Marriage. Is it [I]really[/I] necessary?

Originally posted by Nichole
I don't see marriage as being necessary, really.When a man and a woman get married, they are entitled to more benefits than single people/couples. Isn't this discriminating against single people, and those couples who chose not to marry? Only being entitled to certain legal rights when you marry sounds a little unfair to those who eithor chose not to be married, or who are unable to be married because their Government forbids them.

Just thought I'd raise the point-any thoughts?

I don't see your point. The only people who are forbidden to get married are mentally unable to understand the responsibilities that go with marriage - mentally handicapped and the like.

Everyone else, everyone, has a choice. It is just up to the individual to decide if it's for them and then find someone to marry.

Also, there are no "legal rights" that go along with marriage. There are incentives that the government offers to encourage people to have families, but no rights.

There is simply no discrimination involved in civil marriage.

Originally posted by docb77
I don't see your point. The only people who are forbidden to get married are mentally unable to understand the responsibilities that go with marriage - mentally handicapped and the like.

Everyone else, everyone, has a choice. It is just up to the individual to decide if it's for them and then find someone to marry.

Also, there are no "legal rights" that go along with marriage. There are incentives that the government offers to encourage people to have families, but no rights.

There is simply no discrimination involved in civil marriage.

what? Not everybody has a choice.. Can gays and lesbians marry? No. that sounds like discrimination to me...
and marriage does give you more benefits and is more accepted in this culture.. often times couples who have children are discriminated against if they're not married.

Originally posted by mysticpeach
what? Not everybody has a choice.. Can gays and lesbians marry? No. that sounds like discrimination to me...
and marriage does give you more benefits and is more accepted in this culture.. often times couples who have children are discriminated against if they're not married.

Can gays and lesbians marry? Of course they can, they just don't want to, they want to stick with people of their own gender instead.

Does marriage give more benefits? Yes. Are those benefits rights? No. Rights is not synonymous with benefits. It isn't discrimination, it's incentive to have traditional families.

Hmm...

Well my parents have been married for twenty-three years and have endured their share of problems like all couples do, but overall they have been very happy unlike most marriages today.

I think it stems from the fact that my parents are Christians and take marriage vows as the law of God almost.

Originally posted by docb77
Can gays and lesbians marry? Of course they can, they just don't want to, they want to stick with people of their own gender instead.

Does marriage give more benefits? Yes. Are those benefits rights? No. Rights is not synonymous with benefits. It isn't discrimination, it's incentive to have traditional families.

actually what i meant was can people marry people of their same gender if they are gay or lesbian.. or bi... they cant at the moment, and that is discrimination..
having those benefits is a right, that should be given to gay and lesbian couples who chose to get married.. and to couples that do not chose to get married IMO.

maybe a lot of people don't want to have a "traditional family", and that is their choice. But they shouldn't be punished for not fitting into that stereotype..

Originally posted by mysticpeach
actually what i meant was can people marry people of their same gender if they are gay or lesbian.. or bi... they cant at the moment, and that is discrimination..
having those benefits is a right, that should be given to gay and lesbian couples who chose to get married.. and to couples that do not chose to get married IMO.

maybe a lot of people don't want to have a "traditional family", and that is their choice. But they shouldn't be punished for not fitting into that stereotype..

See, thing is, they aren't being punished. Those who have traditional families are being rewarded. Now you could make the argument that the govt. shouldn't be rewarding them, but there is no discrimination. A set of requirements that anyone can fulfill is set out. Some people don't want to fulfill those requirements, it isn't discrimination when they don't get the benefits of fulfilling those requirements.

There is no punishement. Only a reward for doing something considered beneficial to society. Giving people who chose not to comply with the requirements for those benefits the same benefits as those who do negates the reward aspect. They aren't "rights", they are rewards. maybe the govt. shouldn't be in the rewards business, that's another discussion... come to think about it, this whole post is another discussion, should be in another thread.

Answer: NO

Originally posted by docb77
See, thing is, they aren't being punished. Those who have traditional families are being rewarded. Now you could make the argument that the govt. shouldn't be rewarding them, but there is no discrimination. A set of requirements that anyone can fulfill is set out. Some people don't want to fulfill those requirements, it isn't discrimination when they don't get the benefits of fulfilling those requirements.

There is no punishement. Only a reward for doing something considered beneficial to society. Giving people who chose not to comply with the requirements for those benefits the same benefits as those who do negates the reward aspect. They aren't "rights", they are rewards. maybe the govt. shouldn't be in the rewards business, that's another discussion... come to think about it, this whole post is another discussion, should be in another thread.

Yep, the people who are in heterosexual relationships are being rewarded... and those who are in homosexual relashionships are being punished... and that IS discrimination and completely unfair. Its just like saying people of certain races cant marry each other...
Benefits are only "rewards"?? Yea right.. so lets just "reward" people who only comply with the old "traditional" idea of marriage.. thats real fair.. That will cause more problems in society then letting people be themselves by marrying who they chose. Same goes for people who dont want to get married and fit into the steriotype... I think everybody should have equal rights, even if they dont fit into YOUR idea of what a marriage should be like.

Originally posted by mysticpeach
Benefits are only "rewards"??

I see benefits as being something the Government give you when you marry someone they approve of-ie: Of the opposite sex. If married couple are entitled to these benefits, what about gay couples, and those who chose to remain single?

NO

Originally posted by debbiejo
NO

You seem to have a fasination for this word...

Originally posted by docb77
See, thing is, they aren't being punished. Those who have traditional families are being rewarded. Now you could make the argument that the govt. shouldn't be rewarding them, but there is no discrimination. A set of requirements that anyone can fulfill is set out. Some people don't want to fulfill those requirements, it isn't discrimination when they don't get the benefits of fulfilling those requirements.

Well, I wouldn't say the government shouldn't be rewarding them, but I would ask for justifications of why a "traditional family" model should be rewarded ahead of traditional, and equally valid family models. And discrimination comes in all sorts of packages. It is easy to say "well, they aren't actually being punished, just prevented for as long as they don't wish to subscribe to certain rules laid out hundreds of years ago" but todays society is neither easy or simply.

There is no punishement. Only a reward for doing something considered beneficial to society. Giving people who chose not to comply with the requirements for those benefits the same benefits as those who do negates the reward aspect. They aren't "rights", they are rewards. maybe the govt. shouldn't be in the rewards business, that's another discussion... come to think about it, this whole post is another discussion, should be in another thread.

Once again - "beneficial to society" is very debatable. And since many of the "benefits" given to a "traditional family" are often protection against certain things, I would imagine that it would be equally sensible to give similar rewards to gay families. One case comes to mind, about five or so years ago a gay man dies - now he had been with his partner for close to twenty years. However, due to confusion in the law at the time, his partner did not have the same legal rights in relation to property as a married, or even defacto couple. Now, the family of the dead man, who had fallen out with him some years before, were able to launch a partially successful case against the partner in terms of executing the will and access to the deceased assets. Now, this seems very unfair - obviously the reward in this case would have been if the gay many had a wife, or a defacto women, there would have been no legal avenue to strip them of their rights in regards to the deceased assets. Yet, a gay man who has been in a relationship for an equally long time does not receive this legal "reward."

Which is one of the problems. If the "rewards"were symbolic, or something, then it would be easier to accept, however when they extend into protection from the law, and economic considerations they suddenly become far more serious. And when they are kept from a group fro no good reason, this is a concern. I say it would be fare more sensible to either give access to the rewards to all, or none. Not give to some based upon potentially out of date concepts defined by religious influences.

Originally posted by Nichole
You seem to have a fasination for this word...

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well, I wouldn't say the government shouldn't be rewarding them, but I would ask for justifications of why a "traditional family" model should be rewarded ahead of traditional, and equally valid family models. And discrimination comes in all sorts of packages. It is easy to say "well, they aren't actually being punished, just prevented for as long as they don't wish to subscribe to certain rules laid out hundreds of years ago" but todays society is neither easy or simply.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Once again - "beneficial to society" is very debatable. And since many of the "benefits" given to a "traditional family" are often protection against certain things, I would imagine that it would be equally sensible to give similar rewards to gay families. One case comes to mind, about five or so years ago a gay man dies - now he had been with his partner for close to twenty years. However, due to confusion in the law at the time, his partner did not have the same legal rights in relation to property as a married, or even defacto couple. Now, the family of the dead man, who had fallen out with him some years before, were able to launch a partially successful case against the partner in terms of executing the will and access to the deceased assets. Now, this seems very unfair - obviously the reward in this case would have been if the gay many had a wife, or a defacto women, there would have been no legal avenue to strip them of their rights in regards to the deceased assets. Yet, a gay man who has been in a relationship for an equally long time does not receive this legal "reward."

Which is one of the problems. If the "rewards"were symbolic, or something, then it would be easier to accept, however when they extend into protection from the law, and economic considerations they suddenly become far more serious. And when they are kept from a group fro no good reason, this is a concern. I say it would be fare more sensible to either give access to the rewards to all, or none. Not give to some based upon potentially out of date concepts defined by religious influences.

Actually the benefits are not debatable, society is. Traditional marriage benefits a traditional society, giving the protections they recieve to other "family models" would benefit other kinds of society. While a majority of the populace wants the traditional kind, they have the power to incentivize it. If the minority that want's the other kind of society someday become a majority, then they will have the power to do it their way.

As for your anecdote, if the will were airtight, the family wouldn't have been able to get a dime, so the fault would seem to lie with the dead guy or his lawyer.

Symbolic rewards mean nothing as far as incentives go. In order for an incentive to be effective, it has to have requirements. If everyone got the same benefits, there would be no incentive. You're side of the arguement keeps saying that there is no good reason to withhold these incentives from pseudo-families, the truth is you just refuse to see the reasons as valid.

-edit-

oops, double post.

Answer: Nada

to me yes it is.
it is a symbol of lasting commitment no matter what.
today many don't take that as it was ment to be taken and should never get married.
it is as simple as that.

Originally posted by docb77
The traditional family is rewarded because it is universally recognized as a family. Other "family models" are not traditional, and they are far from being universally recognized as a family.

Yet tradition is not enough to stop advancement in law. The world is changing, and I would say other family models are equally recognisable as a family unit. Case in point being the defacto couple - not married at all, but with equivalent "benefits" to a married couple. Likewise, the remarried, the mixed and so on. New family models that have been assimilated and recognised by the law. There is no reason why gay families should be left behind.

Actually the benefits are not debatable, society is. Traditional marriage benefits a traditional society, giving the protections they recieve to other "family models" would benefit other kinds of society. While a majority of the populace wants the traditional kind, they have the power to incentivize it. If the minority that want's the other kind of society someday become a majority, then they will have the power to do it their way.

How do you know that the majority of the population wishes to keep "traditional" families as the only legally recognised form? To my knowledge there has yet to be a referendum on the matter, and no major political party has one simply on promising gay marriage. So far politicians have made the decision. Meanwhile in nations where it is legal there has been no problem at all, no great out cry from the majority of the populous. And once again - how does a traditional family offer tangible benefits to a society? What makes them such better contributors then a nontraditional family unit?

As for your anecdote, if the will were airtight, the family wouldn't have been able to get a dime, so the fault would seem to lie with the dead guy or his lawyer.

20 years of a relationship at the time, due to uncertainties in the legal system, and links to what happens to a deceased estate mean that for gay people their rights are far from protected. They could have been airtight and had the best lawyer in the world, but due to nature of laws a case could be made, and as a result was. There was no reason why the two in question should not be granted the same legal protections as a married couple. Not a one, other then some conceptual idea of "incentive" and promoting "traditional" family units.

Symbolic rewards mean nothing as far as incentives go. In order for an incentive to be effective, it has to have requirements. If everyone got the same benefits, there would be no incentive. You're side of the arguement keeps saying that there is no good reason to withhold these incentives from pseudo-families, the truth is you just refuse to see the reasons as valid.

Incentives? Incentives? So we have governments trying to convince people to be in certain types of relationships by withholding legal protections and benefits of those that don't toe the line? And you think that is perfectly all right? I imagine, theoretically you would agree with a government putting a tax on all but a single religion... as an incentive for conversion to the untaxed religion?

And I would use the word debatable with the claim of "pseudo-families" -what makes them such a thing, and so much less real then a traditional family?