dairygirl4u2c Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 There are two friends who live together. They are both the same gender and straight. They decide to live a life of abstinence and decide never to marry anyone. They recognize that by not being married to someone, they are receiving less benefits as their married counterparts. They think a major social purpose for marriage is that it promotes efficiency in life's needs and a unit of support for people. They realize that they have these qualities. They consider whether marriage is used to promote having, but realize that many people who are old or infertile or impotent also are allowed to marry. They realize that all the purposes that could be recognized for marriage they themselves espouse. They petition their legislature for for a "civil union" to recieve similar benefits as the married folk. Would it be immoral for the legilature to allow that? What if they petitioned the supreme court for the equal benefits clause, would it be immoral for the legislature to allow that? (focus more on the legislature question as that's more definite and the court question is too flimsy; none of us are lawyers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 All they need is a good lawyer to draw up documents naming each other in various legal capacities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted November 3, 2006 Author Share Posted November 3, 2006 (edited) I'm not sure how that addresses my hypo. I guess I don't know what you're implying or what that means. Or if all the benefits that would go to the married folk would go the the non-married. Such as tax credits for being married, which I'm pretty sure exist. Edited November 3, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatty07 Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 (edited) If the state wants to allow special legal privileges to "best friends" or whatever, I don't have a problem with that. The only trouble is when it's confused with or identified as marriage. I'm presupposing that they are wrong about marriage, that it is more than a structure for the distribution of certain goods and privileges. Namely, a Sacrament of God's love. Edited November 3, 2006 by beatty07 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 [quote]They consider whether marriage is used to promote having, but realize that many people who are old or infertile or impotent also are allowed to marry.[/quote] Having what? I think that's confusing, but I assume you mean children. 1. There is a misunderstanding of marriage here and what openness to life means. A couple must, by their gender-nature, be able to have children (i.e. in as much as their genders are able to reproduce together). By their circumstances (such as old age), they may not be able to do so. 2. Yes, it would be immoral for them to draft a civil union contract of any kind, since it would violate true marriage, even if they weren't homosexually active or even so inclined. 3. I think Cmom was trying to cut to the heart of it and say that civil union contracts wouldn't be necessary because they could just put each other in their wills and such if they really wanted those benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted November 9, 2006 Author Share Posted November 9, 2006 [quote]1. There is a misunderstanding of marriage here and what openness to life means. A couple must, by their gender-nature, be able to have children (i.e. in as much as their genders are able to reproduce together). By their circumstances (such as old age), they may not be able to do so. 2. Yes, it would be immoral for them to draft a civil union contract of any kind, since it would violate true marriage, even if they weren't homosexually active or even so inclined. 3. I think Cmom was trying to cut to the heart of it and say that civil union contracts wouldn't be necessary because they could just put each other in their wills and such if they really wanted those benefits.[/quote] 1. If a couple cannot have kids, why is the state recognizing that? Is it because it's at least theoretically possible? 2. Why would it be immoral if they are not homosexual or acting that way? How does it violate marriage? Does this issue rest on the last one in that because it's theoretically possible for them to have kids, they should get the benefits such as tax credits because it'll help them raise the kids? 3. That doesn't address the tax benefits issue that I raised. They want all the benefits that their married conterparts get. What should you tell them when they are denied that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 yes, the state's recognition of marriage is like a large fishing net cast out into the sea. the purpose of the fishing net is to catch fish, but it also catches seaweed. the purpose of the state's promotion of marriage is to promote procreation and child raising, but it also promotes non-procreating relationships. and logical falacies 101, your suggestion to correct this is to put an extra special seaweed catching contraption on the fishing net specifically designed to catch seaweed and nothing else. the logical direction of your argument would actually be to narrow the fishing net so that it did not catch seaweed...ie have the state only support with benefits marriages which procreate. my counter-argument would be that that is just too infeasable, though if it could be feasably done I would not be against it (i.e. only give marriage benefits to couples who sign some legally binding contract that they will try to have children) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matty_boy Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1109846' date='Nov 3 2006, 12:09 PM'] They think a major social purpose for marriage is that it promotes efficiency in life's needs and a unit of support for people. [/quote] Yes, because being married has made my life so "efficient". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quietfire Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 Ugg, this whole issue drives me nuts. No disrespect to you dairy. Im glad its going on here so that I can get some good information. Im involved with a debate along the same lines as this. If we can keep the language as "dumbed" down as possible I would be grateful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1109846' date='Nov 3 2006, 12:09 PM'] There are two friends who live together. They are both the same gender and straight. They decide to live a life of abstinence and decide never to marry anyone. They recognize that by not being married to someone, they are receiving less benefits as their married counterparts. They think a major social purpose for marriage is that it promotes efficiency in life's needs and a unit of support for people. They realize that they have these qualities. They consider whether marriage is used to promote having, but realize that many people who are old or infertile or impotent also are allowed to marry. They realize that all the purposes that could be recognized for marriage they themselves espouse. They petition their legislature for for a "civil union" to recieve similar benefits as the married folk. Would it be immoral for the legilature to allow that? What if they petitioned the supreme court for the equal benefits clause, would it be immoral for the legislature to allow that? (focus more on the legislature question as that's more definite and the court question is too flimsy; none of us are lawyers) [/quote] Yes, it would be immoral, because not only are we supposed to live according to our state in life, which apparently for these two is single. If that is the case and that is the CHOICE that they have made, then they are bound by decency not to take advantage of the system in which they live. What you are proposing, dairy, is that the two straight people run a scam on the government in order to gain the benefits of a married couple. That is immoral, because we are still required to abide by the laws of the State. To petition to do so is contrary to the purpose of making the CHOICE to get married. There are benefits to being married. Tax breaks, etc. are part of that benefit. A benefit, by definition is not a right. The two people that you are talking about are doing an "end run" around the system in order to gain benefits that are not complimentary to their state in life. That is immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts