Support NeoGAF

[CyclopsRock]

Alright, but why? And how do you account for the vacuum created by the absence of those rights in our current legal, financial, medical and other systems? You would have to change many facets of society and its systems to remove the legal benefits of marriage for no explained benefit.

Well, the benefit is a relatively amorphous one (and therefore quite easy to ignore), but it's basically "freedom". Gay people have - and continue - to fight around the world for the right to marry because some people made some laws that said that only "X" should be allowed to marry "Y". The reason they need to fight is because the concept of marriage - which carries with it legal benefits and repercussions - only suits a very narrow spectrum of relationships. Allowing gay couples into that band widens it somewhat, but the original cause of gay couple's ire is that they were denied these rights and repercussions due to the nature of their love not fitting within specific boundaries. I think any conclusion other than "there shouldn't be boundaries" acknowledges that there will still be disenfranchised people. Given this, I think the onus should be on the law (And the people that defend it) to explain exactly why, for example, a polyamorous relationship should be excluded, not the other way around.

As for the practical aspects, I don't see why that needs to have anything to do with the law. I'm not married, and when I die, they'll work out what to do with my stuff. "Healthcare" is basically a proxy for "contracts with include spouses" but it's not beyond the wit of man to have an equivalent in those contracts with doesn't require you to sign government papers. If healthcare providers don't want to cover a person's 4 spouses, that's up to them. If the government wants to give parents or those that cohabit tax breaks, they can do that too. Marriage is, I don't contest, a convenient short hand, but it is just that.

 

[Easy_D]

I don't know if that's true, but i do know that bestiality was made illegal around the same time gay marriage was made legal. (2014 vs 2009), so maybe Sweden wasn't the best example to use

I was being sarcastic . I think it's an extremely stupid comparison. But in 1944 Homosexuality was decriminalized and thanks to it being lumped together with bestiality, so was the latter.

 

[temp]

People can already marry dogs. Have you seen Keith Ablow's wife? Heyyyyyyyyyyoooooo

 

[Celegus]

I've heard stories but have never seen the sonic picture before. How did that get made. I can't unsee it, heeeeelp!

 

[Currygan]

I've heard stories but have never seen the sonic picture before. How did that get made. I can't unsee it, heeeeelp!

 

[YoungHav]

Considering the dog worship in this country and how bestiality is always on the forefront of these people's minds, it wouldn't surprise me if bestiality laws are the only thing stopping these morons from inter-species action. Keith Ablow is one of Fox News' bigger idiots.

I would bet my left hand that a search on his computer would lead to an indictment.

 

[Monocle]

I will never understand why they include human characters in Sonic games. It is creepy as hell.

 

[rpmurphy]

Someone, somewhere, declaring they are married to an inanimate object doesn't weaken the argument that consent is relevant to a marriage any more than me declaring I am president of the United States weakens the authority of our elections. And the possible difference between androids and dogs would be the former's potential capacity to have autonomy within the marriage, and to be able to understand and appreciate whatever legal benefits it grants. Despite your baseless declaration that it is arbitrary, the capacity to consent to and comprehend a marriage is vital to it, otherwise, the idea of marriage may as well just disappear, with only the general concepts of love and relationships remaining. Which certainly you could argue for.

And I would argue for it. The laws surrounding property ownership, shared financial obligations, visitation rights, custody of personhoods, etc. could (and if not, should be able to) all be defined outside the context of marriage. The fact that marriage is treated as a special case are because of long-standing customs that deem it so, and everything else being exclusionary or restricted to certain conditions are for what good reason? Marriage being fundamentally about loyal companionship, I really don't care if it's human-human, human-robot, or human-dog or if the concept simply goes away.

 

[-COOLIO-]

it's a horrible and offensive comparison but i wouldn't have a problem with consenting dogs getting married either if they could consent.

 

[Mully]

My freshman English professor said this to my class four years ago. Surprisingly 3/4 of the class agreed with her. I was stunned.

 

[hachi]

I would not be opposed to marriage with multiple people. Marriage is a silly concept to me in the first place. The thing with gay marriage is that it gives gay people the same rights straight people have, which is the core of the issue: Equality.

But since those rights could also be handled in a myriad of individual ways or via something like civil unions, this still doesn't establish any explanation for marriage.

This response gets us closer:

Everyone wants the government to stay out of marriage until they divorce and have a dispute on who gets custody of kids, who gets the house, who gets the cars, who pays child support, who pays alimony, etc...

Basically the only reason the government cares about marriage is to ensure that there is a smooth process for how cutody, money, land and other valuables get transferred to the next generation or the surviving family member. This would be tricky and difficult if someone has 5 wives with kids. Who gets custody of the kids if one wife or the husband dies, who has legal rights to see and take the child to the doctor for procedures, etc.

Yes, it has a whole lot to do with managing the inheritance and lineage, with children being the most important and potentially disastrous part of the equation if not bound very carefully by laws of marriage. And as the same poster added:

Basically marriage between two concenting adults is easier and less likely to lead to inbreeding.

Yes, many combinations have been forbidden from marriage (close relatives being a primary example) when found to be dangerous for the resulting children, or if counterproductive based on some other criteria; for instance, recent divorcees are made to wait a period of time before remarriage (to anyone but their ex again) in many states, because hasty remarriages are thought to potentially limit the possibility of late reconciliation, and the latter is considered a good thing whenever possible to encourage.

Love is still being regulated?
*goes back to batcave*

No... but marriage is, and has always been, given what is at stake. Love shouldn't be a matter of public debate or policy, but all the stakes of marriage make its careful management of tremendous interest to states historically.

Being married gives you several legal benefits. Some of them working as carrots because it's in society's best interests to have people together instead of being alone, and some to protect in case something goes wrong in the marriage, for example in the case of a break up or death of the other member of the marriage. These are pretty important because otherwise you could get pretty fucked if something goes wrong.

And I'm glad to see this acknowledged: yes, marriage laws have always partly been carrots (not merely sticks of prevention) in the sense of actively encouraging certain formations that will prove beneficial to families and the state. But by focusing merely on the advantage of having two committed people, you're avoiding the most important goal, that of keeping children with their biological parents whenever at all possible, which is central to the institution's social encouragements.

 

[ReAxion]

Well he's right, but it shouldn't be a negative thing. People should be able to marry anybody or anything they want. If there love is true in their eyes, the government has no right to dictate weather or not people can marry not two, not three, not four, five guys or girls or elephants or a bicycle

Overrated and overpriced. Too greasy.

 

[danwarb]

When they discuss these issues with each other, there's no one around to call them idiot and explain the reality. The problem is that reasonable people don't want to talk to them.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I will never understand why they include human characters in Sonic games. It is creepy as hell.

Answered your own question.

 

[akira28]

I do think it's finally time to let dogs marry cats.

 

[HUELEN10]

polygamy and gay marriage are two completely separate issues and should never be used in the same argument. By doing so you empower anti-gay activist. Not wanting to support polygamy is a weird reason to not support gay marriage. When someone says "We can't have gay marriage because it will lead to polygamy" you should say "We should not allow idiots to talk because it will lead to my boot up your ass"

I think you misunderstand me. I am not against polyamorous consensual unions at all,nor am I equating them to gay marriage. What I mean is that the government shouldn't be so limiting. If it has to be marriage, why not gay marriage? Why not polygamist marriage? Why should anyone be limited? Honestly, I don't see how thinking the government should either stay out of it entirely, or make it all-inclusive for all types of unions empowers anti-gay activists. Voting against same sex marriage would be doing that (which is personally why I'd don't vote on these issues). That's just my opinion on the matter.

Someone brought up the problem with stuff like divorce and who gets what and stuff, I guess it could be seen as something that needs a thorough assessment before making legislation for it.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

It is not the slippery slope argument that bothers me...it is the fact that people will make an argument that someone can't have equality by saying that it is a step towards something as sick as marriage to a dog. They are saying that gay marriage is closer in scale to bestiality than a marriage between a man and woman. That is disgusting, evil, hate-filled thinking. Fuck them.

The crazy things is we have some GAF members who have actually made that argument in the past...

 

[z1ggy]

In Argentina we have this right for some years already and nothing went "wrong".

 

[Escape Goat]

In Argentina we have this right for some years already and nothing went "wrong".

That's because you like soccer which has turned your men into mewling quims.

 

[z1ggy]

That's because you like soccer which has turned your men into mewling quims.

We like football, not soccer.

Spoiler

shhhh i know

 

[CraigerGamer]

But when can a dog marry a cat?

my dog is in love with my cat. They makeout all the time.


NSFW!