You've tried to make this point before in my journal here, and it still doesn't wash.
I'm not a bigot for protecting children from abusive relatives. If it's consentual, among adult human beings, and done behind closed doors, I dont have to like it, but it's not within my power to stop the participants. Nor should it be. Not in anyone else's either IMHO.
Your idea about "privatizing" the definition of marriage still doesn't wash either. You cannot have the govt ignore everyone's marriage.
You'd have to do something about any govt benefit that provides something to a "survivor".
You'd have to redefine the tax code because filing "married" either joint or separate isn't an option anymore.
Who is a closest relative in the absence of a spouse's existence being ignored...?
"If it's consentual, among adult human beings, and done behind closed doors, I dont have to like it, but it's not within my power to stop the participants. Nor should it be. Not in anyone else's either IMHO."
I aggree.. so if a brother and a sister or cousin are of age and consent to marry they should be allow to. Like you said they should since they fit the above statement perfectly.
"Your idea about "privatizing" the definition of marriage still doesn't wash either. You cannot have the govt ignore everyone's marriage. You'd have to do something about any govt benefit that provides something to a "survivor".
You'd have to redefine the tax code because filing "married" either joint or separate isn't an option anymore.
Who is a closest relative in the absence of a spouse's existence being ignored...?"
Ok lets take them one at a time. First off it is possable although I seriously don't think any would make a real effort to do so.
What I suggested was that a living contract was entered into. Based not on a marriage but on shared houseing and property. Sex need not be even considered. Should one member of the contract die then the net of the property would go to the remaining members. If underage the parent or guardian (as set up upon birth) would be responceable to the childs percentage of the property. If one or more of the people in the contract wish to opt out then they can sign a statement that they will no longer be part of the contract. Since as a adult they have equal access to the property they can take the percentage of the property that belongs to them. Otherwise Wills and other contracts can alter these set rulings.
The other difficulties can be work on also. Look if you really don't want the government in our sex lives then don't keep inviting them in to it.
The other difficulties can be work on also. Look if you really don't want the government in our sex lives then don't keep inviting them in to it.
I didn't invite them into anyone's sex life. Please don't imply that I did. I just pointed out some logistical problems with implementing your idea.
Not that the idea doesn't have merit on some level, but it's a radical sea change that creates more societal problems than it solves (yes, as bad as the original problem is, your idea, seems to create societal chaos on it's face).
This is your idea, and if you haven't considered those issues (huge problems IMHO), I can only believe you haven't thought the idea through very well. You need to AT LEAST do lip service to how they would be dealt with or show how they aren't all that bad in practice.
Saying "the other difficulties can be work[sic] on also..." just doesn't cut it. I want to know what your plan is before I endorse it. I also get to point out flaws it too. You've talked the talk. Walk the walk if you want to be taken seriously.
I'm sorry to be so harsh here, but the reason I quit replying to you in that thread was that you would consistently trod on my ideas based on things I DID NOT say a/o ignore things I said in a previous post requiring me to repeat them ad nauseum. Basically, I'd try to show you my train of thought, and you'd clearly not be remembering half of it when you spoke up.
And since sauce is good for the gander too, you need a more thought-out idea if you want it taken seriously.
What do you call sex education? Government involvement in our sex lives. What do you call government involvement in marriage? Government involvement in our lives which you want to extend to homsexuals. What do you call laws agains prostitution? Government involvement in our lives.
Any new change including the ones you advocate introduces new problems. All because there are difficulties does not mean that one should look in to it. This idea is still very much in the new and as such requires thought and review. It throw things out with out reviewing them lead to a dead end in life.
Yes it is a radical change but I feel it is far more honest then the system we use today. I don't feel government should play a role in our marriages. It is a problem that needs to be resolved and this isn't done by extending the involvement of government in to still more peoples sex lives.
What do you call sex education? Government involvement in our sex lives. What do you call government involvement in marriage? Government involvement in our lives which you want to extend to homsexuals. What do you call laws agains prostitution? Government involvement in our lives.
What's your point? I didn't invite them in.
And even your own premises are faulty.
If I really wanted sex with a prostitute, I'd could visit Nevada.
If I didn't want to go to sex ed, or my parents didnt want me to, no one would have signed the permission slip.
Yes, all changes have problems they cause. The ones I've suggested cause fewer than they create. It works within the system we already have in place. Yours attempts to tear up the definition of marriage. Ironically, I'm the one trying to defend it here.
Come up with a road map on how you'd implement it in a way society could handle. I've detailed mine. I want to see yours.
First retitle marriage. Second remove the referance of sex in the newly retitle laws.
Add one provision that those who are in the contract must share incomes and living property.
As for taxes the remain unaltered except the removal of the word married and the replaceing of it with Contracted.
As for death bennifets, hospital visits, a legal matters all you would need do is rename it from married to contracted. i.e. contract people can visit each other in the hospistals and will be responceable for the health of the other members of the contract should that member not be able to speak for themselves or the has been no other contracts to the contray.
In effect for those who are already married nothing would change. For those who could not marry before they would be given the same rights as married people. For those who have elder living with the family this would extend to them insurance benifets and tax benifets that are currently denied them.
As for children, at birth we already require the listing of the parents. The only change would be that they could add on to that list guardians. All those on that list will be treated as the people responceable for the care of the child. (makeing judgements on medical matters and such) They need not even be in a contracted relationship. As such a "devorced" person could retain legal rights in respect of the child and not live with the other parent.
Devorce court would be change to social court, and will regulate the speration and forming of the living/social contracts.
In truth very little would be needed in the change. No one would have to become "enlightened" in to accepting a for a sexual behavior that they currently don't accept and nor would it become needed to alter religions or creat social reforms of thoughts.
a) So what you're really saying isn't "get government out of the marriage business" so much as "change the name of this civil thing we call 'marriage' (and then go ahead and extend it and hope the RR don't get bent out of shape 'cause it's no longer called the same thing as the religious rite)"?
Okay, I can more or less get behind that, though it won't be as easy as you make it sound. There's a Hell of a lot of laws that each need to be amended or replaced, at state and local levels as well as at the Federal level, and then there's all the "we thought we were both insured but our company hasn't caught up to the phrasing change yet so actually only one of us is now" glitches. It can be done; it's not a trivial solution.
b) This has nothing to do with -- will have no effect on -- whether kids in school are taunted for being different by other kids who think the difference is a big deal.
c) I've already seen opposition to your plan as put forth elsewhere, from anti-same-sex-marriage people who object that if the government doesn't define marriage, then they won't be able to stop some other church from calling something a marriage that their own church doesn't. But that's an obstacle more than an inherent flaw.
True it would be easy. But I think it would be a lot more honest and alot more true to embracing diversity.
A) Yes but the religious right could be conviced of this by explaining how government recogniztion of a religious rite mean government in influancing their religious beliefs and in the name of the purity of these beliefs and protection from the state influanceing faith it would be better to get the state out of it altogether.For the Liberal Left it would allow the rights they want and the sexually open society they desire with out involving the government.
B) School is a seperate matter. We already have rules on conduct in schools. Social reforms would not be needed because the state would not making a judgement on way or another on the matter.
C) But that would be solved since the state wouldn't even use the word married. Churches, people, hell even cults could call their relationships whatever they want including married. No one need recognize anothers marriage. You would only be required to recognized that they are contracted, which has nothing to do with sex and only refers to shared living and income.
What I suggested was that a living contract was entered into. Based not on a marriage but on shared houseing and property.
It's an interesting idea, but it's also sort of annoying to hear a married man argue that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. It's real easy to say other kinds of contracts are a better way to solve the legal problems of partnership when you're already protected by the system that's in place. I'll take your argument seriously after you've gotten divorced and gone to the trouble of creating an alternate contract and lived with attempting to have it enforced.
No it isn't easier. In fatc the changes would effect me as a married man more then a single man. It would get the government out of marriage and out of our sex lives in part and open it to all sexualitie and even to aiding elderly who would be allowed to be in a living contract with there adult children.
I am advocateing it and putting it up for review. It is a process that is long over due and in my view would truely free us from goverment involvement in our lives. The legal system may need to be alter before this is even possable.
I an not a lawyer so those detail would require the aid of one.
Yes, the change you suggest would affect you as a married man. My point is that I don't really see you working toward the change you're (in theory) promoting. You make it sound like you're saying "this would make everything equal," but in reality you're merely suggesting a delay in giving rights to others which you already have.
As are you in delaying rights to polgamist and the many other forms of sexuality, which have just as much a clam if not more of one then homosexuals have.
New ideas start somewhere and purhaps it is that no one else is seeing this that does not progress. Would you be ok with such a change in the system? I mean if you think the system is unfiar you have two options. One to expanded the flawed system or to seek real corrective change.
You think *I'm* delaying rights for polygamists? Really? Do you *remember* me??? :)
I believe that any adults who wish to enter into a marriage should be allowed to do so. Any sex, any number. Saying "give everyone access to the current system" isn't delaying anything. Saying "change the system while I put up my feet and bask in my right to use the current one" IS.
But the movement is to make marriage between two people. This would by it's very wording make the polygamist or group marriage a illegal thing.
I know you... that is why I am surprised that you back the movement or at least seem to.
You right if they put their feet up... which history has shown is the normal practice in such matters. I would rather aviod years of government forcing social change in the name of liberal's and get to the meat of the matter. Which would allow for freedom for all with out the fear of have the government tring to convert you in to acceptance of the lates sexual dream.
My solution would not only give the rights everyone seems to be seekign to every one but it would also prevent the use of the "titles" or "government acceptance of a form of sex" as a tool to attack peoples faiths in the school systems.
If you want to have as sexual life style that is poly then you are welcome to it. The government would need to recognize it or reject.. it simply would care about it. If you are homosexual, bi, poly, incestual, BDSM, beastiality... what ever government would be making no judgement of acceptance of rejection of it. If people are being hurt (against their wills) then normal laws dealing with abuse would come in to play. Otherwise it would be of no interest to the government at all.
The route that is being taken now is to redefine marriage as 2 people. So afte they spent billions pushing the acceptance of this in the schools and setting up the consitution for it are we going to go through this all again for the Polygamist? How many times do you think people will allow the goverment to jam morality down their neck with out the consent or approval?
"My solution would not only give the rights everyone seems to be seekign to every one but it would also prevent the use of the 'titles' or "government acceptance of a form of sex" as a tool to attack peoples faiths in the school systems."
Do you really think that merely not having a Special Legal Status will make the abuse in schools Go Away? Wave your magic gavel and nobody sees the differences any more? The fact that the State no longer recognizes heterosexual marriages will mean the swishy kid (who may or not be gay) will suddenly stop being called "faggot" in the hall?
You're waaay off in tangent-land here.
The video doesn't say "people who are in non-traditional relationships". It says "people who are different from you".
Accual you are of tangent here. I was refering to marriage in this part of the thread. As for abuse of people in schools it should be abuse that is addressed and not the disaproval. We already have rule stateing hitting other etc "Bullying" is wrong. We we disagree is that you seem to want to add social reform in to acceptance in to the list.
I never said differances will go way. In fact what I am suggesting is the preserving of differances not the mushing away of extreme view into one state oked moral code of "respect all".
And nobody is saying that we must do away with differences; the program encourages respect for differences. And that implies recognition that differences exist.
It is possible to "respectfully disagree".
It is the argument that respect itself is a bad thing that troubles me.
Have you heard of the statement "respect must be earned" Respect means more then tolerance. That is were we are disconnecting. Respect means on some level you admire something. That is the danger of the word respect.
You are right though that this part of the thread is a tangent. I has nothing to do with the video or goverment pushing morals (or not) in the schools. It also has nothing to do with school violance. But I think is is worth the talking about.
Respect means on some level you admire something. That is the danger of the word respect.
This is a usage/grammar/definition issue you appear to be caught up with then.
It didn't say "pledge to respect...". It said to "pledge to have respect for..."
Ex: Tony Soprano isn't someone I'd respect, but he's certainly someone I'd have respect for.
Having Respect is a matter of staying quiet while someone gets eulogized.
We're talking about respecting people...as people and nothing more. Not as ones we like necessarily.
And you even switched usages of the word. Lets put specifics into that pledge
"I pledge to respect all Jews".
Well, no. I don't do that. I respect their choice of religion, and respect them as I would anyone else, but some Jews are SOB's just like some Christians are SOB's. I dont think you'd expect me to behave differently. Right?
Same holds true for sexual identity. People are people. Respect them as you would any one else. Sexual Identity isn't a reason to respect one any less.
Likewise, it would be insane for anyone to expect one to expect all people of a different sexual identity.
(no subject)
You've tried to make this point before in my journal here, and it still doesn't wash.
I'm not a bigot for protecting children from abusive relatives. If it's consentual, among adult human beings, and done behind closed doors, I dont have to like it, but it's not within my power to stop the participants. Nor should it be. Not in anyone else's either IMHO.
Your idea about "privatizing" the definition of marriage still doesn't wash either. You cannot have the govt ignore everyone's marriage.
You'd have to do something about any govt benefit that provides something to a "survivor".
You'd have to redefine the tax code because filing "married" either joint or separate isn't an option anymore.
Who is a closest relative in the absence of a spouse's existence being ignored...?
And those were off the top of my head.
(no subject)
"If it's consentual, among adult human beings, and done behind closed doors, I dont have to like it, but it's not within my power to stop the participants. Nor should it be. Not in anyone else's either IMHO."
I aggree.. so if a brother and a sister or cousin are of age and consent to marry they should be allow to. Like you said they should since they fit the above statement perfectly.
"Your idea about "privatizing" the definition of marriage still doesn't wash either. You cannot have the govt ignore everyone's marriage.
You'd have to do something about any govt benefit that provides something to a "survivor".
You'd have to redefine the tax code because filing "married" either joint or separate isn't an option anymore.
Who is a closest relative in the absence of a spouse's existence being ignored...?"
Ok lets take them one at a time. First off it is possable although I seriously don't think any would make a real effort to do so.
What I suggested was that a living contract was entered into. Based not on a marriage but on shared houseing and property. Sex need not be even considered. Should one member of the contract die then the net of the property would go to the remaining members. If underage the parent or guardian (as set up upon birth) would be responceable to the childs percentage of the property. If one or more of the people in the contract wish to opt out then they can sign a statement that they will no longer be part of the contract. Since as a adult they have equal access to the property they can take the percentage of the property that belongs to them. Otherwise Wills and other contracts can alter these set rulings.
The other difficulties can be work on also. Look if you really don't want the government in our sex lives then don't keep inviting them in to it.
"
(no subject)
I didn't invite them into anyone's sex life. Please don't imply that I did. I just pointed out some logistical problems with implementing your idea.
Not that the idea doesn't have merit on some level, but it's a radical sea change that creates more societal problems than it solves (yes, as bad as the original problem is, your idea, seems to create societal chaos on it's face).
This is your idea, and if you haven't considered those issues (huge problems IMHO), I can only believe you haven't thought the idea through very well. You need to AT LEAST do lip service to how they would be dealt with or show how they aren't all that bad in practice.
Saying "the other difficulties can be work[sic] on also..." just doesn't cut it. I want to know what your plan is before I endorse it. I also get to point out flaws it too. You've talked the talk. Walk the walk if you want to be taken seriously.
I'm sorry to be so harsh here, but the reason I quit replying to you in that thread was that you would consistently trod on my ideas based on things I DID NOT say a/o ignore things I said in a previous post requiring me to repeat them ad nauseum. Basically, I'd try to show you my train of thought, and you'd clearly not be remembering half of it when you spoke up.
And since sauce is good for the gander too, you need a more thought-out idea if you want it taken seriously.
(no subject)
What do you call government involvement in marriage? Government involvement in our lives which you want to extend to homsexuals.
What do you call laws agains prostitution? Government involvement in our lives.
Any new change including the ones you advocate introduces new problems. All because there are difficulties does not mean that one should look in to it. This idea is still very much in the new and as such requires thought and review. It throw things out with out reviewing them lead to a dead end in life.
Yes it is a radical change but I feel it is far more honest then the system we use today. I don't feel government should play a role in our marriages. It is a problem that needs to be resolved and this isn't done by extending the involvement of government in to still more peoples sex lives.
(no subject)
What do you call government involvement in marriage? Government involvement in our lives which you want to extend to homsexuals.
What do you call laws agains prostitution? Government involvement in our lives.
What's your point? I didn't invite them in.
And even your own premises are faulty.
If I really wanted sex with a prostitute, I'd could visit Nevada.
If I didn't want to go to sex ed, or my parents didnt want me to, no one would have signed the permission slip.
Yes, all changes have problems they cause. The ones I've suggested cause fewer than they create. It works within the system we already have in place. Yours attempts to tear up the definition of marriage. Ironically, I'm the one trying to defend it here.
Come up with a road map on how you'd implement it in a way society could handle. I've detailed mine. I want to see yours.
(no subject)
First retitle marriage.
Second remove the referance of sex in the newly retitle laws.
Add one provision that those who are in the contract must share incomes and living property.
As for taxes the remain unaltered except the removal of the word married and the replaceing of it with Contracted.
As for death bennifets, hospital visits, a legal matters all you would need do is rename it from married to contracted. i.e. contract people can visit each other in the hospistals and will be responceable for the health of the other members of the contract should that member not be able to speak for themselves or the has been no other contracts to the contray.
In effect for those who are already married nothing would change. For those who could not marry before they would be given the same rights as married people. For those who have elder living with the family this would extend to them insurance benifets and tax benifets that are currently denied them.
As for children, at birth we already require the listing of the parents. The only change would be that they could add on to that list guardians. All those on that list will be treated as the people responceable for the care of the child. (makeing judgements on medical matters and such) They need not even be in a contracted relationship. As such a "devorced" person could retain legal rights in respect of the child and not live with the other parent.
Devorce court would be change to social court, and will regulate the speration and forming of the living/social contracts.
In truth very little would be needed in the change. No one would have to become "enlightened" in to accepting a for a sexual behavior that they currently don't accept and nor would it become needed to alter religions or creat social reforms of thoughts.
(no subject)
Okay, I can more or less get behind that, though it won't be as easy as you make it sound. There's a Hell of a lot of laws that each need to be amended or replaced, at state and local levels as well as at the Federal level, and then there's all the "we thought we were both insured but our company hasn't caught up to the phrasing change yet so actually only one of us is now" glitches. It can be done; it's not a trivial solution.
b) This has nothing to do with -- will have no effect on -- whether kids in school are taunted for being different by other kids who think the difference is a big deal.
c) I've already seen opposition to your plan as put forth elsewhere, from anti-same-sex-marriage people who object that if the government doesn't define marriage, then they won't be able to stop some other church from calling something a marriage that their own church doesn't. But that's an obstacle more than an inherent flaw.
(no subject)
A) Yes but the religious right could be conviced of this by explaining how government recogniztion of a religious rite mean government in influancing their religious beliefs and in the name of the purity of these beliefs and protection from the state influanceing faith it would be better to get the state out of it altogether.For the Liberal Left it would allow the rights they want and the sexually open society they desire with out involving the government.
B) School is a seperate matter. We already have rules on conduct in schools. Social reforms would not be needed because the state would not making a judgement on way or another on the matter.
C) But that would be solved since the state wouldn't even use the word married. Churches, people, hell even cults could call their relationships whatever they want including married. No one need recognize anothers marriage. You would only be required to recognized that they are contracted, which has nothing to do with sex and only refers to shared living and income.
So much for Swiss
It's an interesting idea, but it's also sort of annoying to hear a married man argue that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. It's real easy to say other kinds of contracts are a better way to solve the legal problems of partnership when you're already protected by the system that's in place. I'll take your argument seriously after you've gotten divorced and gone to the trouble of creating an alternate contract and lived with attempting to have it enforced.
Re: So much for Swiss
Re: So much for Swiss
Re: So much for Swiss
I an not a lawyer so those detail would require the aid of one.
Re: So much for Swiss
Re: So much for Swiss
New ideas start somewhere and purhaps it is that no one else is seeing this that does not progress. Would you be ok with such a change in the system? I mean if you think the system is unfiar you have two options. One to expanded the flawed system or to seek real corrective change.
Re: So much for Swiss
I believe that any adults who wish to enter into a marriage should be allowed to do so. Any sex, any number. Saying "give everyone access to the current system" isn't delaying anything. Saying "change the system while I put up my feet and bask in my right to use the current one" IS.
Re: So much for Swiss
I know you... that is why I am surprised that you back the movement or at least seem to.
You right if they put their feet up... which history has shown is the normal practice in such matters. I would rather aviod years of government forcing social change in the name of liberal's and get to the meat of the matter. Which would allow for freedom for all with out the fear of have the government tring to convert you in to acceptance of the lates sexual dream.
My solution would not only give the rights everyone seems to be seekign to every one but it would also prevent the use of the "titles" or "government acceptance of a form of sex" as a tool to attack peoples faiths in the school systems.
If you want to have as sexual life style that is poly then you are welcome to it. The government would need to recognize it or reject.. it simply would care about it. If you are homosexual, bi, poly, incestual, BDSM, beastiality... what ever government would be making no judgement of acceptance of rejection of it. If people are being hurt (against their wills) then normal laws dealing with abuse would come in to play. Otherwise it would be of no interest to the government at all.
The route that is being taken now is to redefine marriage as 2 people. So afte they spent billions pushing the acceptance of this in the schools and setting up the consitution for it are we going to go through this all again for the Polygamist? How many times do you think people will allow the goverment to jam morality down their neck with out the consent or approval?
Re: So much for Swiss
Do you really think that merely not having a Special Legal Status will make the abuse in schools Go Away? Wave your magic gavel and nobody sees the differences any more? The fact that the State no longer recognizes heterosexual marriages will mean the swishy kid (who may or not be gay) will suddenly stop being called "faggot" in the hall?
You're waaay off in tangent-land here.
The video doesn't say "people who are in non-traditional relationships". It says "people who are different from you".
Re: So much for Swiss
I never said differances will go way. In fact what I am suggesting is the preserving of differances not the mushing away of extreme view into one state oked moral code of "respect all".
Re: So much for Swiss
And nobody is saying that we must do away with differences; the program encourages respect for differences. And that implies recognition that differences exist.
It is possible to "respectfully disagree".
It is the argument that respect itself is a bad thing that troubles me.
Re: So much for Swiss
You are right though that this part of the thread is a tangent. I has nothing to do with the video or goverment pushing morals (or not) in the schools. It also has nothing to do with school violance. But I think is is worth the talking about.
Re: So much for Swiss
This is a usage/grammar/definition issue you appear to be caught up with then.
It didn't say "pledge to respect...". It said to "pledge to have respect for..."
Ex: Tony Soprano isn't someone I'd respect, but he's certainly someone I'd have respect for.
Having Respect is a matter of staying quiet while someone gets eulogized.
We're talking about respecting people...as people and nothing more. Not as ones we like necessarily.
And you even switched usages of the word. Lets put specifics into that pledge
"I pledge to respect all Jews".
Well, no. I don't do that. I respect their choice of religion, and respect them as I would anyone else, but some Jews are SOB's just like some Christians are SOB's. I dont think you'd expect me to behave differently. Right?
Same holds true for sexual identity. People are people. Respect them as you would any one else. Sexual Identity isn't a reason to respect one any less.
Likewise, it would be insane for anyone to expect one to expect all people of a different sexual identity.
So why are you thinking that's the case now?
Re: So much for Swiss
Likewise, it would be insane for anyone to expect one to respect all people of a different sexual identity