[TheOrator]

I didn't say it's a bad thing, JM, I only said it isn't necessary.

I love the Internet and have been saved once by Penicillin, but they aren't of course necessary.

[J m HofMarN]

Great job. I'm perfectly happy to agree that marriage is not necessary in the same way that penicillin is not necessary.

[TheOrator]

Ah, but you see, people do not have any natural substitute for penicillin.

You were the first to assert (though certainly not to believe) that humans were monogamous by nature. If they are, what then is marriage good for?

EDIT: "natural".

This post has been edited by TheOrator: 13 November 2008 - 11:55 PM

[J m HofMarN]

Because we no longer live in natural conditions but our geneticly inherited predisposition to monogamy remains as something that would draw us towards marriage, which is the way that modern, complicated society deals with that primitive desire?

[civilian_number_two]

Yeah the argument we don't need something because the cavemen didn't have it is pretty odd. I suppose we don't need social security, or medicine, or national military defence, or factory farming, or stem cell research, or blood transfusions, or telecommunications, or cars, or light bulbs, or the English language, or ...

... always fade out in a montage.

Ahem. Marriage, yes, is not natural, in the same way that society itself is not natural. I think you're making a huge leap of faith when you go from natural to necessary. And no, I am not even arguing that marriage is necessary. But it is a part of our society, folks want it, and we're not considering on any national level the notion of removing it just because you think we could do without it. Removing marriage from our society is simply not on the table. The argument at play, what Prop 8 was all about, is denying gays access to it.

I think gays should have access to it, natural or not.

Yes, Spoon, I was being a bit petty there. My friend drives a Lexus, and she put money aside for her wedding some time ago. She does fairly well as a sales rep. She has an annual sales quota of ten million dollars, so she is that kind of rep, not some door to door agent or simple real estate broker. So yeah, for her and her husband the bill wasn't terribly crippling. All the same, when you have 150 guests, you're not going to feed them and run an open bar for cheap. Even $30 a head would be fairly low, and that's $4500 for food alone. The $1000 wedding at that level is impossible. That said, you end up getting a lot back, too. The gifts and cash donations probably came to about 15 grand, and you don't usually gte those sorts of gifts when you can't afford as many guests. So from JM's point of view, think about what all that moving money did to the economy, and this was just one event. Hooray for weddings.

Also, gay marriage.

[TheOrator]

My feelings are irrelevant.

I never once said we should remove marriage.

Get.
It.
Right.

[civilian_number_two]

Orator, I don't know what you're trying to say. I am sure you8 will tell me I misunderstand you, but here is what I think you've come to:

Marriage is no different from monogamous couplehood without a marriage contract. Therefore monogamous couples who are not married should receive all legal benefits of marriage. Why grant those rights only to the married and not to all monogamous couples?

Ok. If this is the case, then I say that the powers that be need to know that the couple are in a monogamous relationship, in order that they may grant them these benefits (and some consequential responsibilities). The couple would likely be asked to present some form of document declarig such to a government office. I sugest that we could call this a marriage license. Later should they decide to break apart, they would terminate the contract. We could call this process a divorce. Since they had had a contract prior to the divorce, there might be ongoing obligations even after the contract was dissolved, especially if there were children involved.

I don't see that the distinction, frankly. If you don't want to get rid of marriage, how is it redundant? If you just want to replace it with something that is no different from it, what are you driving at, exactly?

Anyway. If this new thing in your world view needs to replace marriage, but is otherwise the same, and if monogamous couples entering into it receive certain benefits and also accept some legal obligations, then I say that we should allow gays access to this new thing that you are describing that is not marriage but appears very similar to it. Because if I support gay marriage, then I have to support gay "this other thing" as well.

[Spoon Poetic]

I still assert that people having catering businesses is so not a reason that we should all get married. Come on. I do family/wedding/whatever photography from time to time but I'm not going to argue that people should get married so that I can get paid for my services.

And people spend a lot of money on other things, too, but that doesn't mean it's necessary and wonderful and blah-di-blah. Neither does spending a lot of money on a wedding. The wedding is not the marriage. Having a fancypants wedding that cost thousands of dollars is not going to make the marriage any good. In fact, if you don't happen to have those thousands of dollars in excess like Civ's friends did, having a fancypants wedding like that could put way too much strain on the marriage from the beginning, as it amounts to a huge debt that is very hard to deal with as a newlywed couple (or at all).

People spend lots of money on gas-guzzling SUVs. They are important to them. But I'm pretty sure all of us here agree that it's about time we (as a society) stop using gas-guzzling SUVs.

I'm not saying, marriage is like gas-guzzling SUVs, and we should stop having them. I'm just saying, the fact that some people spend a lot of money on weddings is not a good argument for your point. In fact it can even support MY point.

By saying that, marriage is important to people because of the union that is happening. Not the benefits. That's why they spend lots of money on the weddings (or at least try to make them nice with limited funds). They are not going to have a $40,000 wedding so that they can file their taxes together and inherit each others' crap. It's about being together and being recognized as belonging to each other by other people and living a life together and blah blah. It's not about the benefits.

So I assert that people can and will be just fine if the benefits that are currently given only to married couples, were extended to more types of unions.

And granted, not every benefit currently given to married couples is going to pertain to some other types of unions. But then, some marriage benefits don't even pertain to every married couple, anyway - such as ones for veterans, etc.

So. If benefits currently only given to married couples were extended to other types of unions, anyone who wanted to get married would still be just fine. They'd still have their $40,000 weddings, it'd still be important, and all that stuff you guys are saying. Nothing would change about a marriage. No one is saying marriage should die, neither me or Orator. I am just saying that marriage doesn't deserve to be rewarded so hugely, above any other type of union.

[civilian_number_two]

That's what I'm saying as well Spoon. Allow marriage benefits to apply to gay marriage. You can define other eligible unions a case at a time. But right now since the population justifies it and the question is on the table, let's start with the gays.

Noone was seriously suggesting that expensive weddings are necessary for society, or for marriage, or whatever.

[Spoon Poetic]

No but it was put forth that since lots of people have expensive weddings, that proves that marriages should get benefits

[J m HofMarN]

I have to admit I can really see where Civ is coming from with trying to read between the lines. You guys make vague anti-marriage platforms but fail to fill them out with planks, leaving the other side of the debate to add in the actual structure of your argument.

You're not against marriage, you just dont think it should be encouraged or rewarded, or that it's necessary, maybe, but you're definately not against it. Also, pretty much everyone should be able to reap the benefits of marriage, but marriage will still be a viable alternative.

I still assert that people having catering businesses is so not a reason that we should all get married. Come on. I do family/wedding/whatever photography from time to time but I'm not going to argue that people should get married so that I can get paid for my services.

From time to time, yes. If it was your full time job, would you perhaps have different views of the necessity of marriage? Would you perhaps be more inclined to want to encourage marriage with certain exclusive rewards?

As for the marriage benefits are not justified by expensive weddings deal, I'm willing to say that they most certainly are. Weddings spread a lot of money around. Then the money is returned in benefits over time. So it evens out. Do your random brother sister unions appear as though they'll cost as much in expenditures as they'll reap in benefits? If not, the government is giving away free money that will only advantage the two members of the union.

[TheOrator]

Okay, no.

We don't replace marriage with anything. If you need benefits to help raising a child, you present documentation that proves you are the legal guardian of that child. We redistribute the benefits (if indeed they are necessary, which considering the number of children successfully raised without them I feel they may not be--perhaps it should also be based on financial situation of the guarians) to those who can raise children. Any group that can raise a child should be eligible to the benefits intended to help raise children. That way we don't get people who get married but don't have children leaching off those benefits, as well.

JM, if the mom is a crack head, you'd do the same thing you'd do now: remove her legal guardian status. I fail to see the way in which modern, complicated society impedes unenforced monogamy.

Also, if I don't want to get rid of marriage, how is it redundant? That seems like a bit of a non sequitur. And why do you keep bringing up your support of gay marriage? We get it, and no one here disagrees.

[J m HofMarN]

There already are child benefits that don't require marriage. Marriage benefits, both tax and legal, are not the only benefits that exist.

And, ok, lets say that, rather than a crack head, the mom is just a total bitch. I dont want her getting my stuff in the event of my death, I dont want to file my taxes with her, I don't want to have anything to do with her besides this child. Why should the joint benefits then go to both of us as the two legal guardians since we're no longer MARRIED.

And I believe it has been stated quite often that marriage is redundant and unnecessary. That inclines me to think that people are suggesting that it should be abolished.

[Dr Lecter]

So yeah, my money is on Obama winning the election.

[Slade]

The polls mean nothing. we have to wait until election day to see the results. It'll be close, surely.