If you're not paranoid yet...

I'll try and make this very simple and clear, since I see you have a Ph.D...

The employer, like the rest of society, has decided that marriage is beneficial to society as a whole. They have chosen (they are not compelled) to support that aspect of society by offering additional benefits to support the family (otherwise known as the marital unit). You are free to enter into marriage, or not, with whosoever you choose, based on those marriages that society legally recognizes. You are also free to argue in favor of newer, non-traditional forms of marriage. However, that is what you must present -- a reasonable argument. There are many religions, many types of civil marriage, many states that offer different terms of marriage, etc., and you are free to choose among any of those. If you would like to add one that is not listed, such as gay marriages, then it is incumbent upon you (as one presenting such an argument) to convince the rest of society that society, as a whole, benefits from recognition of these new forms of marriage.

Lacking that, you seem to want to say that you can simply call whatever you want to as a marriage, but that (fortunately for those of us without a PhD) is simply not the way the world works. In exchange for granting you the 'privileges' of being part of a 'marriage', you will also have additional 'responsibilities' that you need to take on. That is the compact that the individual has made with his civilization for all the past generations. You, on the other hand, would simply like to do as you will, without the approval of the society that grants such accords. You only 'get to decide who that is in any way that seems right to me' if you enter into a lawful marriage, not any other form of relationship.

David Erbas-White

While I agree that a sheep isn't human (, though I've known plenty of 'sheeple'), your point regarding minors is a bit problematic.

Why? Because throughout history, the line determining child/adult has been different. Sometimes it's based on chronological age, sometimes it's based on reaching certain specific accomplishments, sometimes it's based on physical maturity. Our society has decided that 18 is the age of adulthood. However, many socities (and indeed many states, at least when I was younger--don't know about now) would allow underage kids to get married if they had parental permission. Therefore, this isn't a solid line in the way that 'species' is. Further, there is historical/sociological precedent for 'children' (defined today as under

The point is that society has, today, drawn that line. It's in a specific place. You are free to argue that that place should be moved, but you aren't free to ignore the fact that the line exists. The logical extension of not defining a distinction is anarchy. The logic extension of defining such a distinction is the preservation of civilization. Which is the more correct position?

I also find it odd that you're sitting here arguing that a 'minor isn't an adult'. You state that because there is a defined distinction (albeit a 'societally' defined distinction). Well, I hate to break it to you, but society has also defined 'marriage'. It is defined as the union of one heterosexual man and one heterosexual woman.

You see? Not too hard, was it?

David Erbas-White

The employer, like the rest of society, has decided that marriage is beneficial to society as a whole. They have chosen (they are not compelled) to support that aspect of society by offering additional benefits to support the family (otherwise known as the marital unit).

Ah, bull. Employers offer assorted benefits to spouses/children/etc because it's a competitive advantage in acquiring the employees they want.

The "support the family" argument went out back when it stopped being a regular practice to give you a raise when you got married or had a kid, which was quite some time ago, as far as I can tell. I'm pretty sure none of MY employers has done it during my working years...

BillW

GFL

How do you suppose those employers compete in San Francisco, CA or Venice, CA where a larger fraction of employees are committed gay and lesbian couples?

Jerry

One of the risks of debating with you is you have firm lines of right and wrong that are in positions non-intuitive with others or inconsistent with actual societal practice as it stands now.

So when you have a precondition that you are "hinging" your statements on, perhaps you should state it.

After all I took my own advise by posting 55.141-a-8 ad nauseum. It seemed like a given to me but so many acted like it did not even exist. I restated it often. It is STILL being ignored by the two leading consumer rocket associations in the United States of America despite the fact they BOTH advocate it in a lawsuit against a federal agency with no jurisdiction over us.

Jerry

Is this true in KLA? I do not or never have visited anywhere were one in any 10 people were gay! This is a figure the gay community gives out to give themselves more weight. The reality is more like 1-2%.

Dennis

At least. They gravitate here :)

Name one in CA or Federal.

Jerry

Not possible, Jerry, and you know it.

CA law was changed from this when Reagan was Governor to no-fault divorce. PRIOR to that, the protection from adultery was that it was grounds for divorce (as a civil matter).

Federal law (to this point) has nothing to do with marriages, thus doesn't provide similar protections. But those states which do not currently have no-fault divorce, are providing a legal, civil remedy for adultery.

David Erbas-White

That is essentialy true. For essentialy the cost of a filing fee, a man and a woman (hetro or not) receive a free smorgasboard of leagal services and protections that would cost a "gay couple" many thousands of dollars to secure with the aid of a lawyer.

Well, even that wouldn't work, since you can't use your employers insurance to cover adult children. You can't even use it to cover disabled immediate family members that actually live with you. Like a parent or sibling.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Why? What would "society" lose by viewing same-sex partnerships as legitimate?

(And how would this degrade the "preservation" of marriage? Legitimizing gay relationships wouldn't interfere with heteros marrying each other if they wanted to, would it?)

All the arguments I've seen so far come down to asserting "societal interest" or "societal tradition" as soem sort of first cause, as if "society" had some sort of rights independent of the individuals that compose it.

What do I lose (as a member of "society") if my neighbor marries (or establishes a relationship with) a partner of the same sex?

-dave w

Logic and reason are not allowed on rmr. Go away.

Jerry

Hey, at least nfpa-1127 doesn't have force of law...

-dave w

It loses the value of procreation, for one. It puts an unnatural union on the same legal footing as a natural, desirable one, thereby cheapening legitimate marriage.

See above.

By society, I mean the set of common values agreed upon in law and shared by a group.

See first reply about the devaluing marriage as a whole.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

You're winding up a pendulum, Dave.

Ever taken Econ 101? Do you understand the concept of finite resources?

OK, let's start from there. Here is the basic premise from which society has created marriage:

"Society will be better off by promoting marriage in order to ensure the nurturing of the family, thus providing society's future citizenry."

That, in essence, is the REASON that marriage exists.

Now, society has a finite amount of resources that it can expend in order to promote/encourage this behavior. Therefore, it will try to define marriage in such a way that is simple, yet most fully defines/describes this behavior. If the definition of marriage is expanded to encompass those who DON'T fall under the rationale/reasons that marriage exists, then those resources become diluted. Then, the pendulum will swing in the opposite direction, as those attempting to raise the children of subsequent generations will say "We're expending all this effort, and getting nothing back for it. In fact, it's so detrimental that we're going to stop doing it!"

Given the fact that resources are finite, and given the fact that society as it stands has (since time immemorial) decreed that marriage is the foundation for nurturing a family, then those resources, of necessity, should be expended on those who are married. If you change the 'definition' of marriage, and disperse those resources more thinly, then you will have to find other ways of rewarding those who carry on the task that society asks. So, there will be a new word for those unions of heterosexual men and women who join together to raise a family. And they will receive some new reward from society for doing that, and then others who don't participate will scream 'discrimination', ad infinitum.

David Erbas-White

The problem is WHO THE HELL ARE YOU to say what is the right and or wrong way to raise a child.

that is up to each individual parent or guardian. NOT YOU.

Chris Taylor