Gay Civil Union Discussion

[Auralia]

What do you mean, "re-create a new one"?

Exactly that. Re-create marriage as a new institution that fits with what you think marriage should be, which is what you've been advocating.

That's not what I was referring to earlier, though. I was just asking why other people think marriage exists, if my explanation is invalid. There doesn't seem to be a good reason.

[Auralia]

And unmarried people are welcome to get married to take advantage of those benefits.

Since any two (or more, if you think marriage should not be limited to two people) people can get married for whatever reason, with no real responsibilities or marital norms to respect, why not grant those benefits to everyone automatically?

[Tekania]

Annulment issue is a red herring. It has no bearing whatsoever on who may marry. It's not as if grounds result in automatic termination against the will of both parties.

[The Emerald Dawn]

And unmarried people are welcome to get married to take advantage of those benefits.

Since any two (or more, if you think marriage should not be limited to two people) people can get married for whatever reason, with no real responsibilities or marital norms to respect, why not grant those benefits to everyone automatically?

Because you can't grant random people the right to half my property on the event of my death? The right to access my bedside in a hospital? The right to make decisions on my behalf?

You do all of this, with one form, by saying: "I'm marrying this person."

It's so simple, a caveman could do it.

[Ifreann]

What benefits are these?

Special tax deductions, exemptions and credits, I believe.

Married people are taxed as one financial unit. This isn't a special benefit, it's a recognition of the reality of their situation. If two people want to be taxed together, then they can just get married. Or they could, if people like you would stop opposing gay marriage.

[Auralia]

Because you can't grant random people the right to half my property on the event of my death?

Yes, you can, via a will.

The right to access my bedside in a hospital?

That should be up to the hospitalized person.

The right to make decisions on my behalf?

Again, that should be up to the hospitalized person, via a living will.

You do all of this, with one form, by saying: "I'm marrying this person."

So far, all I've needed to do to achieve the same set of benefits is by writing a will and a living will.

[Vazdania]

Special tax deductions, exemptions and credits, I believe.

Married people are taxed as one financial unit. This isn't a special benefit, it's a recognition of the reality of their situation. If two people want to be taxed together, then they can just get married. Or they could, if people like you would stop opposing gay marriage.

But the definition was between a man and a woman. According the 14th amendment all people could get married.

[Othelos]

Because you can't grant random people the right to half my property on the event of my death?

Yes, you can, via a will.

The right to access my bedside in a hospital?

That should be up to the hospitalized person.

The right to make decisions on my behalf?

Again, that should be up to the hospitalized person, via a living will.

You do all of this, with one form, by saying: "I'm marrying this person."

So far, all I've needed to do to achieve the same set of benefits is by writing a will and a living will.

So, why aren't you opposed to heterosexual marriage? You could use the same arguments.

[Auralia]

Special tax deductions, exemptions and credits, I believe.

Married people are taxed as one financial unit. This isn't a special benefit, it's a recognition of the reality of their situation. If two people want to be taxed together, then they can just get married. Or they could, if people like you would stop opposing gay marriage.

Why shouldn't we allow any two or more people to be taxed as one financial unit, without any other benefits or requirements?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Because you can't grant random people the right to half my property on the event of my death?

Yes, you can, via a will.

The right to access my bedside in a hospital?

That should be up to the hospitalized person.

The right to make decisions on my behalf?

Again, that should be up to the hospitalized person, via a living will.

You do all of this, with one form, by saying: "I'm marrying this person."

So far, all I've needed to do to achieve the same set of benefits is by writing a will and a living will.

Which require more paperwork, can be challenged due to a misfiling because they are not performed by people with specific talents, take time and energy through the court system to rectify in the event of a serious challenge to the legitimacy or possible malfeasance on the part of the heir, or any of a thousand other things that if you bothered to glance at any of the resources we've given you that make your argument quite pointless and uninformed.

You are literally arguing in circles because you are either unwilling or unable to recognize that you're wrong.

[Ifreann]

Exactly that. Re-create marriage as a new institution that fits with what you think marriage should be, which is what you've been advocating.

That's not what I was referring to earlier, though. I was just asking why other people think marriage exists, if my explanation is invalid. There doesn't seem to be a good reason.

That's beside the point entirely. Marriage does exist. What the reason is and whether it's good enough for you isn't really relevant to whether access to it should be open to all consenting adults.

[Auralia]

So, why aren't you opposed to heterosexual marriage? You could use the same arguments.

Are you conceding the validity of these arguments?

[Vazdania]

Married people are taxed as one financial unit. This isn't a special benefit, it's a recognition of the reality of their situation. If two people want to be taxed together, then they can just get married. Or they could, if people like you would stop opposing gay marriage.

Why shouldn't we allow any two or more people to be taxed as one financial unit, without any other benefits or requirements?

people shouldn't be taxed as one financial unit anyways. so.

[Jinwoy]

Because you can't grant random people the right to half my property on the event of my death?

Yes, you can, via a will.

The right to access my bedside in a hospital?

That should be up to the hospitalized person.

The right to make decisions on my behalf?

Again, that should be up to the hospitalized person, via a living will.

You do all of this, with one form, by saying: "I'm marrying this person."

So far, all I've needed to do to achieve the same set of benefits is by writing a will and a living will.

But what if the person was unable to do so?
What if they were on life support, or their family hated their partner and told hospital that they were 'just friends'?
What if the same thing happens at a will reading?

[Auralia]

That's not what I was referring to earlier, though. I was just asking why other people think marriage exists, if my explanation is invalid. There doesn't seem to be a good reason.

That's beside the point entirely. Marriage does exist. What the reason is and whether it's good enough for you isn't really relevant to whether access to it should be open to all consenting adults.

If marriage is nothing more than a legal construct, then we should be open to the possibility of scrapping it entirely if it serves no real purpose.

[Greater Aeonia]

The term matters to people. It means that you are entitled to what others can have, that you are just as valid as another. If gay people were to be in power and denied you the right to have a "marriage," I feel it is safe to presume you would be outraged.

You say that the term matters to people. If so then i am saying that those who have been using it for thousands of years should be dictating its meaning.

And "you are entitled to what others can have, that you are just as valid as another", just with a different name for it for the sake of classification. (Again why the need for classification won't get any different answers and hence would be ignored. Don't take it as me being rude)

And as for the last part, no i wouldn't. What it is called wouldn't change anything. But how i would see it has nothing to do with how anyone else would. So, it is irrelevant.

The fact that Christians have made marriage a part of their traditions does not matter. Christians did not invent marriage, nor do they own it. They own Christian marriage, but not marriage itself. What you are proposing is a system of "separate but equal" types of formalized relationships, which simply does not work. Instead, you could have a "traditional Christian marriage," for example, and the technical name for a same-sex marriage, if two Christians were to have one, could be "new Christian marriage." Please feel free to substitute for "Christian" whatever you feel is most applicable (while still remaining polite, of course).

Please don't just say no. Let's make this constructive.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Why shouldn't we allow any two or more people to be taxed as one financial unit, without any other benefits or requirements?

people shouldn't be taxed as one financial unit anyways. so.

Why not? Married filing jointly allows for my wife and I to make things so much easier, tax wise. Paying for two sets of taxes to be done, filed properly, and separating out our expenses would be an undue strain on our time.

[Jinwoy]

That's beside the point entirely. Marriage does exist. What the reason is and whether it's good enough for you isn't really relevant to whether access to it should be open to all consenting adults.

If marriage is nothing more than a legal construct, then we should be open to the possibility of scrapping it entirely if it serves no real purpose.

But it still would have a purpose.
I mean, its not like I'm married to EVERYONE, or giving EVERYONE half my property on my death, or giving EVERYONE permission to my hospital bed, or letting EVERYONE share my taxes.
Actually, I like that last part.

[Auralia]

But what if the person was unable to do so?

Living wills.

What if they were on life support, or their family hated their partner and told hospital that they were 'just friends'?

Living wills. Doesn't matter what the family says if the will of the person is written in black and white.

What if the same thing happens at a will reading?

Again, it doesn't matter. The clearly expressed wishes of the deceased in writing trumps the views of the family.

[Othelos]

So, why aren't you opposed to heterosexual marriage? You could use the same arguments.

Are you conceding the validity of these arguments?

No, because instead of changing the whole system and our culture, you could just easily legalize same-sex marriage.

You still didn't answer my question.

[Auralia]

people shouldn't be taxed as one financial unit anyways. so.

Why not? Married filing jointly allows for my wife and I to make things so much easier, tax wise. Paying for two sets of taxes to be done, filed properly, and separating out our expenses would be an undue strain on our time.

Why shouldn't we make that convenience available to two friends?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Why not? Married filing jointly allows for my wife and I to make things so much easier, tax wise. Paying for two sets of taxes to be done, filed properly, and separating out our expenses would be an undue strain on our time.

Why shouldn't we make that convenience available to two friends?

Because they can get married, and divorce later amicably, if they want that benefit.

IT IS ALREADY AVAILABLE.

[Auralia]

Are you conceding the validity of these arguments?

No, because instead of changing the whole system and our culture, you could just easily legalize same-sex marriage.

You still didn't answer my question.

You can assume, for the purposes of this discussion, that I now support same sex marriage.

Legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't address the apparent reality that marriage doesn't seem to have a purpose.

[Othelos]

No, because instead of changing the whole system and our culture, you could just easily legalize same-sex marriage.

You still didn't answer my question.

You can assume, for the purposes of this discussion, that I now support same sex marriage.

Legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't address the apparent reality that marriage doesn't seem to have a purpose.

That's a different issue that belongs on a separate thread.

[Vazdania]

people shouldn't be taxed as one financial unit anyways. so.

Why not? Married filing jointly allows for my wife and I to make things so much easier, tax wise. Paying for two sets of taxes to be done, filed properly, and separating out our expenses would be an undue strain on our time.

More tax revenue. Moreover, 2 people are not 1 person legally. You can't be held legally responsible for a murder you wife or husband committed.