Good point -

[kyburg]

One of my old-timers, the_alchemist, makes a very valid point this morning:

On the one hand, I don't see any reason why heterosexual relationships should be given special legal privileges over homosexual ones, but on the other, I don't see why sexual relationships should be given special legal privileges over non-sexual ones.

A very valid point, indeed. As it's has been popular to mention when talking about same-sex marriage, it's not about the sex. So what's it all about?

Discuss.

Oh, and if that's not enough for you? theferrett is have a free-for-all over at his place over If you're dressed like that, can't I think you're hot? Of course, does one need to wear a burka if you're NOT on the meat market?

Oh. And this?



Ew.

Comments

[kali-ma.livejournal.com]

Well, someone on my flist brought up some interesting points about marriage and sex when all this was going down. Although it is rarely prosecuted, it is virtually illegal to have sex outside of marriage in almost every state. Marriage has historically been the only legal way to meet one's sexual needs. Lawrence vs. Texas may have changed this, but since there hasn't been a test case, it is hard to say. But I know a decade ago they were prosecuting teen mothers who applied for welfare in Idaho for having broken the state's fornication law.

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

Erm... thealchemist and the_alchemist are two different people. The link has the underscore... the LJ name doesn't... which is it?

As for the other thing...it's not about sex, but it IS about THE sex of the people involved.

At this rate in my life, though, it seems like Boston Marriage of the platonic type might be the way I end up going.

*sigh*

C.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Point. Fixed!

[7leaguebootdisk.livejournal.com]

I think the state should get out of marriage. Perhaps have a couple of model contracts for civil unions, but that is it.

[phoenix--rising.livejournal.com]

I agree. Marriage is a relgious ceremony. For some reason, it just got included as automatically bestowing a state of civil union.

I'm all for aboloshing marriage as a state function. Leave marriage to the churches.

[jaina.livejournal.com]

What about non-religious people who want to be married, though?

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

"Marriage" by definition, is a religious act - but any kind of belief system can adopt their own version. Think about it. If you only want to say "I believe in you" and spread the sacred pecans - okay. If you want to register you and your partner as a household, it's not as romantic. But it accomplishes more in the eyes of the law.

[jaina.livejournal.com]

That's more separating the religious and civil aspects than abolishing the civil aspects, which is what I was questioning.

[http://users.livejournal.com/little_e_/]

i plan to be married, and i have no religious inclinations at all. unless we're considering atheism to be a belief system... to be married for me is more than just going to the courthouse and signing a piece of paper--it's a commitment to another person that i will love and care for them, and that I really do mean it, and intend to go on loving and caring for them indefinitely. to me this has nothing to do with god.

...not to be difficult, but having consulted the dictionary.com, none of the modern definitions of marriage particularly invoke religion at all. legal union is the first definition, followed by wedlock, then common-law marriage, and another definition for legal union... only easton's 1897 bible dictionary cites a religious component to marriage, and it's probably a bit out of date by now. ^_^

[phoenix--rising.livejournal.com]

Marriage itself is Christian religious ceremony.

I think that the legal aspects of "marriage" should be renamed, so to speak, as a civil union.

[jaina.livejournal.com]

I have to respectfully disagree that marriage is just a Christian religious ceremony. Certainly that might be how it's started (though I'm not really schooled enough in history to say) but at this point it's evolved beyond that.

Personally, I don't feel the need to get nitpicky about the name--whether it's called marriage or a civil union or a horse's patoot should be up to the people involved in it. But then that kind of common sense tends to be lost on those who believe that gay marriage will cause them or burst out into ebola or something.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

NOT CHRISTIAN. Religious. *laughs* I work with too many other religions besides my own to make that kind of a statement.

But marriage is a religious function - civil status notwithstanding.

[jaina.livejournal.com]

Hey, I'm not the one who said Christian, don't yell at me. :P

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

*searches for the end of the thread*

Gee, does this thing fire comment notification to everyone who adds to a thread, or just the originator?

Marriage as a term didn't begin with the Christians, all-y'all....

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

There were public hearings about gay marriage before the bill was presented, ane that was one of the alternative options suggested.

Married hets lost their minds at the very suggestion. shrug

[http://users.livejournal.com/little_e_/]

funny how jews and muslims manage to get married within their own faiths, then... not to mention all of those hindus and buddhists who don't even believe in the god of the patriarchs! i'm sure they'll all be shocked to find out that they've been performing a christian ceremony all this time...

it's the whole civil versus religious thing....

[tomlemos.livejournal.com]

there's civil marriage and there's religious marriage.

civil marriage is what folks want to change. I want the STATE to recognize my union (well, if I had someone I wanted to marry, of course), and give me all the rights that come with being married in the eyes of the STATE.

religious marriage is what you do in a church or place of worship. that's when you want your RELIGION to bless your union. I don't need this.

To most people, the RELIGIOUS ceremony EQUALS the civil ceremony, since there's a license and witnesses just like you have when you get down to the clerks office to get married.

Again, all I want is the same CIVIL rights as any other couple have. You can keep your religion out of it, please. I am not disrespecting your ceremony by marrying my same sex partner in front of a clerk. Please.

I don't see the problem with this, alas, most folks can't get past the religious aspects, unfortunately.

Re: it's the whole civil versus religious thing....

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

Yes, and it is the STATE that gives all sorts of benefits and perqs in civil marriage.

For the two to be equated, at least in the US, is sorta violating First Amendment bits, isn't it? *Wry* Separation of Church and State after all...

C.

Re: it's the whole civil versus religious thing....

[tomlemos.livejournal.com]

Basically once you have a license to get married, it's up to YOU where you perform the ceremony as long as it is performed by someone who is licensed to perform the ceremony and you have witnesses.

The civil part is the license.

The religious part is when you do it in a church.

People have their little brains in a twist because they think that they will have to allow same sex marriages in their churches.

The Canadians know what they're doing. In fact, their new law that is in the process of being passed specifically states that they are not forcing any religion to marry anyone they don't want to. That still hasn't changed at all.

Funny thing is, people here in the US can't understand the fact that it is the benefits bestowed on the state is what is important.

You can keep your church ceremonies. it isn't a problem between church and state. It never has been. It's when people equate marriage with RELIGIOUS Marriage, that is, the church ceremony that they seem to think that they're going to be forced to marry same sex couples.

That couldn't be farther from the truth.

Re: it's the whole civil versus religious thing....

[http://users.livejournal.com/little_e_/]

"Funny thing is, people here in the US can't understand the fact that it is the benefits bestowed on the state is what is important."

there are a lot of people who don't want homosexuals to get *those*, either. just look at the disney boycott.

Re: it's the whole civil versus religious thing....

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

Okay, you misunderstood me. Or maybe I wasn't making myself clear on the matter... (which, considering how I've been lately, is likely)

I am not confused with the civil vs. religious marriage thing. But it seems that the people who are currently running the United States government who ARE confused with the two. Or they figured one IS the other. And fail to understand, as I think I said, that it is the STATE benefits from civil marriage that most people are after. Which is why the whole "civil union" or "domestic partnership" instead of "marriage" thing is also so confusing...

And it seems there are a LOT of people in the US who are confused between the two, or even equate the two. Say... the Religious Right...

*shakes head* I understand the differences and all that... it just annoys me when others don't... which is when I start pointing out the First Amendment, especially the bits about Freedom of Religion.

C.

[loveanddarkness.livejournal.com]

What is that building?

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

That's the new version of the World Trade Center in NYC.

Scary, huh?

[makeitepic.livejournal.com]

I don't like it at all :( I guess I won't be happy unless they re-build the towers as they were before September 11th..

[joiseyguy.livejournal.com]

The Donald wants to do just that..rebuild the original towers but new and improved. see http://www.triroc.com/wtc/

[digitaldraco.livejournal.com]

To be more specific, it's the "Freedom Tower". You know. Like a giant "freedom fry" reaching towards the sky.

While we slowly lose our own, they plan to erect a tower named in its honor.

Irony. Tastes like chicken.

[http://users.livejournal.com/little_e_/]

as for non-sexual, i was wondering exactly what you meant by that?

i like to sit and speculate about distopic worlds. i'm currently poking at one run by robots. the robots don't exactly understand how humans work, they just know that you put people in apts. together (in an ideal world, everyone lives in a giant building) and sooner or later children are created. so the robots just evaluate all of the people sharing an appt, whether those people are involved with each other or not, when deciding whether those people should be encouraged to breed or not. so you end up with appropriately humorous occasions like households full of homosexual male grad students being moved into the "family" sections, and the robots being very confused that children did not result.

on the other hand, the system allows for many non-traditional families. families with more than two parents, for example--something the robots encourage, believing that parental redundancy is a good thing--or with same-sex partners, or the like.

of course, that's not really addressing the issue of sexual vrs. non-sexual. i don't think the robots have any way of judging the sexuality of the humans. they don't differentiate between friends who room together out of necessity and lovers roomming together out of lust.

i know people who are largely non-sexual, or have non-sexual relationships. i'm not entierly sure on how that works for the same reasons that they're not entirely sure how my relationships work, but they nevertheless do. my friends have complained long and bitterly, however, over the lack of adequate words in the language to describe their relationships. "boyfriend" just doesn't cut it. It involves far too much implication of sexuality and desire that simply isn't present. language fails, and explanations are difficult, especially in any sort of short time-frame, and communication is difficult...

i have had (although i sadly do not currently) friends with whom my completely platonic and non-sexual relationship was almost as strong and fierce as any sexual relationship i've had. it never really occured to me to want to formalize such relationships in any way--although it would have helped if my friends were a wee bit less flighty.

i suppose i should go read the link. ^_^