|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2007 : 07:19:07 [Permalink]
|
Jerome wrote: | Marfknox---I find that less interference of the State with personal relationships allows the natural compassion of the human; on a one to one base, extend fairness and happiness upon the parties involved. |
Can you back that up with anything other than your own warm fuzzy intuition about human nature?
This naive claim of yours certainly doesn't hold water when we look at the huge number of gay couples who were fucked over by lack of legal protection. Often what has happened is that when one partner dies, relatives - often distant relatives - use the legal system to take ownership of all the decease's assets, leaving the lifetime partner with jack shit. Yeah, real human compassion at work there! The same thing has happened with heteosexual common law marriages. Without contracts to protect them, the surviving partner is left very vulnerable.
And without marriage, how is child custody determined? A friend of mine didn't marry his girlfriend when she had their baby, but merely moved in with her. After the baby was 6 months old, they broke up and he had ZERO parental rights. Had they been married, he would have had part custody from the get go. Without marriage, men would have to go through the legal process of adopting their own children.
And what about if you marry a foreigner? And what about not being forced to testify against your spouse in court?
Without any evidence to back up the claim that for some reason people will be nicer to each other if there are no formal laws protecting those vulnerable to abuse, I find your claim painfully naive. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 06/02/2007 07:20:42 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2007 : 07:27:25 [Permalink]
|
| Jerome part of why your claim here is so nuts to me is that the criticism of government is usually about it creating complex bureaucracies. But marriage is an exception. It is tremendously easy to get married - you go to the courthouse, get a license, have it signed by some people and mail it in. Then you visit the social security office and tell them you got married, and change your name if you want to. Such a simple, cheap process, and yet it solves so many problems. Without this nice, simple system, couples would have to do all sorts of legal paperwork just to get some of the rights that they would have under our current system. They'd have to have a will, and constantly update it, and make sure it is ironclad in its language so no lawyers and vindictive, greedy relatives in the future would twist it into saying something different or being null and void. Child custody would be incredibly complex. Seriously, think about this for five seconds. Legal marriage is a wonderful thing, which is why it should be expanded to include homosexual couples. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
 Posted - 06/02/2007 : 22:40:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by nob_dammit
In regards to the military pushing for desegregation, it would be nice if they could be as forward thinking when it comes to the separation of church and state. We have seen recently in the news with the Tillman case the level of atheist bigotry in the military.
|
Agreed. But MAAF is fighting that fight for us. www.maaf.info if you're interested. Unfortunately for the military religiosity, militarism, and patriotism have been linked by the media, religious groups, Hollyweird, etc. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2007 : 22:58:13 [Permalink]
|
I'll back up what Marf is saying and add this about legal unions. The social security that can be received by a surviving partner under the widows/widowers benefits become available to a legal partner or a common law partner, if the surviving partner can show 10 consistent years of co-habitation. These benefits are disallowed to same sex partners. If one partner earned more than the other, this can be detrimental to a persons finances. My mother relied on widows benefits to help support her, as dad's benefits exceeded hers by about $600/month. Her friend who's boyfriend died before the 10 co-habitation kicked in survives on about $400/month. Fortunately she had her name on their shared house.
There are so many issues with regard to legal unions that those unions must be a part of the states records to protect the assets of the surviving partner. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 12:30:05 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox, you said "huge number of gay couples who were fucked over by lack of legal protection" and "use the legal system to take ownership of all the decease's assets, leaving the lifetime partner with jack shit."
This is the exact point to which I referred when I said in another post that the law exempts humans from their natural compassion. The situations you describe are founded by the states involvement with personal and familial relationships.
I contend that without state involvement these horrible actions would not occur as they do.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 12:39:59 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox, "ZERO parental rights" are chosen by the laws of the state. Again, any average person would think that the father of a child has parental rights. Again, the State supersedes common humanity and determines "whats best for the state".
The State likes for children to be dependent on the State and not upon parents. ( I know you will dislike this statement)
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 12:43:19 [Permalink]
|
"Legal marriage is a wonderful thing"
Shall we really go into the legal ramifications of marriage. |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 15:06:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I contend that without state involvement these horrible actions would not occur as they do. |
No, without state involvement, there'd just be things like kidnapping and theft. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 15:17:40 [Permalink]
|
Dave, taken out of context and to an extreme.
You usually do better.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 16:04:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, taken out of context and to an extreme. |
Still, it's a logical extension of your statements. I don't see how it is out of context, because you expressed yourself rather fuzzy. Dave (or anyone else) can't read your mind, so you have to lay off the fuzziness and start being more precise in what you write. Don't leave important stuff to only be implied. You need to put your statements into clearer context.
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 06/03/2007 16:05:40 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 17:34:55 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, I was replying to the circumstances described by another poster. I should have quoted to make more clear as to what i was referring.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 18:47:24 [Permalink]
|
Just to make it clear, without state involvement, parental rights when disputed would be determined by kidapping or other form of force. Without state involvement, inheritance would largely be determined by who could steal the most of the deceased's assests, a will or a marriage being meaningless.
You might say these are "extreme," but human nature is what it is. People are fairly selfish and brutal. Take off your rose-colored glasses and have a look around at what goes on even with state involvement. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 18:56:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Marfknox, you said "huge number of gay couples who were fucked over by lack of legal protection" and "use the legal system to take ownership of all the decease's assets, leaving the lifetime partner with jack shit."
This is the exact point to which I referred when I said in another post that the law exempts humans from their natural compassion. The situations you describe are founded by the states involvement with personal and familial relationships.
I contend that without state involvement these horrible actions would not occur as they do. |
You don't understand at all what you're talking about.
There are laws. They govern relationships. For instance, sometimes when you work for a company, you have to sign a contract. It governs your rights and the rights of the person employing you.
Sometimes, people agree to sign a contract that allows them to be married. This is a legal status. It has a long tradition that goes back at least 4000 years. The original reasons for marriage contracts differ from those now, but they have a long tradition nonetheless.
Marriage contracts give two people special rights. For instance, if I were in a serious accident and incapacitated, my wife is allowed to make certain decisions about my medical care. However, you would not be able to make any choices about my medical care.
Similarly, states have certain laws about inheritance. I noted this already in an earlier post. Marf was simply observing that when a couple makes a commitment in practice, but-- due to the current legal system-- is forbidden from entering into a legal contract, then they don't get the same rights as others.
Your argument seems to be that states should make no laws regarding legal arrangements for marriage. But as I've shown, that doesn't work. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 19:09:18 [Permalink]
|
Cune, I do understand what I am talking about. I do not believe the state should sanction personal relationships. Everything you state as necessary could be taken care of under common law and contract law. The states influence creates a circumstance were a relative has claim over the property of the housemate of the deceased.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 20:33:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Cune, I do understand what I am talking about. I do not believe the state should sanction personal relationships. Everything you state as necessary could be taken care of under common law and contract law. The states influence creates a circumstance were a relative has claim over the property of the housemate of the deceased. |
uhh... JEROME DA GNOME? Common Law Marriage is still a government influence on interpersonal relationships. Something you claim to be in opposition.
Are you trying to imply that my girlfriend's roommate, instead of her family, should get her property if something were to happen to her? I sincerely hope you realize how ridiculous that position is. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Same-sex Marriage
Topic Locked
