While reading arguments against same sex marriage...

[CLAX1911]

So we are fundamentally changing the social instrument and should take that opportunity to rethink it from scratch. Why force people into one fits all contracts?

We wouldn't be fundamentally changing anything.

 

[joG]

We wouldn't be fundamentally changing anything.

Didn't you say that the old term "matrimony" no longer fits what you think should be matrimony?

 

[CLAX1911]

Didn't you say that the old term "matrimony" no longer fits what you think should be matrimony?

No I said the Latin root word doesn't really dictate themodern English word.

Matrimony in modern English has always ment being joined in marriage.

 

[Quag]

You're an ideologue. Ideologues believe in a set of ideas and doctrines, but not facts. A good example of an ideology would be global warming is caused by man. No facts, just beliefs.

That would be your stance.

What you're saying is judges, with their desire to yet misguided way to achieve equality in all unions, have decreed marriage should be for every American. But that's not equality - that's not the definition of equality. Equality is when different groups (and SSM couples and hetro couple are different groups) have the same rights. Surely you aren't saying all African-Americans, in order to achieve equality, should be called Caucasian? No, you (and state judges) want to impose your brand of 'equality', of ideological justice. Of retribution. And retribution has nothing to do with equality.

Not saying any of the things you think I'm saying. So you can take your strawmen and go home

 

[Quag]

The essence is whether matrimony is about what mothers do and whether that needs state protection. Even then it is not so convincing that we want the government to force a one contract fits all on the population. But if it no longer is about an essential function of society? Well, then there is no justification for force conformity.

You are not forced to get married if you want to have a religious/civil/spiritual/whatever ceremony then sign some contracts you are free to do so. NO ONE is forcing you to get legally married.

 

[Quag]

So we are fundamentally changing the social instrument and should take that opportunity to rethink it from scratch. Why force people into one fits all contracts?

Allowing SSM is not fundaemtally chaging marriage. No one who is now married will be affected in any way. No heterosexual couple who will get married will have their marraige affected in any way let alone in a fundamental way. The only thing that will happen is that same sex couples will be allowed to marry.

 

[maquiscat]

So we are fundamentally changing the social instrument and should take that opportunity to rethink it from scratch. Why force people into one fits all contracts?

Do you have a link to any kind of actual marriage contract that is imposed upon a couple by any government level within the US?

 

[joG]

Allowing SSM is not fundaemtally chaging marriage. No one who is now married will be affected in any way. No heterosexual couple who will get married will have their marraige affected in any way let alone in a fundamental way. The only thing that will happen is that same sex couples will be allowed to marry.

Same Sex Matrimony is fundamentally changing, what the name implies as the roots of the thing. We are saying it is no longer matrimony and only a pairing off of this guy and that for their own reasons. So the one fits all contract no longer makes any sense at all. Or why force someone who wants to marry into a straight-jacket like mold? Be modern and don't just pretend.

 

[joG]

Do you have a link to any kind of actual marriage contract that is imposed upon a couple by any government level within the US?

The problem with the matrimonial contract by the state is how complex it is and how widely dispersed the regulation is. I am told (there is a link somewhere in the thread or in a similar thread that I looked at and that verifies this) there are a couple of thousand laws and regulations governing it to optimize, what it used to be.

 

[Koros]

Same Sex Matrimony is fundamentally changing, what the name implies as the roots of the thing. We are saying it is no longer matrimony and only a pairing off of this guy and that for their own reasons. So the one fits all contract no longer makes any sense at all. Or why force someone who wants to marry into a straight-jacket like mold? Be modern and don't just pretend.

What is this "fundamental change" that happens by allowing same-sex marriage? The only change, and I don't see any reason that it could possibly be labled as a "fundamental change" is that the state's are no longer going to have the right to know what is in your pants before you get a marriage license.

The absolute obsession that the Right has with people's genitals (what they do with them, with whom, and when) is mind-boggling.

 

[joG]

What is this "fundamental change" that happens by allowing same-sex marriage? The only change, and I don't see any reason that it could possibly be labled as a "fundamental change" is that the state's are no longer going to have the right to know what is in your pants before you get a marriage license.

The absolute obsession that the Right has with people's genitals (what they do with them, with whom, and when) is mind-boggling.

The word "matrimony" describes why this ancient instrument of social engineering is with us and so fundamental to our culture. If we remove that as a theoretical requirement on the silly argument that not all women can become mothers, we are changing the institution fundamentally. No doubt about it in any normal mind.

 

[Quag]

Same Sex Matrimony is fundamentally changing, what the name implies as the roots of the thing. We are saying it is no longer matrimony and only a pairing off of this guy and that for their own reasons. So the one fits all contract no longer makes any sense at all. Or why force someone who wants to marry into a straight-jacket like mold? Be modern and don't just pretend.

Changing a name (which isnt being changed despite your claims) is not a fundemantal change. Again no ones marriage will be affected by SSM.
I asked you before why do you want to deny marriage to those who want to get married. If you personally dont like the implications of legal marriage then dont get legally married. No one is forcing a straight jacket on you.

 

[Koros]

The word "matrimony" describes why this ancient instrument of social engineering is with us and so fundamental to our culture. If we remove that as a theoretical requirement on the silly argument that not all women can become mothers, we are changing the institution fundamentally. No doubt about it in any normal mind.

All of that just boils down to appeal to tradition and your personal opinion.

Words change their social meaning. Get over it. The mere fact that you speak modern English proves that you have no problems accepting the fact that words do not have iron-clad meanings, and that any definition of any word is subject to societal and cultural acceptance. Our society and culture have been more and more accepting of the words "marriage" and "matrimony" no longer meaning "opposite-sex couples only."

Sorry, but this is one argument you have absolutely no chance of ever winning. You do realize that, right?

 

[joG]

Changing a name (which isnt being changed despite your claims) is not a fundemantal change. Again no ones marriage will be affected by SSM.
I asked you before why do you want to deny marriage to those who want to get married. If you personally dont like the implications of legal marriage then dont get legally married. No one is forcing a straight jacket on you.

Nobody said that the word was changing, nor that changing the name would be a fundamental change of the underlying instrument. At least read, what people write before criticizing it.

 

[Quag]

Nobody said that the word was changing, nor that changing the name would be a fundamental change of the underlying instrument. At least read, what people write before criticizing it.

You seem to be hung up on the word matrimony not me. If no present or future marriage is modified by allowing SSM then there is no fundamental change. All you are doing is allowing more poeple to partake in marriage.

You continue to ignore my questions of why you want to deny people who want to be legally married the right to do so. If YOU do not want to be legally married dont get legally married.

 

[joG]

All of that just boils down to appeal to tradition and your personal opinion.

Words change their social meaning. Get over it. The mere fact that you speak modern English proves that you have no problems accepting the fact that words do not have iron-clad meanings, and that any definition of any word is subject to societal and cultural acceptance. Our society and culture have been more and more accepting of the words "marriage" and "matrimony" no longer meaning "opposite-sex couples only."

Sorry, but this is one argument you have absolutely no chance of ever winning. You do realize that, right?

I do not expect to "win this argument". All I did was to point out that we are changing the basic character, or should I rather say completing such change with ssm, that anybody that knows anything about language, culture or sociology will see this, if they are not overwhelmed by their personal interests and that it would make sense take the opportunity to rethink the instrument. That people are little interested in thinking or open to change is always the case. But I would have hopped that at least those that seem to think of themselves as cutting edge were not so limited and prudish of change.

 

[joG]

You seem to be hung up on the word matrimony not me. If no present or future marriage is modified by allowing SSM then there is no fundamental change. All you are doing is allowing more poeple to partake in marriage.

You continue to ignore my questions of why you want to deny people who want to be legally married the right to do so. If YOU do not want to be legally married dont get legally married.

Not at all. I just think that it expresses the utility, law and culture of the social instrument we are talking about changing. That some boys will not like the idea of entering matrimony is very probable and may be the other reason it is not used by activists.

 

[Koros]

I do not expect to "win this argument". All I did was to point out that we are changing the basic character, or should I rather say completing such change with ssm, that anybody that knows anything about language, culture or sociology will see this, if they are not overwhelmed by their personal interests and that it would make sense take the opportunity to rethink the instrument. That people are little interested in thinking or open to change is always the case. But I would have hopped that at least those that seem to think of themselves as cutting edge were not so limited and prudish of change.

So, you've now added "Appeal to Popular Opinion" to "Appeal to Tradition."

This whole, "anyone who knows anything will see this" is a useless argument, relying on the unproven assertion that YOUR way is the ONLY way.

Sorry, but you haven't proven that whatsoever.

 

[joG]

So, you've now added "Appeal to Popular Opinion" to "Appeal to Tradition."

This whole, "anyone who knows anything will see this" is a useless argument, relying on the unproven assertion that YOUR way is the ONLY way.

Sorry, but you haven't proven that whatsoever.

Look. I cannot help that you don't want to think about matrimony, how it developed as an instrument and to what purpose, why it evolved, why it is called what it is, the culture surrounding it..... But, if you did, it would harm your stance. So you you act like it was normal to demand someone teach you sociology from scratch or must be dumb.
But that is not the way around it goes.

 

[roguenuke]

That is the way I remembered it. And the questions do make sense. You see, the two individuals do the same thing and one of them makes more money. This is fine, of course, if you have no skin in the paying machine. If you are the one paying, it does make a difference.

The reason that there is extra benefit for those who have dependents (not just those who are married) is because of a couple of things. First, many jobs recognize married people need more in benefits, such as providing health care for families rather than just individual worker or housing for families (if that is a benefit of work, which it is even for some civilian jobs), and the military has to be competitive. Second, the Army did a study in the 90s that found that married soldiers were more stable, more responsible, and less likely to get into trouble or even get hurt than single sailors. This makes the cost of a married sailor worth the extra little bit, especially since from WW's example, neither of those two E-1s would likely be seeing any of their money for housing. Almost all commands have rules that force married E-1s through E-4s (at least) to live in military housing if at all possible. This means that all their BAH goes directly to housing. And the new rules require those living in housing to pay some of their electric bill, which means that the married E-1 would automatically have at least one extra utility bill, unlike the single E-1 living in barracks or (in certain areas) onbase single housing, that are like apartments, where he/she will not pay any utilities.

The studies show that they really don't do the same things all the time though. There is a marked difference in the performance levels of married soldiers compared to single soldiers because the married soldiers have someone else they are responsible for besides themselves. It may not always show through that way, but even in the civilian world, that is part of life. And the military is actually considering equalizing single and married BAH.

 

[roguenuke]

So we are fundamentally changing the social instrument and should take that opportunity to rethink it from scratch. Why force people into one fits all contracts?

Because those contracts work for most people, and when they don't work, the people either find a way to make them work (using other legal documents) or they don't enter into them. You get "one fits all" contracts in all parts of the legal world.

 

[joG]

The reason that there is extra benefit for those who have dependents (not just those who are married) is because of a couple of things. First, many jobs recognize married people need more in benefits, such as providing health care for families rather than just individual worker or housing for families (if that is a benefit of work, which it is even for some civilian jobs), and the military has to be competitive. Second, the Army did a study in the 90s that found that married soldiers were more stable, more responsible, and less likely to get into trouble or even get hurt than single sailors. This makes the cost of a married sailor worth the extra little bit, especially since from WW's example, neither of those two E-1s would likely be seeing any of their money for housing. Almost all commands have rules that force married E-1s through E-4s (at least) to live in military housing if at all possible. This means that all their BAH goes directly to housing. And the new rules require those living in housing to pay some of their electric bill, which means that the married E-1 would automatically have at least one extra utility bill, unlike the single E-1 living in barracks or (in certain areas) onbase single housing, that are like apartments, where he/she will not pay any utilities.

The studies show that they really don't do the same things all the time though. There is a marked difference in the performance levels of married soldiers compared to single soldiers because the married soldiers have someone else they are responsible for besides themselves. It may not always show through that way, but even in the civilian world, that is part of life. And the military is actually considering equalizing single and married BAH.

Oh, I know the reasoning and if GM gives more to couples than to singles and the singles stay? Well that is between GM and its owners. As an owner, I would want to see that it made business sense in every case of such payments. Same job, same wage, as the activists are want to say about women.

 

[joG]

Because those contracts work for most people, and when they don't work, the people either find a way to make them work (using other legal documents) or they don't enter into them. You get "one fits all" contracts in all parts of the legal world.

And you think that means that you need one here? Why? That does not sound convincing.

 

[Koros]

Look. I cannot help that you don't want to think about matrimony, how it developed as an instrument and to what purpose, why it evolved, why it is called what it is, the culture surrounding it..... But, if you did, it would harm your stance. So you you act like it was normal to demand someone teach you sociology from scratch or must be dumb.
But that is not the way around it goes.

Actually, it most certainly "the way around it goes." You made the positive assertion that the history of matrimony is such that allowing same-sex couples the right to marry would fundamentally alter the very "insitition." So, the onus is on you to prove that.

 

[Quag]

Not at all. I just think that it expresses the utility, law and culture of the social instrument we are talking about changing. That some boys will not like the idea of entering matrimony is very probable and may be the other reason it is not used by activists.

You continue to ignore my questions of why you want to deny people who want to be legally married the right to do so. If YOU do not want to be legally married dont get legally married.