 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Marriage has a number of things associated with it that don't make it
>> ideal for this purpose. For one thing, the religious ideas that
>> accompany the word, which in effect limit who you can designate.
>
> You're assuming to start with that marriage has something to do with
> religion, then saying "we shouldn't have marriage because it has
> something to do with religion." You are, in short, begging the question.
I'm not saying "we shouldn't have marriage," I'm saying that Civil
government should not get involved with it. As a consequence, legal
matters such as inheritances should not be based on marriage, either.
> When someone gets hurt in an accident, who should the doctor allow to
> visit?
I'm sorry, is that a legal matter or an administrative matter? I don't
think we need laws saying who can and can't visit people in the hospital.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Then don't you think the two institutions should be separate, if there
>> is a significant demand for one without the other?
>
> Well, yes. That's why we have religious marriages and secular marriages.
>
> I'm not sure why a "religion" has anything to do with contractual
> obligations of the state and its regulated service providers.
My main point is that, even if it is Civil, when you call it "marriage"
you bring the religious nuts out of the woodwork.
So don't call it marriage. Call it a Civil union, even, and let
organized religion deal with marriage however they wish.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Its membership, not the Church itself.
>
> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/01/top-officials-w.html
Well, that's disappointing. It's the first time I've heard of them
supporting specific legislation, and I was active in the church for more
than 25 years, as well as studying a great deal of their history.
> And, really, if bunches of mormons voted for it, even tho the church
> leaders didn't explicitly say to, don't you think maybe it was the
> teachings of the mormon church that caused it?
The teachings of the church causing it, and the Church itself supporting
it, are two separate things. Historically, the LDS Church has never
been about telling people what to specifically do (ie, how to vote), but
rather how they should live their lives, and letting members apply those
teachings appropriately.
One of the basic beliefs of the LDS Church is that you shouldn't need to
be told what to do, anyway. An intelligent member, who is familiar with
the life and teachings of Christ, should have no problems figuring out
how to live a moral life.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> That's a bit like arguing that a union didn't take an official stand on
> an issue, but its "members" voted to go on strike....
What's wrong with that?
The Union itself may or may not take an official stance on an issue, but
its members most like share a number of characteristics (median income,
living conditions, work environment, etc) that make them more likely to
vote the same way.
It's not the same thing.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> I'm not saying "we shouldn't have marriage," I'm saying that Civil
> government should not get involved with it. As a consequence, legal
> matters such as inheritances should not be based on marriage, either.
There's a whole raft of stuff that goes on. You have a bank account shared
between two married people. One of them dies. What happens to the bank
account? You have a married couple. They have a kid. Kid's mother dies. Dad
remarries. Kid's dad dies. Who has custody of the kid? Husband spends whole
life providing for wife. Wife has no career outside the house. Husband dies.
Who gets husband's social security payments? Who inherits the husband's
money if the husband made no will? Say you get religiously married, but
before you tell the insurance company, you get in a car accident. Is your
wife covered?
All of these things *could* be contractually determined. However, you still
need defaults for when they haven't been and the event occurs, just like you
have laws saying whether or not the store is required to refund your money
for stuff you bought broken when the store hasn't expressed a warranty policy.
What's the reason you are thinking for not having the government collect a
set of rights and privileges together and saying "this goes to people who
say they're married"?
>> When someone gets hurt in an accident, who should the doctor allow to
>> visit?
>
> I'm sorry, is that a legal matter or an administrative matter? I don't
> think we need laws saying who can and can't visit people in the hospital.
OK. When you're hurt in an accident and unable to make decisions for
yourself. Who says who is allowed to make the medical decisions about
whether you get a blood transfusion, an operation, etc? Who gets to decide
if you donate organs? Who is allowed to give consent for medical treatment?
Say you wrote up a contract with your boyfriend. Does the doctor have to
honor that contract? He's not a party to it, remember.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> If they had honestly been defending marriage
Well, it was all BS. I have no idea why "marriage" would need defending. The
only threat to anyones marriages were coming *from* the "defense of
marriage" amendment.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> So don't call it marriage. Call it a Civil union, even, and let
> organized religion deal with marriage however they wish.
Yes, but then the religious nutcases don't want that either. That's the
point. It's not *about* marriage, it's about punishing sinful gay people.
As soon as you call it something else, it's something else, and you have 50
other jurisdictions telling you that since it isn't marriage, you're not
allowed to share in the ownership of the house, you're not allowed to adopt
a child, etc.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> The teachings of the church causing it, and the Church itself supporting
> it, are two separate things.
I disagree.
> Historically, the LDS Church has never
> been about telling people what to specifically do
So, all that stuff I hear about not drinking caffeine and such, that's not
"the LDS church telling people what to specifically do"?
> rather how they should live their lives, and letting members apply those
> teachings appropriately.
Well, sure. And if the teaching is "gay people are evil and should be
repressed at every opportunity, and black people are literally spawn of
satan on earth", you don't think that's telling people how to live their
lives? Isn't telling people specifically how to live their lives what
churches are *for*?
> One of the basic beliefs of the LDS Church is that you shouldn't need to
> be told what to do, anyway. An intelligent member, who is familiar with
> the life and teachings of Christ, should have no problems figuring out
> how to live a moral life.
Well, unless you're black or gay, apparently.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> for word identical argument, **and not as a joke, but as a serious
> statement of belief**.
Actually, there's a web site called bbspot.com that regularly (like, ever
y
few months) manages to write a satire article that gets picked up and
distributed by actual qualified news outlets like CNN or NYT. And it's no
t
even religion.
And Edward Current is great, if you like funny spoofs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkhQLt1vbWU
> Its like living in a world based on the movie Baron Münchhausen.
You know Baron Münchhausen was a real person? And there's a sickness
called
"Baron Münchhausen Syndrome" which involves someone unable to stop m
aking up
unbelievable stories about his exploits.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> There's a whole raft of stuff that goes on. You have a bank account
> shared between two married people. One of them dies. What happens to the
> bank account?
Marriage has nothing to do with that. Virtually all joint bank accounts
are held with "right of survivorship," meaning when one owner dies the
remaining funds are the property of the surviving owners.
In accounts held without right of survivorship, the deceased's share
passes to their estate, and the remaining funds are, of course, held by
the surviving owners.
> You have a married couple. They have a kid. Kid's mother
> dies. Dad remarries. Kid's dad dies. Who has custody of the kid?
If you'd like my honest opinion, I would say the stepmother. However,
there is room for consideration of other relatives if they were
particularly close.
> Husband
> spends whole life providing for wife. Wife has no career outside the
> house. Husband dies. Who gets husband's social security payments? Who
> inherits the husband's money if the husband made no will?
If the husband left no will, then that's an oversight on his part. It's
not the Government's place to protect us from our own stupidity.
As I've said, however, designating a default heir should be a simple,
easy matter, which would cover anything not specified in a will.
> Say you get
> religiously married, but before you tell the insurance company, you get
> in a car accident. Is your wife covered?
Say you're about to get religiously married, but the week before you get
in a car accident. Is your fiancee covered?
> All of these things *could* be contractually determined. However, you
> still need defaults for when they haven't been and the event occurs,
> just like you have laws saying whether or not the store is required to
> refund your money for stuff you bought broken when the store hasn't
> expressed a warranty policy.
I agree, you still need defaults. That's why I think designating a next
of kin or heir should be a simple, easy legal process.
> What's the reason you are thinking for not having the government collect
> a set of rights and privileges together and saying "this goes to people
> who say they're married"?
The fact that "marriage" is a loaded word, with a lot of history,
assumptions and ideas that go with it. Assumptions and ideas that make
people get itchy for a fight, like is happening now with laws &
amendments covering gay marriage.
>>> When someone gets hurt in an accident, who should the doctor allow to
>>> visit?
>>
>> I'm sorry, is that a legal matter or an administrative matter? I
>> don't think we need laws saying who can and can't visit people in the
>> hospital.
>
> OK. When you're hurt in an accident and unable to make decisions for
> yourself. Who says who is allowed to make the medical decisions about
> whether you get a blood transfusion, an operation, etc? Who gets to
> decide if you donate organs? Who is allowed to give consent for medical
> treatment?
AFAIK, most states have "implied consent" laws. If you're hurt so badly
that you are unable to communicate whether or not you wish to be
treated, you are assumed to consent to the treatment.
Organ donatorship is usually specified on drivers' licenses as a
convenience, though I believe family is consulted as a courtesy (which
I'm personally against; if I want to donate my organs, I don't want my
family taking that away from me after I've kicked the bucket).
> Say you wrote up a contract with your boyfriend. Does the doctor have to
> honor that contract? He's not a party to it, remember.
What kind of contract? What would you be specifying in it?
You can't just put anything you want in a contract and expect it to be
binding.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
