I would like to see some surveys about the attitudes of supporters of same-sex marriage (SSSM) towards other types of marriage. I doubt that any survey of the type I am thinking of exists, so I will have to make do with the self-selected sample of replies I get here. If people think they have a good enough feel for the beliefs of people beyond themselves, go ahead. In the interests of trying to get more responses I will accept over-generalizing.
What portion of SSSMs would be in favor of banning platonic SSMs? If you don’t want to allow this, one idea is you could just allow people to self-certify that they are not marrying purely for tax purposes. Would this be enough, or would you require some other evidence.? If not in favor of banning, would this extend to people that don’t live together?
What about multiple-single sex marriage: say A loves B who loves C who loves A. What is the attitude towards this type of marriage by SSSM? Here of course we will run into a lot of problems, because I think most SSSMs who would allow it would not want to admit it because of the difficulty in fighting “slippery-slope” arguments made by opponents of SSM. Beyond that, I don’t think the idea will be popular, as it seems the argument of SSSM is more “Our marriage is the same as yours (and polygamous marriages/platonic marriages are not the same)”, rather than “We have the right (and so does anybody else)”. I admit this is just my guess, as I have asked no SSSMs directly.
The nature of a marriage is none of our business. I don’t want the government to poke their noses in to see if couples are really in love or sexually involved or not. If platonic friends want to share a household, I say go for it. An exception may be made in case if immigration, since there’s an area ripe for exploitation.
Plural marriages may be too individualistic for the type of government definition monogamy can use. (Are the co-spouses each all married to each other, or only to a single “hub” partner with multiple spouses?) They may be better drafting their own legal documents than getting the simple government treatment.
If respondents are SSSMs, then imagine yourselves in a jurisdiction that allows SSM (to avoid worrying about the affect “slippery slope” arguments will have on the adpotion of SSM) and forces companies in this area to provide health care to SS spouses. Do you support allowing poeple who are not gay to marry?
I didn’t see it, and I heard it was bad, but wasn’t this the idea in the movie “I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry”?
What, if anything, two adults do in privacy is none of my business. If they want to sign the contracts and be a married couple, what should stop them. I do not see where the couple’s sexual behaviour (or lack thereof) should be part of the qualifying test.
It is not as if there haven’t been many, many opposite-sex marriages with no sexual activity.
Um, why? Any heterosexual couple can marry for any reason. Why would it make sense to put a restriction on the relationship details of a homosexual couple and not those of a heterosexual couple? And if you put the restrictions on both, who decides what reasons are the “right” ones for getting married and which aren’t? And how do you enforce that?
If you can sort out a reasonable logistical way for more than two people to be in a legally binding relationship, then I might be all for it. The reasons why I might be against multiple partner relationships being codified legally have nothing, IMHO, to do with the reasons for or against SSM. There is no slippery slope here.
If two straight, same-gendered people want to get married for reasons other than romance, I don’t really care. It’s hardly like that never happens with straight, opposite-gendered people. Why two people want to get married should be no business of the government. Unlike Menocchio, I don’t make an exception for immigration purposes.
I’ve got no philosophical or moral objections to polygamy. If, somehow, SSM led directly to polygamy, I personally wouldn’t care. However, I don’t see how that’s possible. Marriage as an institution can be easily ported to same-sex couples without having to make any changes in how the institution works. For polygamists, there are a whole host of questions that would need to be resolved: if two people are married, and one of them wants to marry a second person, does the first person have to consent? What relationship (and responsibilities) does the one partner’s two spouses have towards each other? If there’s a question about power of attorney, and the two spouses disagree, who gets precedence in making decisions? None of these are insurmountable problems, but they are huge stumbling blocks in the way of the concept that legalizing SSM would suddenly throw open the doors to polygamous marriage.
I’ve always thought there should be some means for people to ‘couple’ without being married. Allow me a hypothetical.
Bob and Sue get married. Bob lives with and takes care of his elderly mother Alice. Alice and Sue like eachother a lot. They bond like mother and daughter. A couple of years late, Sue walks in on Bob having sex with a Shetland pony and two dwarfs. Bob and Sue divorce and Sue gets the house and continues to care for Alice.
Sue and Alice need to ‘couple’ for reasons of: insurance, inheritance, end-of-life care etc. Who gives a shit if they give eachother an occasional ‘tounge lashing’ or not?
Same sex people are rarely going to marry for tax purposes alone. Would you marry a woman for tax purposes only (or man if you are a woman)?
I suppose it has happened somewhere but mostly no. When you marry all sorts of legal things happen including you and your buddy now having a legal claim to the other’s assets (if you divorce equitable distribution of marital assets). That person can also make medical decisions for you if you cannot make them yourself.
It is a helluva lot of trust in someone else to do merely for a tax break.
I honestly do not see why polygamy should be illegal. As long as everyone involved is clear about it I say it is up to them. I suppose the legal issues if one leaves and wants to take some marital assets with might get dicey. As a personal choice though it should be up to the individual.
While I would tend to qualify panache45’s words with some form of “reasonable adults”, I think i’m pretty much in agreement with them. I don’t think the right to “marry” should be universal to all adults, but I see no reason why there shouldn’t be a set of standardised contracts two people or more could sort out between themselves and the government. Then they can do whatever the hell they want as an actual ceremony, should they want one, and call it whatever they want.
In practical terms I think that’d hurt more than help at the moment. It’s more of a happy hypothetical.
After due consideration of the possibilities, I gotta say, “Yup,” to that, the first response. The rest is lawyer-work. And you kids dis the value of lawyers! You probably listened too much to divorced guys, who make up the core of “Lawyers are SWINE!” posts. Sorry for them, but this nation was built on the belief that “Make whatever laws you want. Lawyers can sort it all out and we can sue if we disagree.”
There is a distinct state interest in preventing those (women may be unduly pressured if it was allowed and inbreeding issues which are bad to society).
I would be in favor of two types of domestic contracts:
(1) Marriage, open to anyone of any gender or sexual orientation (i.e., gay marriage is a-OK)
(2) Domestic partnership, open to any two consenting, platonic adults. This would allow two elderly sisters, or a mother and daughter, or two old army buddies, to set up housekeeping together. The stipulation would be that this is NOT a mere roommate situation–you’re granting the other individual all the rights and privileges that you would grant a spouse. So your “roomie” has full right to all of your assets, the right to share in health benefits, the right to make medical decisions for you, etc. So, not something to be undertaken lightly. The people involved would HAVE to cohabit.
The reason for number 2 is so that people can have the tax/financial/medical/etc. benefits of a marriage, but without the ick factor.
I don’t know about all of this. I can’t see why Sue and Alice can’t use the current system of wills, powers of attorneys, medical declarations, and the like. Why do we need to invent a whole new class of a relationship that seems like marriage, but really is not?
To answer the OP’s questions: no, I would not support a ban on platonic same sex marriages any more than I would support a ban on platonic heterosexual marriages. What people do or do not do in their bedroom(s) is none of my business.
As to the poly question: I think polygamy should be legal for the same reasons I think same sex marriage should be legal (see above re: NMB), but I don’t think the one is a slippery slope into the other.
In essence, I think we should do away with ALL the thousand or so default rights that a married couple share, and everything should be addressed line by line by each couple or group who wants to make what is in essence a corporate partnership with another person. I think more information in our informed consent would be a good thing.
Can anyone name the thousand or so rights you gain when you get married? I can come up with about 5: visitation in the hospital, inheritance assumptions, child sharing, social security benefits…umm… okay, I can come up with 4. Yet I apparently have 997+ more rights since my marriage, and I don’t even know what they are. So how can I be said to have consented to this arrangement when I don’t know what that arrangement even is or how it affects me?
Wipe it clean, I say. Let churches do all the “marriages” they want, and let the state recognize only those bonds which are entered into with *fully *informed consent. That way, 2 people or 20, gay or straight or bi or asexual, arrangements can be made that fit the individual case and that everyone actively agrees to.
This takes away the best argument for SSM: That it doesn’t affect traditional marriage at all. Let Mr. Churchy McChurch say that legal SSM will “destroy” traditional marriage.
One can rationally respond that it does not. Traditional marriage remains the same while marriage rights are simply extended to same sex couples.
Use your plan, and Mr. Churchy Church is 100% correct.