...and here's the slippery slope (1 Viewer)

[maxiep]

Why do you care if it's called "marriage" or "civil union" ?

You expect government to associate all the attributes of "marriage" to "civil union" as if it were actually possible. It's not.

So you end up with separate but equal. it's not really equal after all.

How is it not equal? Please explain. I'm getting discrimination out of the system. You're encouraging it.

 

[Denny Crane]

How is it not equal? Please explain. I'm getting discrimination out of the system. You're encouraging it.

Why do you care what it's called?

If it's marriage, gay couples just show up at city hall and get married. The laws are all settled. One gets sick, the other can make medical decisions. They get a divorce, it's 50-50 in California. etc.

If it's not marriage, the government has to visit every settled bit of law again.

The only discrimination in the system is that certain groups of two people aren't allowed to marry.

 

[maxiep]

Why do you care what it's called?

If it's marriage, gay couples just show up at city hall and get married. The laws are all settled. One gets sick, the other can make medical decisions. They get a divorce, it's 50-50 in California. etc.

If it's not marriage, the government has to visit every settled bit of law again.

The only discrimination in the system is that certain groups of two people aren't allowed to marry.

So, you can't answer my simple question. kthx.

What it is called matters a great deal, especially to those people of faith. Everyone should be entitled to a civil union. Marriage should be limited to religious/non-governmental institutions. But you keep on pushing government into every corner of our lives. You're quite the Libertarian.

 

[Denny Crane]

I answered your question.

I don't give a shit what matters to people of faith. They have their churches. Their churches can refuse to marry people if they choose. Good luck to them.

 

[maxiep]

I answered your question.

I don't give a shit what matters to people of faith. They have their churches. Their churches can refuse to marry people if they choose. Good luck to them.

You didn't. You tacked on other points.

People of faith are citizens, too. The church of the Liberal is the government. People like you pray at its altar. We both agree that churches can refuse to marry people. The problem is, right now your church--the government--can refuse to marry people as well. We should all be equal in the eyes of the government, regardless of sexual preference. People care about being joined in the eyes of the government for things like survivor benefits, tax breaks, etc. Religious people care about being joined in the eyes of their faith for spiritual reasons. They're different things, and they should be identified as such.

The battle over what does and doesn't constitute a marriage is being fought because of the conflation of the spiritual and legal. Separate the two. Get the government out of the discrimination business.

The larger issue that I've seen in this thread that concerns me is that people ask the opposite question than they should. The question shouldn't be, "Why shouldn't government be involved?", but rather "Why SHOULD government be involved?". People so easily hand over their freedoms so they don't have to carry their own responsibility. It boggles my mind that you would want government involved in anything it doesn't need to be. But, of course, you're the Libertarian.

 

[Denny Crane]

If it's marriage, gay couples just show up at city hall and get married. The laws are all settled. One gets sick, the other can make medical decisions. They get a divorce, it's 50-50 in California. etc.

If it's not marriage, the government has to visit every settled bit of law again.

People of faith can go fuck themselves if they want to reach out and ruin someone else's happiness from far away.

Government should be involved for all the reasons discussed ad nauseum. We are a nation of laws, no?

 

[maxiep]

People of faith can go fuck themselves if they want to reach out and ruin someone else's happiness from far away.

Government should be involved for all the reasons discussed ad nauseum. We are a nation of laws, no?

How is letting everyone share the legal benefits of marriage through civil unions "reach[ing] out and ruin[ing] someone else's happiness from far away."?

Marriage wasn't developed as a legal arrangement; it was created as a spiritual covenant. For those that wish the legal benefits/responsibilities of marriage, they can have civil unions. If they wish to have a spiritual bond as well, they can get married if they find a faith to marry them.

It's separating the unnatural conflation of the legal with the spiritual. People fight over the definition of marriage because it violates their beliefs. So remove it from the discussion by separating marriage and the government by having only civil unions. Let their religious institutions define marriage. People may gather around the definition they choose. If you don't mind gay marriage, be an Episcopalian. If you want to embrace polyandry, find a religion that celebrates it. If you believe it should exist in its traditional definition, be a Catholic or a Baptist.

I side with personal responsibility, non-discrimination and religious liberty. I'm surprised you--as a Libertarian--aren't with me. You've often mocked me for my non-Libertarian beliefs on citizenship, foreign policy and drug use. I'll remember this thread the next time you try to give me a Libertarian purity test.

 

[Denny Crane]

If people want to call their union a marriage, it's their pursuit of happiness. No religion should dictate what the government does. Separation of church and state. Violates the 1st amendment. It's vile, too.

You haven't given a single good reason to invent something new, try to make it exactly like something that exists, while treating a class of people differently than we treat others.

The 1st allows the churches to refuse to marry whoever they want. They can pound sand.

EDIT: your claim that marriage is some religious thing is just not right. Not factual.

 

[magnifier661]

I believe in personal responsibility. If you get married to someone, you need to first try to work things out with that person. You both have that responsibility. You're using government as your mommy over how to cut the PB&J in half. It's time we had the expectation that adults will act like adults. Couples act like children because we enable them to do so.

As I said before, an arbitrator can read depositions, so your concern about witnesses go out the window. You can supply proof to an arbitrator. The biggest difference is that an arbitrator allows you to solve your problems privately, in the court of common sense, rather than publicly in a court of law, which can be twisted on technicalities.

And you can rest easy. I never plan on becoming an arbitrator. Besides, you would always have the option of not hiring me. Of course, I'm pretty bored and am considering getting my law degree on a lark. One day, you may end up with me on the bench, and you wouldn't have a choice. I would be assigned to you. Which would you rather choose? I choose freedom.

If you know law; any deposition can be stricken because its here say. If you cannot cross examine a witness; then that testimony cannot be used. This is why you need actual witnesses.

Freedom isn't if you are in or not in a court of law. In fact true freedom is the right to hear your case in a court of law.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Freedom isn't if you are in or not in a court of law. In fact true freedom is the right to hear your case in a court of law.

True freedom is the right to choose whether or not your case is heard in a court of law.

 

[maxiep]

If people want to call their union a marriage, it's their pursuit of happiness. No religion should dictate what the government does. Separation of church and state. Violates the 1st amendment. It's vile, too.

You haven't given a single good reason to invent something new, try to make it exactly like something that exists, while treating a class of people differently than we treat others.

The 1st allows the churches to refuse to marry whoever they want. They can pound sand.

EDIT: your claim that marriage is some religious thing is just not right. Not factual.

Sigh. We are clearly talking past one another. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[maxiep]

If you know law; any deposition can be stricken because its here say. If you cannot cross examine a witness; then that testimony cannot be used. This is why you need actual witnesses.

Freedom isn't if you are in or not in a court of law. In fact true freedom is the right to hear your case in a court of law.

Again, why are you immediately turning the volume to 11? The vast majority of divorces are mutual and reasonably amicable. Most people put kids first and come to a mutually satisfactory agreement. The courts are always there for extreme circumstances, but they shouldn't be the first resort. They should be the absolute last resort.

 

[magnifier661]

Again, why are you immediately turning the volume to 11? The vast majority of divorces are mutual and reasonably amicable. Most people put kids first and come to a mutually satisfactory agreement. The courts are always there for extreme circumstances, but they shouldn't be the first resort. They should be the absolute last resort.

That is utter horse shit. And you know if you are amicable; you can just use paralegals to make the legal separation. We have a choice with both. I actually knew a couple that was amicable and used a paralegal to separate them. Also, it only cost them $800.

So if you want this perfect world scenario, it's already here. You don't even need a arbitrator.

 

[maxiep]

That is utter horse shit. And you know if you are amicable; you can just use paralegals to make the legal separation. We have a choice with both. I actually knew a couple that was amicable and used a paralegal to separate them. Also, it only cost them $800.

So if you want this perfect world scenario, it's already here. You don't even need a arbitrator.

You're correct that you may not even need an arbitrator. My point is if you can't agree, why do you need to clog up the time of a public court for a private matter? Get the government out. It also requires an adjustment of behavioral expectations. There should be a greater burden on the parties to reach a settlement rather than the default "let's go to court".

Like Denny, you and I are talking past one another.

 

[magnifier661]

You're correct that you may not even need an arbitrator. My point is if you can't agree, why do you need to clog up the time of a public court for a private matter? Get the government out. It also requires an adjustment of behavioral expectations. There should be a greater burden on the parties to reach a settlement rather than the default "let's go to court".

Like Denny, you and I are talking past one another.

But I just explained the process to you earlier. Before you can even see a judge; you are ordered to take a cooperative parenting class and go through arbitration. They are trying, even promoting couples to work things out outside the courtroom.

The court system is there when they can't be amicable. And most the time people can't be amicable. Shit you can read in this forum and see how different and passionate people are. I rarely seen many in here stay amicable and we really don't even know each other well.

 

[maxiep]

But I just explained the process to you earlier. Before you can even see a judge; you are ordered to take a cooperative parenting class and go through arbitration. They are trying, even promoting couples to work things out outside the courtroom.

The court system is there when they can't be amicable. And most the time people can't be amicable. Shit you can read in this forum and see how different and passionate people are. I rarely seen many in here stay amicable and we really don't even know each other well.

My guess is that's California law. I assure you it is not the law elsewhere. Again, don't look at the existing structure. Think of an optimal one, focusing on personal responsibility. Right now, people are incentivized to hire prick lawyers, dig up dirt and trash the other spouse. Let's align incentives to come up with private solutions.

I can only speak to my experience, but there have only been two friends of mine (out of a few dozen divorces) where it hasn't been amicable. And the vast majority of those divorces were among high net worth individuals where there were real assets to divide. In those two cases, one guy had a child out of wedlock with another woman and didn't want to pay his wife a penny. The other is being run by the husband's parents who have always hated the wife. If he had his choice (and he would if he had some balls), he would have been divorced two years ago.

Also, comparing these forums where we have no face-to-face communication to a marital relationship is apples and oranges. I can be obstinate here, but if my wife and I were ever to divorce, I know for a fact we would work it out amicably. Primarily because we would put our children first. Secondly, because I wouldn't do anything to my wife to cause her to become vindictive. Thirdly, because I didn't marry the kind of person that would behave in such a fashion.

 

[magnifier661]

My guess is that's California law. I assure you it is not the law elsewhere. Again, don't look at the existing structure. Think of an optimal one, focusing on personal responsibility. Right now, people are incentivized to hire prick lawyers, dig up dirt and trash the other spouse. Let's align incentives to come up with private solutions.

I can only speak to my experience, but there have only been two friends of mine (out of a few dozen divorces) where it hasn't been amicable. And the vast majority of those divorces were among high net worth individuals where there were real assets to divide. In those two cases, one guy had a child out of wedlock with another woman and didn't want to pay his wife a penny. The other is being run by the husband's parents who have always hated the wife. If he had his choice (and he would if he had some balls), he would have been divorced two years ago.

Also, comparing these forums where we have no face-to-face communication to a marital relationship is apples and oranges. I can be obstinate here, but if my wife and I were ever to divorce, I know for a fact we would work it out amicably. Primarily because we would put our children first. Secondly, because I wouldn't do anything to my wife to cause her to become vindictive. Thirdly, because I didn't marry the kind of person that would behave in such a fashion.

You can't base what you think you would do, or what has been done by a couple people. Statistics show that most aren't amicable. It would be a total cluster fuck.

And every state works in this way. There is always a cooperative parenting class and mediation before you see the judge. Also, every state can go through a divorce with a paralegal.

 

[maxiep]

You can't base what you think you would do, or what has been done by a couple people. Statistics show that most aren't amicable. It would be a total cluster fuck.

And every state works in this way. There is always a cooperative parenting class and mediation before you see the judge. Also, every state can go through a divorce with a paralegal.

What statistics do you have to show that the vast majority of divorces aren't amicable?

Again, the larger issue is personal responsibility. Don't marry someone you think is batshit crazy. Don't have kids until you're ready. Get a prenup. Rise above petty differences. Spend the time and the energy to work out your problems on your own before you lawyer up. In sum, be responsible for your own life and actions. Don't go running to mommy government.

Like I said, we're talking past one another.

 

[Denny Crane]

Maxiep

Your religious friends think we should ban drinking, adopt Jesus as our savior, teach creationism in school, etc.

Fuck em.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Maxiep

Your religious friends think we should ban drinking, adopt Jesus as our savior, teach creationism in school, etc.

Fuck em.

Hey Denny,

Please move this to the "Straw Man" thread

 

[maxiep]

Maxiep

Your religious friends think we should ban drinking, adopt Jesus as our savior, teach creationism in school, etc.

Fuck em.

Many also think that only one man and one woman can join. I disagree and it doesn't belong in the public sphere, yet there it sits anyway. If you want to get married and have it recognized in all 50 states, you have to be a man and a woman. It's discriminatory. I say get those moral judgments out of government and treat everyone equally. You can then go out and get your civil union affirmed through the covenant of marriage by the religion of your choice. Just like drinking is legal, but if you don't drink you can join a church where imbibing alcohol is frowned upon. I don't say "fuck 'em" and shove it down their throats. I say if you have those beliefs, you may seek an organization that affirms them.

 

[Denny Crane]

Hey Denny,

Please move this to the "Straw Man" thread

It's not a strawman. I argue they get their panties in a bunch over other things and we don't cave to their wishes.

 

[magnifier661]

What statistics do you have to show that the vast majority of divorces aren't amicable?

Again, the larger issue is personal responsibility. Don't marry someone you think is batshit crazy. Don't have kids until you're ready. Get a prenup. Rise above petty differences. Spend the time and the energy to work out your problems on your own before you lawyer up. In sum, be responsible for your own life and actions. Don't go running to mommy government.

Like I said, we're talking past one another.

Here is one article.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-07-25-friendly-divorces_N.htm

And it talks about all the amicable outs that don't require your arbitration method, because there are already arbitration in place "mediation"

Most divorce cases still are handled in the traditional way, with lawyers on each side trying to get the best deal for their client, often through nasty disagreements over custody, child support, property settlements and finances. Divorcing couples typically aren't feeling friendly toward each other anyway, and contentious experiences in court can make those feelings even worse.

 

[Denny Crane]

Many also think that only one man and one woman can join. I disagree and it doesn't belong in the public sphere, yet there it sits anyway. If you want to get married and have it recognized in all 50 states, you have to be a man and a woman. It's discriminatory. I say get those moral judgments out of government and treat everyone equally. You can then go out and get your civil union affirmed through the covenant of marriage by the religion of your choice. Just like drinking is legal, but if you don't drink you can join a church where imbibing alcohol is frowned upon. I don't say "fuck 'em" and shove it down their throats. I say if you have those beliefs, you may seek an organization that affirms them.

There's the strawman. I don't suggest you shove anything down their throats. They don't have to show up for the ceremony or search the public marriage records.

If they're unhappy about what people do that have ZERO reasoned effect on them, then boo fucking hoo.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

It's not a strawman. I argue they get their panties in a bunch over other things and we don't cave to their wishes.

small percentage

far fewer that those muslims that think they should strap on a bomb and claim their 72 virgins

 

[Denny Crane]

small percentage

far fewer that those muslims that think they should strap on a bomb and claim their 72 virgins

You sure? Show me the facts.

 

[maxiep]

Here is one article.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-07-25-friendly-divorces_N.htm

And it talks about all the amicable outs that don't require your arbitration method, because there are already arbitration in place "mediation"

Here's the key quote from that article: "No one keeps statistics on the number of mediated and collaborative divorces." So, there are no statistics.

Again, divorce is a lose-lose game. A common tactic when one is losing a negotiation, one changes the rules of the game. So why not change the rules of the game of divorce? Both sides are guaranteed to lose. You don't need government involved.

For example, I negotiated a prenup with my wife before we were married. It included clauses for bad acts on either of our parts with financial penalties attached. It included guidelines how we would raise any children we had in the event of a divorce. In other words, we changed the rules of the game: we negotiated when we were in love, rather than when we both hated each other. It comes down to personal responsibility. We have a responsibility to our families, our child, our friends, our co-workers, etc. to handle our personal business behind closed doors. We don't need lawyers or a judge to decide these issues. We're responsible for our own lives.

 

[maxiep]

There's the strawman. I don't suggest you shove anything down their throats. They don't have to show up for the ceremony or search the public marriage records.

If they're unhappy about what people do that have ZERO reasoned effect on them, then boo fucking hoo.

Sigh. You do realize that it does have an effect on them, don't you? If it's called marriage for those people, if it is given the same religious covenant as those people who may disagree with gay marriage or polyandry, they feel their own unions are diminished. That objection is why our government--which is not allowed to discriminate--discriminate against people who love one another simply because they don't fit into a one man, one woman structure.

I find it personally offensive that when I was single I could get drunk in Vegas and wake up married, but my gay friends who had been together for years don't have the same right. Civil unions for all solves that problem.

Split the legal from the spiritual.

 

[magnifier661]

It's absolutely easy to tell Howard go to trial because its public record. I think they mean, the ugly to the normal ones.

And anyway, you keep talking about amicable and I'm showing you over and over and over again that option is already available. I still don't know what you are trying to argue

 

[Denny Crane]

Sigh. You do realize that it does have an effect on them, don't you? If it's called marriage for those people, if it is given the same religious covenant as those people who may disagree with gay marriage or polyandry, they feel their own unions are diminished. That objection is why our government--which is not allowed to discriminate--discriminate against people who love one another simply because they don't fit into a one man, one woman structure.

I find it personally offensive that when I was single I could get drunk in Vegas and wake up married, but my gay friends who had been together for years don't have the same right. Civil unions for all solves that problem.

Split the legal from the spiritual.

it has no effect on them, other than the control freaks aren't controlling who they want to.

Let the church call their bullshit marriages something else if they care so much.