| Marriage revisited (again) |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 04.28.04 (10:38 am) I really like the charity analogy. We all seem to agree that the only reason to get married at all would be to secure governmental benefits, and I think that instead of cow-towing to whatever the government wants, we should be working to actively change policy. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 04.28.04 (12:02 pm) If we argue that it's none of the government's business who can visit me in the hospital or make decisions about my health if I'm incapacitated, then who should decide? If my gay lover wants to visit me in the hospital, and there's no policy about relatives and invited guests only, then should they just allow anybody who wants come in and make decisions? Is it really practical for me to notify every hospital in the country that should I end up there, I want certain things to happen? Or should I have a legal document that expresses my rights? If I do the latter, whether it's part of a civil union, or just a general legally binding agreement, it still leaves the government as the arbiter either way. So either we accept that the government gets involved or we are without a solution. If you have another solution, say what it is. It makes little sense to say that if I'm worried about rights I should take it up with the government, and then argue that the government should not be involved at all. Which is it? A marriage grants me rights and the lack of one denies me rights in this case. This has nothing to do with it being the government's business who visits whom. In fact it's the opposite. It guarantees my privacy unless I agree otherwise. If my spouse has legal authority to visit me and make decisions on my behalf, it's because I, not the government, decided to get married and because I wanted it that way. None of that weakens my marriage. If I could use any other tool to assure those rights, I would use it instead, but nothing would change. And as long as separation and divorce are readily available, any couple that no longer wants the legal part of the marriage can end it relatively quickly. As for linguistics, I agree with all of what you said and I never argued otherwise. posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 04.28.04 (3:25 pm) I, too, like the charity analogy. As a volunteer in my community, I am often confronted with other volunteers who are there for interesting reasons--service learning, community service, resume building. The first two reasons are done out of obligation, and I often find that in general (though I hate to generalize) those volunteers are less concerned with the real cause of the volunteer organization. mblog: You seem to be arguing that the government restricting my rights/liberties in the name of privacy is a good thing. I would rather let anybody who wanted to visit me while I was incapacitated visit me than restrict it only to those with whom I have legal connections. To be extremist for a second, let's consider the case of someone trying to murder someone else. Person a tries to kill person b. Person b ends up in hospital, incapacitated. Under your removal of rights, person a is legally disallowed from visiting person b. Of course, we can assume that you would also consider attempted homicide to be illegal, so obviously legality is not going to stop person a from visiting person b. Let's look at this from another angle. Husband a beats wife b to a bloody pulp one night in a drunken rage. Wife b ends up in the hospital, incapacitated. Under your rights restrictions, friend c of wife b is not allowed to visit wife b, but husband a is. There are some less extreme examples that I could bring up, too, but for right now, I'm tired of typing. :P posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 04.28.04 (3:29 pm) I agree with everything you said, IF, and only IF you remove the emotional connotation of marriage from the picture and look at it only as a legally binding contract. Modern Bride magazine would not sell as many issues as it does if marriage were simply a contract issued by the government. Marriage is an emotional institution that people enter into for a variety of reasons... many of which make little to no sense. However, to reduce marriage to the legal contract that it is in OUR culture is, in essence, commiting the very same sin you mention in regard to linguists and definitions. I read your essay on this subject long before you decided to make it a topic for current discussion, and I felt then as I do now. You make some very valid points, but in general over simplify a complex and emotional institution. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 04.28.04 (4:31 pm) Reply to: mblog I know you're liberal enough to understand the concept of change in policies. That's my suggestion. Regardless of my thoughts on marriage, I don't think the government should be involved. I don't wish to have the government legislate my beliefs that marriage is detrimental to love, nor do I believe the government should be involved as it is currently. Just because policies stand a certain way currently, doesn't mean that that is the best way or that things can't change. If you want privacy, you can draw up legal documents regarding who can or cannot visit you in the hospital, but that shouldn't be something that is forced on you. All I was saying in respect to the issue of legal rights is that I disagree with marriage as a legal institution and think that the government should not be involved. The rights granted through marriage should not exist solely through marriage. If you believe marriage is good based solely on the legal rights granted, that's a governmental issue, and I think that a loving relationship is much better expressed without legal entanglements. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 04.28.04 (4:34 pm) Reply to: jbfs Thanks, those are good examples, even if they are based in the extremes. ;) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 04.28.04 (4:41 pm) Reply to: juniperflux Actually, the legal aspect of marriage is probably the least important to me. The only emotional connotations I can really think of that you are inferring consist of cultural tradition and rites of passage. I don't mean to demean the values of those things (or anything else you mean, maybe you can elaborate), but my view is that love is the most important aspect of the entire issue of marriage. Ensuring that the love is true is more important than having a huge ceremony and getting to wear an outrageously expensive dress for one day. Hmm, okay, maybe I do mean to demean the value of that... The point is, I don't mean to make marriage out to be solely a legally binding contract. I view any sort of commitment to maintain a loving relationship to be absurd, and to only make the love questionable. posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 04.28.04 (4:51 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 Playing devil's advocate here... I find it contradictory to state that love is the most important aspect of a relationship and then go on to state that any kind of formal commitment is strong enough to call that love into question. For some people, the dress, the ceremony, and the 2nd mortgage to pay for it all is just part of celebrating that love. Some people would argue that there are few other things in life that are WORTH celebrating in such an elaborate and formal way as finding someone with whom you feel capable of sharing the rest of your life. Personally, I'm cynical. I think the chances of being able to maintain a lifelong personal partnership of that nature ~ legal or otherwise ~ is just unrealistic in a modern world. However, should someone find that kind of love, while personally, I think the big dress, the flowers, the cake and the honeymoon to Bermuda are all superfluous and inpractical, I do not think that they are somehow capable of bankrupting the love between those two people. ok... fire away. :) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 04.28.04 (5:03 pm) Reply to: juniperflux Marriage, the ceremony or otherwise, doesn't necessarily ruin the love in a relationship. But, the best way to ensure that the love is true is not to place unnecessary commitments and obligations on the relationship. The couple has to be free to make the choice to be together in order for it to be true- marriage detracts from that. And I'm not saying symbolic rituals to express love are bad, just that the typical marriage ceremony is, as you said, superfluous. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 04.28.04 (5:06 pm) Reply to: mblog "It makes little sense to say that if I'm worried about rights I should take it up with the government, and then argue that the government should not be involved at all. " You should be taking up the issue that you have to have a government mandated contract to allow someone to visit you on your deathbed! The private solutions to this are obvious. posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 04.28.04 (5:19 pm) hey... you used to be my muse... but lately, you've been suspiciously absent from my blog. It's because I used to be catholic, huh? posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 04.28.04 (5:21 pm) Reply to: juniperflux Lol, noooo! I've been absent from my own blog, as well. I'll go visit you now, though. ;) posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 04.28.04 (5:24 pm) Well... don't commit to it now... lest it lessen the strength of our relationship. ;-) posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 04.28.04 (5:27 pm) Actually, I may make fun, and play the devil's advocate (not very well, however).. but the truth is, I'm in almost complete agreement about marriage. I'm pretty much of the "why fix what's not broken" mindset when it comes to that. I've not ruled it out completely, but I find the whole thing, as I said earlier, superfluous. I like your blog though because it sparks a lot of intelligent conversation. Good stuff. Keep it up. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 04.28.04 (6:56 pm) Reply to: juniperflux Haha, well the difference between me committing to go visit your blog then and me saying, for example, that I'll always love visiting your blog, is that I actually knew that I was going to go visit your blog, but I can't logically guarantee that I'll always love it. That's what you get for making a joke. ;) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 04.28.04 (6:57 pm) Reply to: juniperflux Hmm, whether marriage is or isn't broken could probably make an interesting debate. :) Maybe you'll be my muse now... posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 04.29.04 (12:57 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 You say that you don't wish for the government to be involved and you do not want them legislating your beliefs. Yet you don't seem to realize for some reason that they are not legislating your beliefs. Getting married is entirely optional and nobody in the government is making you get married or believe anything. If you don't believe in marriage, you simply don't have to do it. Furthermore, you can still live with somebody, have a sexual relationship, have children, and the government will no longer stop you whether you are married or not. So essentially what you are saying is that you don't think I should have the right to enter into a certain type of contract voluntarily, and you haven't made it clear to me why I should not have that right. Again, the government is not legislating your belief that marriage is detrimental to love. The law takes no position on love with respect to marriage, except maybe in immigration law but that's another area. If you are saying that there should be a right outside of marriage to get all these protections and benefits but it should not be marriage, then how would it differ? Being married does not force me to live with anybody or have sexual relations or even like the person. It affords me certain rights and nothing else. If you are not against the rights, and nobody is forcing it on anybody, then what are you against? posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 04.29.04 (1:01 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 First of all, I'd like to ask you not to respond to this. It's a rare step, but I think you'll see why I'm saying it. I can't see a reason to ask the government to do anything when there is a perfectly acceptable solution for me in place already. If you feel that the alternatives are obvious, I must be missing the obvious then. However, since they are so obvious, everybody reading this should be able to post and let me know what the solutions are. Indeed if you did post to tell me, it would undermine your argument since there would clearly be no need if it were so obvious. posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 04.29.04 (3:19 pm) Reply to: mblog easy enough. create a cryptographically secure list of all people you would like to specifically allow or disallow to visit you. You encrypt it with your private key and make available to the public your public key. Or any less secure variation thereof. (e.g. keep a list of all the people in your wallet or on your PDA or wherever. Tattoo it on your body if you choose.) posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 04.29.04 (5:45 pm) Reply to: jbfs That would work. And it's so much easier than marriage. It's also something that everybody will rush out and do, just as we all have our wills written, signed and witnessed just in case the need arises. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 04.29.04 (6:48 pm) Reply to: mblog "You say that you don't wish for the government to be involved and you do not want them legislating your beliefs. Yet you don't seem to realize for some reason that they are not legislating your beliefs." No, actually, that isn't what I meant at all. I was saying that I wouldn't want my views on marriage legislated, just as I don't think that the current legislation on marriage should exist. My opinion is that the government should not be involved in private matters, such as marriage/relationships. "So essentially what you are saying is that you don't think I should have the right to enter into a certain type of contract voluntarily, and you haven't made it clear to me why I should not have that right." I'd think you'd know me better than that by now, mblog. ;) I absolutely don't think you should be prevented from entering into any sort of union. If you want to secure certain rights by obtaining some sort of contract, that's fine. What I'm saying is that the rights you seek through legally marrying a person should not be exclusive to marriage. "If you are not against the rights, and nobody is forcing it on anybody, then what are you against?" I thought I had explained that several times, but let me try again. I'm not against anyone else choosing to enter into a committed union, legally, religiously, or otherwise. I am certainly not against anyone receiving rights of any sort. What I am against is the idea of marriage itself. The principle of vowing to stay together forever (or at all) goes against the notion of true love. By making the relationship a commitment, it denies the freedom that is required to allow the love to be true. I am against any attempts to force love, and I believe that marriage does just that. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 04.30.04 (8:13 am) Reply to: DragonBait22 I was just going by what you were saying. Now I have to try to figure out what you really meant. If you are not against the idea of me being allowed to enter into such a contract, then you are not against marriage per se. You think that the government should allow it as it exists for those who want it. But you also say that those rights should not be tied to marriage. That's the part that's not clear to me. I agree that the current system is discriminatory. It allows any couple to get those rights, whether it be out of love or pragmatism, except in cases of homosexuals, parent/child, and sibling relationships. If I decided I wanted to live with my sister in a platonic relationship, have tax advantages because of it, have her get custody of my children automatically (assuming she could adopt them too), etc., and have no intention of having children with her or even a sexual relationship, it's not an option. Nor is it an option for homosexuals. I agree that such contracts should not be discriminatory, but if we solve that problem, what's the remaining one? Also, would you be against the idea of a couple with a platonic friendship getting married solely for the benefits even if they never claimed to be in love? If we stopped calling it a marriage and the state merely called it a partner legal benefit package, would you be satisfied? If not, why not? What if it were non-discriminatory? Considering that a marriage license contains no vows at all, much less one to stay together forever, I don't see your point. It's relatively easy to dissolve. If a couple keeps its finances separate and has no children, it's easy to dissolve quickly. The only obstacle is that it takes time to do so, but there is no obligation for the couple to live together in the interim. There are a few catches, though. When a couple separates and is not divorced, they cannot enter into another sexual relationship in some states. It's called adultery. I'm against adultery. But I don't think it's the state's business, especially when a couple has separated. Furthermore, if an unmarried man or woman is allowed to have multiple concurrent sex partners, I don't think the government should regulate this activity among married people. That won't affect me personally since I'm against the idea of adultery, but I would like to see that fixed in a fair system. What it boils down to is that you think marriage somehow tries to force love, and I don't see it that way. You haven't made any effective argument to show that it does. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 04.30.04 (4:00 pm) Reply to: mblog Well, fair enough, I wasn't really expecting to convince many people. My basic view is that a relationship is best when it is based on true love, and love cannot be made into an obligation without losing a certain element of truth to it. And if marriage is only about legal rights to you, we're not talking about the same thing. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 04.30.04 (5:38 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 Actually, I see the state portion of it that way, but I see religious and cultural ceremonies differently. I don't think that the government should be involved in those other aspects of marriage even to the extent that it is now. I think that a person getting married should be able to have the ceremony performed by a notary public, or any member of the general public when witnessed by a notary or a judge. So there's still room to debate a Catholic wedding that is theoretically for life or a Jewish wedding that can be dissolved only by a Jewish court, or any other religious or civil ceremony. Keep in mind that with any of those, the marriage is legally over independently of anything that the religious community or family might say, but couples may feel married if the marriage is not annulled per their beliefs. |
|