Marriage and Civil Partnerships: what is the ideal situation?
 

As an addendum to the same sex marriage thread, how about a poll to gauge the current thinking of mersenne.org readers?

The options reflect the frequent situation in practice where civil partnerships are initially introduced alongside marriage to cater for same sex couples, and this may later be followed by opening marriage up to same sex couples as well.

In the UK the civil partnerships were introduced for same sex couples only. Now there is a strong government-backed movement to open marriage up to same sex couples there too, but civil partnerships will still only be available to same sex couples, not opposite sex couples.

In The Netherlands, by contrast, civil partnerships were introduced for [I]all [/I]couples, so that when marriage was later opened for everyone all couples had the choice of a marriage or a civil partnership.

For the poll: what is the ideal situation which all countries of the world should be aiming for?

Everything for everyone.

It's an easy reply that's hard to misconstrue (though I'm sure someone here will succeed) :smile:

I used to have the attitude that marriage was extraneous to the relationship itself, and something of a distraction from other equal rights issues. However, here in the US only marriage confers a number of privileges not otherwise available. These include tax benefits, pension and Social Security eligibility for partners, and possibly inheritance between partners. Because of these very tangible benefits, I have come to see marriage as a necessary right if civil unions do not confer those same benefits.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;329140]Everything for everyone.

It's an easy reply that's hard to misconstrue (though I'm sure someone here will succeed) :smile:[/QUOTE]

Brother and sister?
Father and three daughters in a lovely bit of polygamy?
Man and six 12-year-old boys?
Table and chairs?
Woman and her truck?

My question has been from day one: Suppose we open up marriage to all. Fine. (Civil marriage differs from religious marriage, anyway, at least since the day of Sir Thomas More.) But then, where would we draw the line with respect to those who will almost certainly begin pushing for the "Misc. Marriages" (as we here might call them) such as those described above?

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;329157]Brother and sister?
Father and three daughters in a lovely bit of polygamy?[/QUOTE]

Dawkins has shown why incest is a bad idea.

It might be good if the "Fathers" didn't "diddle" with the boys....

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;329157]Brother and sister?
Father and three daughters in a lovely bit of polygamy?
Man and six 12-year-old boys?
Table and chairs?
Woman and her truck?

My question has been from day one: Suppose we open up marriage to all. Fine. (Civil marriage differs from religious marriage, anyway, at least since the day of Sir Thomas More.) But then, where would we draw the line with respect to those who will almost certainly begin pushing for the "Misc. Marriages" (as we here might call them) such as those described above?[/QUOTE]It might be a bad idea to eat meat : one starts eating animals and ends up eating ones own children. Perhaps it is a bad idea to eat altogether : one starts eating carrots and ends up eating ones parents.

The slippery slope sophism...

Jacob

My answer, in some ways, is the exact opposite of Dubslow's, and yet perhaps also along the same trajectory in certain cases.

I think things like hospital visitation rights, shared inheritance, etc... should be available to anyone, any number of people, etc... So, for example, a roommate and his friend should be able to step into the county licensing office, pay a fee, check the boxes on a form signifying which of those things they'd like to share, and voila, they share them. [Yes, there are certain caveats. The people involved must be consenting adults. If the change would affect the rights of another, that person must be notified and able to cancel their part in the sharing, etc...]

On the other hand, I think that marital relations are something else. I think that they are intrinsically tied to creating a culture where a man and a woman remain faithful to each other, because of the likelihood of producing offspring, and the need of both a father and a mother that children naturally have. Thus, I think marriage should be limited to opposite sexes, with the purpose in mind of creating the best environment of children. Any and all benefits the government gives to such a couple should be given with the intent to persuade the couple to stay together and raise their biological children. This would include those civil benefits listed above, but also include tax benefits when children actually come. etc...

So, I guess my answer to your poll is both the first and the last answer, depending on the context. The [i]ideal situation[/i] depends on the circumstances we are talking about.

[QUOTE=S485122;329162]It might be a bad idea to eat meat : one starts eating animals and ends up eating ones own children. Perhaps it is a bad idea to eat altogether : one starts eating carrots and ends up eating ones parents.

The slippery slope sophism...

Jacob[/QUOTE]

Thank you!

[QUOTE=Brian-E;329138]but civil partnerships will still only be available to same sex couples, not opposite sex couples.
[/QUOTE]Where is the clamor for opposite sex civil partnerships? Segregating bathrooms and drinking fountains showed the meretriciousness of that form of [I]equality[/I].

At college an English teacher of mine related trouble he'd experienced in the 60's as a white person who'd drunk from a colored fountain.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;329163]I think things like hospital visitation rights, shared inheritance, etc... should be available to anyone, any number of people, etc... So, for example, a roommate and his friend should be able to step into the county licensing office, pay a fee, check the boxes on a form signifying which of those things they'd like to share, and voila, they share them. [Yes, there are certain caveats. The people involved must be consenting adults. If the change would affect the rights of another, that person must be notified and able to cancel their part in the sharing, etc...][/quote]

That's a nice theory. The problem is, in practice, it [url=http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2011/05/24/why-a-power-of-attorny-is-no-substitute-for-marriage-when-a-loved-one-is-in-the-hospital/]doesn't work[/url].

Now I'm not so naive as to think that allowing SSM will put an end to the kinds of abuses described in that blog post. What I do think, is that SSM will make it a little bit harder for those who would deny SS couples their civil rights to persuade themselves that they're behaving reasonably, and a lot harder for them to persuade a court that they behaved lawfully.

[quote]On the other hand, I think that marital relations are something else. I think that they are intrinsically tied to creating a culture where a man and a woman remain faithful to each other, because of the likelihood of producing offspring, and the need of both a father and a mother that children naturally have. [/quote]

Lots to unpick here. Lets start with the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature]Appeal to nature[/url]. First, there isn't a lot natural about modern medically assisted birth. Second, there are plenty of OS couples, who for various reasons can't conceive or bring to term their own child without the same kinds of medical intervention that SS couples need. You wouldn't deny them the opportunity to marry. Neither would you deny it to OS couples who don't wish to have children of their own. Or who can't.

You would, however, deny marriage to SS couples who already have children, either through adoption or from a previous relationship. How are they're "needs" served by denying their [i]de facto[/i] parents the opportunity to marry?

Finally, I note that your claim that children need both a father and a mother is a bare assertion. Do you have any evidence that the needs of children brought up in SS households are better served than those brought up in OS households?

[QUOTE=S485122;329162]IThe slippery slope sophism...[/QUOTE]

I propose a drinking game. Every time we identify a logical fallacy in SSM opponents arguments, take a shot.

[QUOTE=Mr. P-1;329223]...Lets start with the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature]Appeal to nature[/url][/quote]

Take a shot.

[quote]...a bare assertion...[/quote]

Also known as [i][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit]ipse dixit[/url][/i]. Take a shot.