[Mulderator]

Originally posted by twotugs:
Just for the record, I do support the idea that same-sex unions ought to be afforded the same legal benefits as traditional marriages. And I respect the opinion of those who don't agree with me.

Ok, suppose that a minority of Canadians wanted you to pay an extra tax so that your convicted felons could get cable TV and you did not agree with it. What would your reaction be if your government passed the law despite the fact a majority did not support it?

Same here--if a majority of Americans do not support same sex marriages, they should not be forced to bear the extra societal cost of it. And the cost would be very significant. If most Americans supported it, then fine, we all live by the majority wishes. Right now, it does not have popular support and my point is I should not be forced to pay for the wishes and desires of a minority who wish to create a legal quagmire.

People can protect themselves in their relationships legally now, so let them do it. This is another example of people thinking the government ought to be sticking their nose in where it does not belong. Same sex partners don't need the government to create benefits for them--they can enter into contracts with each other to protect their economic interests. Remember what they are fighting for governmental protections and benefits, not the right to be married. They can get married now, it just wouldn't be legally recognized and there is no reason it needs to be, is my point.

[pyritechips]

Mr Mulder:

I was about to echo Candy's question.

I appreciate your "legal" viewpoint, but I must ask: exactly are the "problems" that will arise? I fully expect challenges and protests and even lawsuits but I also expect these oppositions to be rather empty of logic and rather full of emotion. In other words, ther will be a costly and time-consuming battle merely because some people "don't like it".

And as plschwartz quotes: "The protections provided traditional marriage partners evolved to protect the family unit, primarily because of children, and they come at quite a societal cost." This is a canard. How many so-called "normal" man-wife couples misfunction, with how many children the victims of abuse or neglect? Are we prejudging a same sex couple on their ability to raise children and be good parents? That leads down a dangerous path. The argument that man-woman marriages should be exclusive to preserve the "sanctity" of the family and assure the proper raising of our children is negated by the facts. I would fully support your point of view if it worked.

[pyritechips]

Oops! Sorry Mr Mulder but another case of leap-frogging posts. Please don't take my post out of sequence; it actually belongs above your three.

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by pyritechips:
Mr Mulder:

I was about to echo Candy's question.

I appreciate your "legal" viewpoint, but I must ask: exactly are the "problems" that will arise? I fully expect challenges and protests and even lawsuits but I also expect these oppositions to be rather empty of logic and rather full of emotion. In other words, ther will be a costly and time-consuming battle merely because some people "don't like it".

Did you see my post on this to Candy? About the quagmire of legal issues that would arise because the laws are written with all sorts of presumptions and tests and so forth that would apply in a heterosexual marriage but not in a same-sex marriage.

And as plschwartz quotes: "The protections provided traditional marriage partners evolved to protect the family unit, primarily because of children, and they come at quite a societal cost." This is a canard. How many so-called "normal" man-wife couples misfunction, with how many children the victims of abuse or neglect? Are we prejudging a same sex couple on their ability to raise children and be good parents? That leads down a dangerous path. The argument that man-woman marriages should be exclusive to preserve the "scantity" of the family and assure the proper raising of our children is negated by the facts. I would fully support your point of view if it worked. [/B]

Here is my point and GBrumb who has done family law I'm sure will echo my sentiments. If you look at the battles that go on after divorces the vast majority of these involve children. Most couples without children (with the exception of the extremely wealthy) who get divorced have very little difficulty splitting up their assets and never deal with each other again. That was my point that the law evolved around protecting the children in a marriage more than anything else.

Now of course there is the argument that these same issues can arise with homosexual couples, but that leapfrogs another issue and that is whether its a good idea to allow children to be adopted by same sex partners. Let's assume we say adoption is fine. The number of same sex partners with children would necessarily be far less than married couples with children because they can't have children. And most would choose not to adopt just like now there are very few adoptions to same sex partners.

Point is, you are opening up a large legal quagmire and significant cost for very little societal benefit. The cost far outwieghs the benefit to society. You don't have to force the proverbial square peg into the round hole. In other words, apply the laws to protect the rights of adopted children in same-sex unions that apply to married people and children. But there is no need to make all the other societal benefits and rights and obligations applicable to same sex partners.

[plschwartz]

As I am thinking about it, perhaps we do need a two-tiered legal system: one for any recorded relationship without children; the other for relationships with children
We are still in an developing post-pill, post electricity society. Before most women would have children, and would have spent her major effort caring for family. Since men usually predecease woman, the inheritence laws seem to have been design to protect these woman.

Without children, the need to protect women in a marriage seems much lessened, and without more merit TO SOCIETY then partners in a homosexual marriage.

[pyritechips]

Mr Mulder:

I do understand your point and thanks for the leagal angle. But in reference to: "Point is, you are opening up a large legal quagmire and significant cost for very little societal benefit. The cost far outwieghs the benefit to society."

The city in which I live are replacing their buses with "kneeling" buses to accommidate wheelchair users. The cost is in the millions. I used the busses extensively yet never saw a single wheelchair on them. Guess what? Most wheelchair users can get subsidised to have "Handi-bus" service, which are small, van-like buses that operate similar to taxis. Again we run into social "cost sffectiveness". Apparently 10% of humans are homosexual. I will hazard a guess and say that far less than that amount will bond into a long time relationship. I fail to see where the burden will be.

Most couples without children (with the exception of the extremely wealthy) who get divorced have very little difficulty splitting up their assets and never deal with each other again. That was my point that the law evolved around protecting the children in a marriage more than anything else.

Well, if the vast majority of same sex couples never have any children then if they split up there won't be any costly, messy and painful separations for the children. We can then leave all the nasty, expensive, disruptive custody battles to the traditionally married husband and wife couples.

[Sooky 47]

Same sex marriages were made legal in Ontario ......... why?
Toronto is doing anything it can think of to draw people into the city since their tourism inductry has declined so badly because of Sars. They aren't thinking just Ontario ..... no, Canada ......... oh, then The world will be rushing into Toronto ........ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

to tie the Knot ..........

[Mariusz]

i voted #2, im a conservative after all.....

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by pyritechips:
Mr Mulder:

I do understand your point and thanks for the leagal angle. But in reference to: "Point is, you are opening up a large legal quagmire and significant cost for very little societal benefit. The cost far outwieghs the benefit to society."

The city in which I live are replacing their buses with "kneeling" buses to accommidate wheelchair users. The cost is in the millions. I used the busses extensively yet never saw a single wheelchair on them. Guess what? Most wheelchair users can get subsidised to have "Handi-bus" service, which are small, van-like buses that operate similar to taxis. Again we run into social "cost sffectiveness".

Totally different analysis. Most of us agree that providing access to those that are disabled is a good thing for society. In other words, you'd be hard pressed to find a person who thinks those in wheelchairs don't deserve special accomodations. If the majority of our society was willing to support same sex marriages, then I wouldn't be objecting. My problem is the few telling the many what we should be forced to pay for.

Apparently 10% of humans are homosexual. I will hazard a guess and say that far less than that amount will bond into a long time relationship. I fail to see where the burden will be.

Then why do we need legally recognized marriages at all? If only a very few will do it, then what's the point? Why impose the will of the few on the will of the majority? Remember the point of the institution of marriage in the first place was protection of the family unit. What societal benefit does the majority get in return for the burden of allowing same sex marriages? (And there is a cost associated with--that much is not reasonably disputable--see my next response)

Well, if the vast majority of same sex couples never have any children then if they split up there won't be any costly, messy and painful separations for the children. We can then leave all the nasty, expensive, disruptive custody battles to the traditionally married husband and wife couples.

That's just one aspect. What about employment benefits? Many companies are already (just in case) putting policies in effect of excluding benefits to same sex marriage partners. You think there may be some litigation and cost involved with that?

Trust me--we are just scratching the surface of all the legal issues that would arise over this.

Bottom line is I see no benefit to society. The Majority doesn't want it. Let them get married and enter into a contract to split up their assets in the case of death or "divorce" (not technically divovorce 'cause they are not married.

[~Candy~]

Originally posted by Mulder:
Ask one of our "formerly married" members who have gone through a bitter divorce what kind of problems were created when they decided to divorce.

You are

Originally posted by Mulder:
As for same sex marriages, a myriad of other problems would come up that don't currently exist because many of the laws and statutes on the book were written for heterosexual marriages. They cannot easily be applied to same sex marriages, so you would have an immediate problem of a lot of extra litigation in a same-sex breakup that would not occur in a heterosexual breakup. Trust me--the legal issue that would arise would be complex and very costly.

And again, I ask, what myriad of other problems?

[GoneForNow]

Interesting topic.

If you read this thread from beginning to the end (so far) and think about the responses you quickly realize that every facet of the human social condition has been put forth. We have had the religious(and moral) position, the legal position, historical position and the political position (I'd say that hits just about everything that makes up a society wouldn't you say). Each one shapes the opinions held by "our" society. Problem is that societal norms evolve/change/mature. Think of the mini-skirt in Queen Victoria's era or even the discussion of homosexuality in mixed company during that era. You would have been the a social outcast.

The question really is whether we as a society have come to a place in which same sex marriages are not viewed as violating societal norms. The answer is clearly no.

PC......I will disagree with you on two things. The idea that the acts between two consenting adults has no effect on you (you in the editorial "you") is, in my opinion, not correct. Any behavior that causes conflict among a large portion of the population is actually harmful. I'm using "conflict" in the broad sense. IMO, the act between homosexuals, in and of itself, is detrimental to society as a whole. Do I think that's right of society? That is a different question.
Second disagreement. The percentage of homosexuals in the world is hotly contested. Your assertion of 10% would draw howls of being incorrect.

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by plschwartz:
As I am thinking about it, perhaps we do need a two-tiered legal system: one for any recorded relationship without children; the other for relationships with children
We are still in an developing post-pill, post electricity society. Before most women would have children, and would have spent her major effort caring for family. Since men usually predecease woman, the inheritence laws seem to have been design to protect these woman.

Without children, the need to protect women in a marriage seems much lessened, and without more merit TO SOCIETY then partners in a homosexual marriage.

Well, but again, you are now talking about a hell of a lot of work and effort to accomodate changing the system. This is not as easy as you think. You just don't sit down and write some laws in a code book and that's the end of it. Point is there is already more than enough complexity to deal with the problems created by traditional marriages. If you start changing things by adding same sex marriages, it just gets more complicated and costly.

Here's another point. Do we stop at two people? The whole reason for marriage of only two people was the fidelity between man and wife and that has its origins in religion. Why should it be limited to two people? If my wife, moonmist, and myself want to have a loving three-way relationship, then why can't we have the benefits of a three-way marriage? Why should society be able to impose its morality on me and say I can't have two wives? How is that any different than society saying two men or two women can't get married?

[GoneForNow]

Originally posted by Mulder:
Totally different analysis. Most of us agree that providing access to those that are disabled is a good thing for society. In other words, you'd be hard pressed to find a person who thinks those in wheelchairs don't deserve special accomodations.

A quick aside..........Mulder I knew it, you are a closet liberal.
I don't think people in wheelchairs deserve special accommodations when its my tax dollars that are paying for it. Lets take one small aspect of these accomodations....retro fitting of government buildings at the local, state and federal level (I won't even get into what the increased costs are for new construction). Billions and billions of dollars have been spent and many more will be spent. That money would have been better spent on things like HeadStart programs, adult remedial reading courses and the like. The ADA is a fiscal fiasco which is sucking government money for the very very few at the expense of those many more who could use it. Don't believe me, ask Rep.



(Joking about the closet liberal )

[plschwartz]

Mulder:
Be very careful of what you ask for! If I am any judgment of character Moonmist would have you playing French housemaid in a trice. Of course they might like each other better than you and you would be the odd man out so to speak

The prophet said some where that he did not know why anyone would want more than one, perhaps because one is more then most men can handle
If you must have more then one he continues,don't have two, because they will gang up on you.

Then he goes on: do not have three because they will take sides and you will have no peace.
So he concludes, have four

Actually in Hong Kong til the 1950s and also in old china a man was allowed to have two wives. I believe that was shown in the "last Emperor"

Are you worried that it would be some hard to change the laws, or it would be so hard for current lawyers to learn the new stuff

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by AcaCandy:
You are






And again, I ask, what myriad of other problems?

Well I can't list for you every statute and case on every issue that has ever been litigated, but I gave you a good example in a previous post. Many companies would (and alreayd are) simply excluding same sex marriages as being recognized as eligible for benefits. What do you think is going to happen when same sex spouses start dying and don't get a life insurance payment? Start getting sick and don't get insurance coverage? You think their may be some litigation over that?

If insurance did cover the same sex couple, many insurance companies would probably exclude Aids from their policies for same sex marriages because the incidence of it in that relationship is so much higher than in a heterosexual relationships. In fact, it almost impossible for a man to get aids from a woman.

What about custody battles between same sex partners, one of whom is the biological parent and the other who is not? That's never been litigated in the context of a marriage because its never been an issue, but it will!!

Trust me--there are many other areas of the law that would be uniquely impacted one marriage becomes legal.