion

[Jormengand]

Social status + legal benefits. Have you never bothered actually learning what the fuck marriage does?

Why grant married people a privileged social status? Why grant them special legal benefits?

Because that's exactly what marriage is.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Social status + legal benefits. Have you never bothered actually learning what the fuck marriage does?

Why grant married people a privileged social status? Why grant them special legal benefits?

Because for the state, recognizing marriages under a legal perspective and realizing the dynamics of the family unit (whatever that unit is defined as) is important.

[Auralia]

Why grant married people a privileged social status? Why grant them special legal benefits?

Because for the state, recognizing marriages under a legal perspective and realizing the dynamics of the family unit (whatever that unit is defined as) is important.

Why is it important, though? And what does the family unit have to do with it, since only a fraction of married gay couples have children?

[Auralia]

Why grant married people a privileged social status? Why grant them special legal benefits?

Because that's exactly what marriage is.

Okay, but why should it exist?

[Jormengand]

Because that's exactly what marriage is.

Okay, but why should it exist?

Well, consider this example. Two men are in love, and one dies, and his parents disapproved of their relationship. If the two are not married, his possessions go to his parents who won't give his boyfriend a penny. If he is married, his husband gets the money.

Marriage is simply a legal contract, made to protect people and make life better for society as a whole. The more people with access to that contract, the better.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Because that's exactly what marriage is.

Okay, but why should it exist?

Because it saves the government insane amounts of money on staffing court systems that would overwhelmed with legal petitions if there were no standard agreements binding individuals together for the purpose of EOL decisions.

[Auralia]

Okay, but why should it exist?

Well, consider this example. Two men are in love, and one dies, and his parents disapproved of their relationship. If the two are not married, his possessions go to his parents who won't give his boyfriend a penny. If he is married, his husband gets the money.

Marriage is simply a legal contract, made to protect people and make life better for society as a whole.

The man can simply leave his possessions to his boyfriend in his will. That example doesn't demonstrate any distinct purpose for marriage.

[Auralia]

Okay, but why should it exist?

Because it saves the government insane amounts of money on staffing court systems that would overwhelmed with legal petitions if there were no standard agreements binding individuals together for the purpose of EOL decisions.

We already have living wills. Why is marriage necessary?

[Jormengand]

The man can simply leave his possessions to his boyfriend in his will. That example doesn't demonstrate any distinct purpose for marriage.

True... and yet, that's just one of the benefits of marriage. And marrying someone is a hell of a lot quicker than writing your will.

[Pandeeria]

Well, consider this example. Two men are in love, and one dies, and his parents disapproved of their relationship. If the two are not married, his possessions go to his parents who won't give his boyfriend a penny. If he is married, his husband gets the money.

Marriage is simply a legal contract, made to protect people and make life better for society as a whole.

The man can simply leave his possessions to his boyfriend in his will. That example doesn't demonstrate any distinct purpose for marriage.

I guess it's essentially also an expression that you love someone else on a legal level.

[Dazchan]

Well, consider this example. Two men are in love, and one dies, and his parents disapproved of their relationship. If the two are not married, his possessions go to his parents who won't give his boyfriend a penny. If he is married, his husband gets the money.

Marriage is simply a legal contract, made to protect people and make life better for society as a whole.

The man can simply leave his possessions to his boyfriend in his will. That example doesn't demonstrate any distinct purpose for marriage.

And then the parents contest the will on the grounds of being next-of-kin and end up with everything. Now the partner doesn't have his inheritance and a huge legal bill to pay.

[Othelos]

Well, consider this example. Two men are in love, and one dies, and his parents disapproved of their relationship. If the two are not married, his possessions go to his parents who won't give his boyfriend a penny. If he is married, his husband gets the money.

Marriage is simply a legal contract, made to protect people and make life better for society as a whole.

The man can simply leave his possessions to his boyfriend in his will. That example doesn't demonstrate any distinct purpose for marriage.

Not everyone prepares a will before they die.

Have you ever heard of Tom Bridegroom and Shane Bitney?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Because it saves the government insane amounts of money on staffing court systems that would overwhelmed with legal petitions if there were no standard agreements binding individuals together for the purpose of EOL decisions.

We already have living wills. Why is marriage necessary?

Because people are ignorant, and will not fill out this paperwork.

So the government takes a proactive stance, allowing for a common framework establishing a specific set of laws for a new class of people.

We call it "marriage" because "contractual partners" sounds a little too exclusive.

I'm sorry to hear you don't understand how humans work. That must be rough in personal interactions.

[Auralia]

True... and yet, that's just one of the benefits of marriage.

Which are?

And marrying someone is a hell of a lot quicker than writing your will.

"I'm too lazy to write my will" is a really bad argument for marriage. Wouldn't it make more sense to streamline the laws surrounding wills and estates rather than create a whole new legal institution called marriage?

[Auralia]

The man can simply leave his possessions to his boyfriend in his will. That example doesn't demonstrate any distinct purpose for marriage.

I guess it's essentially also an expression that you love someone else on a legal level.

Not necessarily. Two people who hate each other can marry if they wish.

[Auralia]

The man can simply leave his possessions to his boyfriend in his will. That example doesn't demonstrate any distinct purpose for marriage.

And then the parents contest the will on the grounds of being next-of-kin and end up with everything. Now the partner doesn't have his inheritance and a huge legal bill to pay.

How can you contest a will merely on the grounds of being next-of-kin? And again, problems with the legal situation surrounding wills is a really bad argument for creating a special legal institution called marriage.

[Arkiasis]

Gay marriage or gtfo. Gay people don't ask their spouse to "civil union" them.

[The Emerald Dawn]

And then the parents contest the will on the grounds of being next-of-kin and end up with everything. Now the partner doesn't have his inheritance and a huge legal bill to pay.

How can you contest a will merely on the grounds of being next-of-kin?

HAO DO I LAW?

[Jormengand]

Which are?

"I'm too lazy to write my will" is a really bad argument for marriage. Wouldn't it make more sense to streamline the laws surrounding wills and estates rather than create a whole new legal institution called marriage?

Variable. Pick a country, preferably the UK or USA but most of europe would work.

We could, but given that we've already got marriage, we kinda have to adopt an "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," stance on the actual effects of marriage.

[Auralia]

How can you contest a will merely on the grounds of being next-of-kin?

HAO DO I LAW?

I'm genuinely confused. Please explain.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

How can you contest a will merely on the grounds of being next-of-kin?

HAO DO I LAW?

Now this is funny, because clearly, he thinks he is now the legal expert.

Cute.

[Pandeeria]

I guess it's essentially also an expression that you love someone else on a legal level.

Not necessarily. Two people who hate each other can marry if they wish.

And? It's suppose to at least be a sign of love.

How is this relevant to the current argument?

[Dusk_Kittens]

I have no idea who they are or what it is about. Care to explain ?

Supreme Court case that ruled that "separate but equal" is not equal. Their opinion > your opinion.

Uhh. I think you mean Brown vs. the Board of Education, which overturned Plessy vs. Ferguson.

[Othelos]

And then the parents contest the will on the grounds of being next-of-kin and end up with everything. Now the partner doesn't have his inheritance and a huge legal bill to pay.

How can you contest a will merely on the grounds of being next-of-kin? And again, problems with the legal situation surrounding wills is a really bad argument for creating a special legal institution called marriage.

Your argument is contradictory.

"Marriage is unnecessary for gays because they can just create a will to gain legal benefits."

So why is heterosexual marriage so special?

[The Emerald Dawn]

HAO DO I LAW?

Now this is funny, because clearly, he thinks he is now the legal expert.

Cute.

It's either a poorly done troll, or a really poorly done troll.

Further debate is pointless.