Man shoots himself in Notre Dame Cathedral over Gay Marriage Law

Originally posted by dadudemon
Marriage becomes a non-legal, unrecognized institution and social contracts would replace the legal aspects of marriage (and this would also allow for more granular control of what really happens in those agreements rather than just a blanket of "marriage" rights that we have, now).

"Real" marriage would be reserved for whatever you wanted but has no meaning other than sentimentality (religious, celebratory, whatever).

Disassociating "marriage" from the legal aspects of the social contracts solves all the problems people have with "gay marriage" while solving all the legal problems the gays have about marriage. Those are hardly "semantic" issues because we have protests for and against gay marriage and my solution solves many of those parties' problems.

While you may consider those issues sementical, those directly involved in the issues do not.

I want to get rid of "Marriage" as a legal contract and have a "new way" which would allow for you to pretty much itemize your agreement and then also extend that to friends, godparents, etc. No reason the married straight people should be able to hog all of those rights.

Then I slyly indicated that that shit already exists and this marriage argument is pretty shit. Just get rid of it and use the other systems already in place.

Originally posted by Newjak
What rights from marriage are you talking about being given friends and such?

1138 of them as defined by DOMA.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-104hr3396enr/pdf/BILLS-104hr3396enr.pdf

Originally posted by dadudemon
1138 of them as defined by DOMA.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-104hr3396enr/pdf/BILLS-104hr3396enr.pdf

And in particular are there any right you feel more strongly about then others?

Originally posted by Newjak
That pdf only stats what DOMA is not what rights it grants people under marriage?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Defense+Against+Marriage+Act 😠 😠 😠

http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples

Originally posted by Newjak
And in particular are there any right you feel more strongly about then others?

I don't want to get into that. I'm sure you could look over the list and determine which ones you liked more than others.

Originally posted by dadudemon
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Defense+Against+Marriage+Act 😠 😠 😠

http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples

I don't want to get into that. I'm sure you could look over the list and determine which ones you liked more than others.

If you have a friend in another country are you saying you should be able to enter a social contract with that friend and they should get a green card because of that?

Edit: I wanted to clarify what I mean. Some of these rights were made with the thought of marriage in mind and not all of them seem suited for everyone in a social contract situation and creates the potential for widespread abuse.

Of course I generally believe most of it is crap anyways. I don't care who gets married to whom as long as they are consenting adults.

Originally posted by Newjak
How does some of that work with friends?

If you have a friend in another country are you saying you should be able to enter a social contract with that friend and they should get a green card because of that?

Why not? Security reasons? Is not the same problem there with marriage laws as they are, now?

What about scrapping those aspects of marriage rights?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why not? Security reasons? Is not the same problem there with marriage laws as they are, now?

What about scrapping those aspects of marriage rights?

Mind you I think immigration laws should be lax than what they are I'm just saying.

The same goes for spouses collecting benefits. If you have a friend collecting benefits from you when does it end how does it end?

Like I said some of these rights come with marriage explicitly in mind.

Of course personally I feel most benefits people get from marriage should be erased anyways but that's just me.

Originally posted by Newjak
Except people have to be at least married for 7 years or the spouse gets deported. How is that going to work with a friend?

Like this: "...people have maintain that social contract for at least 7 years or they get deported."

Originally posted by Newjak
The same goes for spouses collecting benefits. If you have a friend collecting benefits from you when does it end how does it end?

When do benefits end for a spouse collecting benefits?

Originally posted by Newjak
Like I said some of these rights come with marriage explicitly in mind.

Does that automatically exclude the social contracts I am describing, though?

Originally posted by Newjak
Of course personally I feel most benefits people get from marriage should be erased anyways but that's just me.

As do I? 🙂 👆

I didn't think the old Antifa meme would work...

Yes, this is definitely the kind of demonstration by bigots I can get behind.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Like this: "...people have maintain that social contract for at least 7 years or they get deported."

When do benefits end for a spouse collecting benefits?

Does that automatically exclude the social contracts I am describing, though?

As do I? 🙂 👆

So you would have to legally become friends with someone to maintain that social contract?

I'm not quite sure when spousal benefits end but typically I think it's with marriage. So once again does that mean when you and your friend stop being friends is that when it ends? How do you legally determine that, how do you determine how to divide the benefits after friendship has ended?

So yes I do think these types of things exclude the types of social contracts you are talking about. They were made with marriage in mind to give benefits to married people. Not all types of relationships have the same needs built into them. So some of the benefits don't work imo with the types of social contracts you are describing.

And some of the benefits only work because marriage itself is a currently legalized institution. You would have to legalize all forms of social relationships to make your social contracts work and to me that makes things worse instead of better.

Originally posted by Newjak
And what does that social contract mean? That you must remain friends with them for 7 years?

So you would have to legally become friends with someone to maintain that social contract?

Why does "friends" have to be anywhere in that legal paperwork? Why does the notion that the "friendship", which would be independent of the contract for the most part, have to be forced to be maintained for the 7 years? Why could they just not forget about it and everything takes its natural course?

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm not quite sure when spousal benefits end but typically I think it's with marriage. So once again does that mean when you and your friend stop being friends is that when it ends?

What did you stipulate in the legal binding agreement? Is not that question left unanswered in your scenario? Does that not make your question impossible to answer as it is currently posed?

Originally posted by Newjak
How do you legally determine that, how do you determine how to divide the benefits after friendship has ended?

How is a marriage legally determined to end and the benefits divided after the marriage has ended?

Originally posted by Newjak
So yes I do think these types of things exclude the types of social contracts you are talking about.

The opposite is true. They exist already.

Originally posted by Newjak
They were made with marriage in mind to give benefits to married people. Not all types of relationships have the same needs built into them. So some of the benefits don't work imo with the types of social contracts you are describing.

So it would appear you did not see the portion in my posts that discussed just that notion: not all social contracts would have the same exact legal provisions just the same as not all marriages have the same exact legal provisions and those provisions even vary from state to state.

Originally posted by Newjak
And some of the benefits only work because marriage itself is a currently legalized institution.

This is never a good argument to make. "We cannot make a change to law X because, currently, law y works this way."

Originally posted by Newjak
You would have to legalize all forms of social relationships to make your social contracts work and to me that makes things worse instead of better.

There's your problem: provisions like I'm describing already exist and in a myriad of forms. 🙂

You do know that I am not proposing new laws be made but, rather, the abolishment of the legal institution of marriage and forcing people to make agreements within the current confines of government, right (with the exception of anything having to do with foreigners/aliens which includes business accommodations, as well)?

Now that you know that, you opinion changes drastically, no?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why does "friends" have to be anywhere in that legal paperwork? Why does the notion that the "friendship", which would be independent of the contract for the most part, have to be forced to be maintained for the 7 years? Why could they just not forget about it and everything takes its natural course?

What did you stipulate in the legal binding agreement? Is not that question left unanswered in your scenario? Does that not make your question impossible to answer as it is currently posed?

How is a marriage legally determined to end and the benefits divided after the marriage has ended?

The opposite is true. They exist already.

So it would appear you did not see the portion in my posts that discussed just that notion: not all social contracts would have the same exact legal provisions just the same as not all marriages have the same exact legal provisions and those provisions even vary from state to state.

This is never a good argument to make. "We cannot make a change to law X because, currently, law y works this way."

There's your problem: provisions like I'm describing already exist and in a myriad of forms. 🙂

You do know that I am not proposing new laws be made but, rather, the abolishment of the legal institution of marriage and forcing people to make agreements within the current confines of government, right (with the exception of anything having to do with foreigners/aliens which includes business accommodations, as well)?

Now that you know that, you opinion changes drastically, no?

I'm not trying to say we can not change law X because law Y exists. You are right that is a stupid argument. What I'm saying is law X is dependent on Law Y and there are reasons for that.

Without getting stuck up on the word marriage let's look at why marriage rights work. They work because marriage itself is a legalized institution.

It has defined parameters that both state when it begins and can be terminated which is why law x works with them. That in mind there are certain rights like spousal benefits, access to health care, rights to half of the married couple's assets that are designed with the marriage in mind.

Now what you're proposing is to abolish the legalized institution of marriage and have everyone just have access to all the rights of marriage through social contracts.

So in theory friends will be able to enter into a social contract and all of a sudden a friend can in theory have access to half the assets of one of their friends if said friend is willing to enter into that social contract for that particular right.

Will the legal start and termination of said contract be considered on a contract by contract situation? That presents it's own problems. Mostly because there is the chance for a lot of self defined social institutions to be horribly written and allow for abuse. Do you take the time to legally define all types of social contracts that are allowable? Once again has it's own problems.

Of course most social change is pretty much judgement calls. Most marriage rights to me stems from the fact that there is a lot of interdependence among the couples that can leave one person incredibly screwed over and this goes for all marriage including gay marriage.

So to me in most other situations that interdependence doesn't exist naturally it almost has to be forced into other social institutions for those rights to work. So it doesn't make sense to me to give those rights to all long term social interactions.

So your idea can work but not all rights from marriage are as easily transferable and each solution to change that comes with it's own problem and hassles. So it comes down to the idea do I believe these solutions solve more problems than they create? No I don't

Does it solve the main problem being addressed of equality among gays? I don't think it does it well.

I think if we want to do this you either straight up allow gays to get legally married

or you completely destroy legalized marriage and get rid of all the extra rights given by marriage and allow the legal system to handle the legal mess of divorce and splitting up assets on a case by case scenario. An I'm wondering is the that basically what you are trying to say?

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm not trying to say we can not change law X because law Y exists. You are right that is a stupid argument. What I'm saying is law X is dependent on Law Y and there are reasons for that.

They are not dependent upon each other as I have illustrated.

Originally posted by Newjak
Without getting stuck up on the word marriage let's look at why marriage rights work. They work because marriage itself is a legalized institution.

"This is correct because it is correct." That's not a good argument.

Originally posted by Newjak
It has defined parameters that both state when it begins and can be terminated which is why law x works with them. That in mind there are certain rights like spousal benefits, access to health care, rights to half of the married couple's assets that are designed with the marriage in mind.

You're definitely getting hung up on "marriage" because marriage is not necessary for any of that.

Originally posted by Newjak
Now what you're proposing is to abolish the legalized institution of marriage and have everyone just have access to all the rights of marriage through social contracts.

Which already exists which people already do. No problem, there. 🙂

Originally posted by Newjak
So in theory friends will be able to enter into a social contract and all of a sudden a friend can in theory have access to half the assets of one of their friends if said friend is willing to enter into that social contract for that particular right.

1. Which already exists which people already do. No problem, there.
2. If that's what they want to do, they can do it. There are many other possibilities, too. 🙂

Originally posted by Newjak
Will the legal start and termination of said contract be considered on a contract by contract situation? That presents it's own problems. Mostly because there is the chance for a lot of self defined social institutions to be horribly written and allow for abuse. Do you take the time to legally define all types of social contracts that are allowable? Once again has it's own problems.

Yeah, because marriage litigation is a smooth, easy, process, right?

Basically, you're arguing that these contract break-ups would be messy and arduous.

Now let's re-write that previous sentence:

"Basically, you're arguing that these marriage break-ups would be messy and arduous."

Originally posted by Newjak
Of course most social change is pretty much judgement calls. Most marriage rights to me stems from the fact that there is a lot of interdependence among the couples that can leave one person incredibly screwed over and this goes for all marriage including gay marriage.

So to me in most other situations that interdependence doesn't exist naturally it almost has to be forced into other social institutions for those rights to work. So it doesn't make sense to me to give those rights to all long term social interactions.

You're correct: not every social situation, ever, will require the entirety of all contemporary marriage rights. That's why I said this:

"...not all social contracts would have the same exact legal provisions just the same as not all marriages have the same exact legal provisions and those provisions even vary from state to state."

Basically, your argument against my position is a strawman: at no point have I ever argued that every single social contract, ever, will get the same 1138 marriage right provisions. Not even current marriages get all 1138 provisions.

Originally posted by Newjak
So your idea can work but not all rights from marriage are as easily transferable and each solution to change that comes with it's own problem and hassles.

You're wrong: I checked. There is nothing in there about sexual rights to each other. So, yes, all the rights could transfer over in one form or another in a social contract and the content of those rights would depend upon the contract.

Originally posted by Newjak
or you completely destroy legalized marriage and get rid of all the extra rights given by marriage and allow the legal system to handle the legal mess of divorce and splitting up assets on a case by case scenario. An I'm wondering is the that basically what you are trying to say?

I'll say it again: there is nothing special about marriage as all those rights can be drawn up (besides all those related to aliens), now, in a social contract and they already ARE drawn up in legal agreements.

You want this "idea" to no work but too bad: it already exists and people already make these agreements. Marriage is literally archaic and outdated: it is unnecessary to the gay-marriage debate. The problem is marriage itself being recognized as a legal institution.

Seems like that would be way too easy to abuse. "We're socially bound, so give us shared benefits." I think a lot of companies would have to change their health/benefits coverage if this were to become the norm.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Seems like that would be way too easy to abuse. "We're socially bound, so give us shared benefits." I think a lot of companies would have to change their health/benefits coverage if this were to become the norm.

They'd have to have their own specific requirements on what type of contract could be drawn up: their employee would have to meet a certain level for it to "count." On the positive side, you could get non-family members covered that might be living with you. Currently, it is kind of difficult to get that. Mother-in-law come to live with you? Too bad: not covered...unless you divorce your wife and marry your mother-in-law. 😐

I can go to france and get married... Yahoo. Lol