Gay Civil Union Discussion

[Auralia]

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.

Well, what if those two friends don't want all of the benefits and obligations of marriage, just the ability to be taxed as one financial unit?

[Ifreann]

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?

Because they aren't one financial unit if they aren't married.

[Jinwoy]

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

I don't think you've seen or heard some of the things I've heard in such a matter.

[Auralia]

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

Because they aren't one financial unit if they aren't married.

That doesn't make any sense. Both are legal constructs that can be changed at any time, if the state sees fit. Two friends who live together are a de facto financial unit. Why should the law recognize that fact?

[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.

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.

So? I can't die if she has a heart attack, unless she's driving the car while having it.

It saves the government money by not having the IRS have to go through everyone's taxes. They can just look at the household, and nod and smile. Seriously, it's SAVING more in expenditures then it would bring in in taxes.

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

IT IS ALREADY AVAILABLE.

Well, what if those two friends don't want all of the benefits and obligations of marriage, just the ability to be taxed as one financial unit?

Then they get to deal. Offers open to them, not my fault they feel like snowflakes.

[Auralia]

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

I don't think you've seen or heard some of the things I've heard in such a matter.

Flaws in the legal system aren't much of a reason for marriage, though.

[Auralia]

Then they get to deal. Offers open to them, not my fault they feel like snowflakes.

Could you clarify what you mean by that statement?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Then they get to deal. Offers open to them, not my fault they feel like snowflakes.

Could you clarify what you mean by that statement?

Once you post some sort of source for any of the meandering string of pseudo-intellectual bullshit you've posted.

Sure.

[Ifreann]

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.

Any free and democratic country is. But whether that should be done or not is a rather different topic from whether gay people should be allowed to get married.

---

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

IT IS ALREADY AVAILABLE.

Well, what if those two friends don't want all of the benefits and obligations of marriage, just the ability to be taxed as one financial unit?

What if I want a jury of my peers even though I'm not on trial?

---

Because they aren't one financial unit if they aren't married.

That doesn't make any sense. Both are legal constructs that can be changed at any time, if the state sees fit.

Can be, but haven't been.

Two friends who live together are a de facto financial unit. Why should the law recognize that fact?

Some jurisdictions do. Common law marriages exist.

[Auralia]

Could you clarify what you mean by that statement?

Once you post some sort of source for any of the meandering string of pseudo-intellectual bullshit you've posted.

Sure.

Why are refusing to explain what you said?

And a source for what? I've only been asking questions.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Once you post some sort of source for any of the meandering string of pseudo-intellectual bullshit you've posted.

Sure.

Why are refusing to explain what you said?

And a source for what? I've only been asking questions.

No, you've been avoiding defending your initial position against same-sex marriage.

Poorly.

[Jinwoy]

I don't think you've seen or heard some of the things I've heard in such a matter.

Flaws in the legal system aren't much of a reason for marriage, though.

Um... they kinda are...
Having to fix flaws in the legal system should be a pretty TOP PRIORITY of the government.

[Dusk_Kittens]

...can only benefit the "institution" of marriage by acknowledging committed and loving couples (in contrast to those who enter marriage for frivolous reasons).

We have two different conceptions of what marriage is. I believe that a central part of marriage is the conjugal act, without which complete union (i.e. bodily union) is impossible and without which marriage loses its inherent ordering towards childbearing.

Augustinian and Thomistic views do not get the force of legislation in a free society.

See, in America, we have this lil thing called "the non-establishment clause" in the First Amendment ...

Oh, and uh, see my earlier post distinguishing "Holy Matrimony" from "Marriage."

[Auralia]

Any free and democratic country is. But whether that should be done or not is a rather different topic from whether gay people should be allowed to get married.

The point I'm trying to make is that if we reject the conjugal view of marriage and allow gay people to get married, marriage starts to lose its purpose.

[Lost heros]

In case Auralia was wondering what marriage was.

Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.[1] The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged.

[Auralia]

We have two different conceptions of what marriage is. I believe that a central part of marriage is the conjugal act, without which complete union (i.e. bodily union) is impossible and without which marriage loses its inherent ordering towards childbearing.

Augustinian and Thomistic views do not get the force of legislation in a free society.

See, in America, we have this lil thing called "the non-establishment clause" in the First Amendment ...

Oh, and uh, see my earlier post distinguishing "Holy Matrimony" from "Marriage."

I don't recall making any reference to Augustine or Aquinas. Do you?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Any free and democratic country is. But whether that should be done or not is a rather different topic from whether gay people should be allowed to get married.

The point I'm trying to make is that if we reject the conjugal view of marriage and allow gay people to get married, marriage starts to lose its purpose.

You haven't made that point at all. In fact, you've made nothing remotely close to that point.

You have no evidence of failure of marriage to be a valuable part of common law, only opinion and conjecture.

So, again, start sourcing stuff, or you're just another squirrel.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Yeah, fuck human rights and peer-reviewed research! Long live irrational fears!

The relative newness of same-sex marriage and adoption means that there is no reliable peer-reviewed research on the subject.

You might want to check on that before you make bald assertions that you've pulled from your behind.

[Auralia]

In case Auralia was wondering what marriage was.

Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.[1] The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged.

That doesn't explain why marriage should exist.

[The Emerald Dawn]

In case Auralia was wondering what marriage was.

That doesn't explain why marriage should exist.

So what you mean is you're illiterate.

Why didn't you say so earlier?

[Auralia]

snip

I would like you to explain to me why marriage should exist. I haven't heard a good argument thus far.

[Auralia]

That doesn't explain why marriage should exist.

So what you mean is you're illiterate.

Why didn't you say so earlier?

Ah, more personal attacks. Hey, when you can't debate...

I think I'm done for the evening.

[Lost heros]

In case Auralia was wondering what marriage was.

That doesn't explain why marriage should exist.

Does that even matter?

[The Emerald Dawn]

snip

I would like you to explain to me why marriage should exist. I haven't heard a good argument thus far.

No, you haven't heard an opinion that you can twist into something resembling what you personally believe.

We've provided plenty of evidence to the contrary, which you have ignored, or flat-out misrepresented.

Again, source your bullshit.

[Othelos]

snip

I would like you to explain to me why marriage should exist. I haven't heard a good argument thus far.

This is getting off topic. The topic is about civil unions between gays, not whether marriage should exist or not.