4 ms·

> Marriage means legal changes. Being married means that someone can hold you accountable for your spouse's debts. Being married means the joint ownership of pr

by zeveb 10y ago

> Marriage means legal changes. Being married means that someone can hold you accountable for your spouse's debts. Being married means the joint ownership of property. Being married means next of kin status. Being married means legal presumption of paternity. Being married means survivor's benefits when one spouse dies. Why do we tie those to sexual relationship status, though? The only one of those for which that makes any sense is a legal presumption of paternity, which we don't need now that we have accurate genetic tests (save for identical twins). Why shouldn't my brother, or my best friend, or members of my yacht club, be able to hold joint ownership, or be my next of kin, or get benefits through me? Secular marriage is just the husk of religious marriage, sapped of what actually makes a marriage marriage.

_jal 10y ago
There's a perfectly reasonable point of view. I'd encourage you to champion it. In the mean time, I'd hope you'll also champion the uniform application of fundamental rights - that our government, even if it does something you feel is wrong, doesn't also apply that something unevenly to intentionally deprive specific groups of those freedoms.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > In the mean time, I'd hope you'll also champion the uniform application of fundamental rights - that our government, even if it does something you feel is wrong, doesn't also apply that something unevenly to intentionally deprive specific groups of those freedoms. I did — I supported civil unions when they were on the ballot in my state.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    Civil unions aren't the same thing.
zeta0134 10y ago
Disclaimer: I am a gay man, and my support of gay marriage has always been a gray area. The elephant in the room that must be established here is a biological one. As much as we can hold hands and sing about the beauty of love, it remains that biologically, only a man and a woman can have children. Historically, it is this dependency, this social contract to promise to stay together to raise one's children, that has given rise to many of the legal protections that a marriage license provides. Now, there have been lots of heterosexual couples who marry on paper, never have kids, and for them it's largely a financial commitment (legally) and less of a social contract. I don't think same sex marriage is different in a financial regard than these examples, so I support it. But the situation gets somewhat more hairy when you consider that same sex couples may still want to raise children, and then the issue of surrogate mothers, adoption, same sex households, and all sorts of other potential legal complications come into play. How would a custody case play out with two fathers, for example? I'm not arguing for or against same sex marriage, and I'm personally in a polyamorous relationship that's unlikely to be recognized legally in any way shape or form, so there's that as well. I just want to draw attention to some of the hidden complexities that it introduces.
- liveoneggs 10y ago
  > How would a custody case play out with two fathers, for example? These already exist. Gay couples have kids, even married ones.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Historically, it is this dependency, this social contract to promise to stay together to raise one's children, that has given rise to many of the legal protections that a marriage license provides. Not really. Most of the legal effects of marriage amount to legal privileges of the parties to the marriage with respect to each other, both with property and in some power-of-attorney like ways. The big exception is the presumption (rebuttable or absolute, depending on the jurisdiction) of paternity, which may be irrelevant to same sex [0] marriages (though, in principle, even ignoring the issues under the previous footnote the absolute form and it's stability-over-biology related motivations is equally applicable to same-sex female unions as it is to opposite-sex unions.) [0] Though given that legal sex is really a form of socially-ascribed gender and may not align with biological sex, it's also arguable that presumption of paternity is just as applicable to same (legal) sex unions as opposite sex unions as a class, though statistically less likely to be relevant to any particular same sex union, given the loose correlation between biological and legal sex.
Xcelerate 10y ago
I've always wondered this. Why can't we just appoint specific people who have specific rights? Some people never get married — why can't they give a friend access to their property when they pass away? Or the ability to visit them in the hospital if they become injured?
- gnicholas 10y ago
  You can do both of these things. For example, by having a will/trust to designate what happens to your property, or by creating a medical power of attorney.
- rsynnott 10y ago
  You can for some of them. In many places you can leave your estate to whoever you want to (often with the provision that minor children must be adequately provided for). Though in some cases there may still be inheritance tax benefits to being married. Some countries also allow arbitrary allocation of next of kin right for the purpose of medical decisions, etc. It's not like you're required to get married. It's just a thing that's available if people want it. I'd certainly be in favour of more devolved rights traditionally associated with marriage being available (right to nominate next of kin etc).
LordKano 10y ago
Why do we tie those to sexual relationship status, though? I understand that this kind of thinking has fallen out of favor but the answer to your question is this, because the primary purpose of marriage is for having and raising children. Of course, people who will never have children can and do get married. Of course, people who are too old to have children can get married. And now, people for whom it's biologically impossible to reproduce can get married. Maybe it's time for a whole series of discussions about our society's future plans for marriage.
MichaelGG 10y ago
And in the US, some states don't allow you to marry certain people, like cousins. In Texas, it's criminal to have even light sexual contact with a cousin. Marriage should be an n-party agreement with minor legal overhead, like an LLC.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> The only one of those for which that makes any sense is a legal presumption of paternity, which we don't need now that we have accurate genetic tests (save for identical twins). The social purpose of the legal presumption of paternity (especially that that is clearly sought where that presumption is conclusive rather than rebuttable) is not affected by genetic testing. > Secular marriage is just the husk of religious marriage, sapped of what actually makes a marriage marriage. The original and overwhelmingly consistent part of marriage (which has always been a civic institution, whatever religious connotations it might also share in particular times and places) is unifying property rights; it is at its core an economic relationship. (Various religious models provide a variety of explanations for why one might seek such an economic relationship.)
- EliRivers 10y ago
  The original and overwhelmingly consistent part of marriage is unifying property rights Bingo. Ownership of women, ownership of children, and subsequent inheritance of possessions (the illegitimate historically don't inherit) when the owner dies. Doesn't sound very nice to us, but it's what there was. Still, progress is what it's all about; maybe we can be better people than our ancestors.

by zeveb 10y ago

_jal 10y ago

There's a perfectly reasonable point of view. I'd encourage you to champion it. In the mean time, I'd hope you'll also champion the uniform application of fundamental rights - that our government, even if it does something you feel is wrong, doesn't also apply that something unevenly to intentionally deprive specific groups of those freedoms.

zeveb 10y ago
> In the mean time, I'd hope you'll also champion the uniform application of fundamental rights - that our government, even if it does something you feel is wrong, doesn't also apply that something unevenly to intentionally deprive specific groups of those freedoms. I did — I supported civil unions when they were on the ballot in my state.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  Civil unions aren't the same thing.

zeta0134 10y ago

Disclaimer: I am a gay man, and my support of gay marriage has always been a gray area. The elephant in the room that must be established here is a biological one. As much as we can hold hands and sing about the beauty of love, it remains that biologically, only a man and a woman can have children. Historically, it is this dependency, this social contract to promise to stay together to raise one's children, that has given rise to many of the legal protections that a marriage license provides. Now, there have been lots of heterosexual couples who marry on paper, never have kids, and for them it's largely a financial commitment (legally) and less of a social contract. I don't think same sex marriage is different in a financial regard than these examples, so I support it. But the situation gets somewhat more hairy when you consider that same sex couples may still want to raise children, and then the issue of surrogate mothers, adoption, same sex households, and all sorts of other potential legal complications come into play. How would a custody case play out with two fathers, for example? I'm not arguing for or against same sex marriage, and I'm personally in a polyamorous relationship that's unlikely to be recognized legally in any way shape or form, so there's that as well. I just want to draw attention to some of the hidden complexities that it introduces.

liveoneggs 10y ago
> How would a custody case play out with two fathers, for example? These already exist. Gay couples have kids, even married ones.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Historically, it is this dependency, this social contract to promise to stay together to raise one's children, that has given rise to many of the legal protections that a marriage license provides. Not really. Most of the legal effects of marriage amount to legal privileges of the parties to the marriage with respect to each other, both with property and in some power-of-attorney like ways. The big exception is the presumption (rebuttable or absolute, depending on the jurisdiction) of paternity, which may be irrelevant to same sex [0] marriages (though, in principle, even ignoring the issues under the previous footnote the absolute form and it's stability-over-biology related motivations is equally applicable to same-sex female unions as it is to opposite-sex unions.) [0] Though given that legal sex is really a form of socially-ascribed gender and may not align with biological sex, it's also arguable that presumption of paternity is just as applicable to same (legal) sex unions as opposite sex unions as a class, though statistically less likely to be relevant to any particular same sex union, given the loose correlation between biological and legal sex.

Xcelerate 10y ago

I've always wondered this. Why can't we just appoint specific people who have specific rights? Some people never get married — why can't they give a friend access to their property when they pass away? Or the ability to visit them in the hospital if they become injured?

gnicholas 10y ago
You can do both of these things. For example, by having a will/trust to designate what happens to your property, or by creating a medical power of attorney.
rsynnott 10y ago
You can for some of them. In many places you can leave your estate to whoever you want to (often with the provision that minor children must be adequately provided for). Though in some cases there may still be inheritance tax benefits to being married. Some countries also allow arbitrary allocation of next of kin right for the purpose of medical decisions, etc. It's not like you're required to get married. It's just a thing that's available if people want it. I'd certainly be in favour of more devolved rights traditionally associated with marriage being available (right to nominate next of kin etc).

LordKano 10y ago

Why do we tie those to sexual relationship status, though? I understand that this kind of thinking has fallen out of favor but the answer to your question is this, because the primary purpose of marriage is for having and raising children. Of course, people who will never have children can and do get married. Of course, people who are too old to have children can get married. And now, people for whom it's biologically impossible to reproduce can get married. Maybe it's time for a whole series of discussions about our society's future plans for marriage.

MichaelGG 10y ago

And in the US, some states don't allow you to marry certain people, like cousins. In Texas, it's criminal to have even light sexual contact with a cousin. Marriage should be an n-party agreement with minor legal overhead, like an LLC.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> The only one of those for which that makes any sense is a legal presumption of paternity, which we don't need now that we have accurate genetic tests (save for identical twins). The social purpose of the legal presumption of paternity (especially that that is clearly sought where that presumption is conclusive rather than rebuttable) is not affected by genetic testing. > Secular marriage is just the husk of religious marriage, sapped of what actually makes a marriage marriage. The original and overwhelmingly consistent part of marriage (which has always been a civic institution, whatever religious connotations it might also share in particular times and places) is unifying property rights; it is at its core an economic relationship. (Various religious models provide a variety of explanations for why one might seek such an economic relationship.)

EliRivers 10y ago
The original and overwhelmingly consistent part of marriage is unifying property rights Bingo. Ownership of women, ownership of children, and subsequent inheritance of possessions (the illegitimate historically don't inherit) when the owner dies. Doesn't sound very nice to us, but it's what there was. Still, progress is what it's all about; maybe we can be better people than our ancestors.