A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / Other Topics / Section 28 II

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Mar 9th 8:57 AM
I'm sort of continuing the now filled up Section 28 topic.

Kay-Arne, because of the course taken in "Nuns, Nuns, Nuns", I'm bowing out of this and other political discussions lest we be accused of starting another "Jeff-Kay-Arne debate" topic. Unfortunate, because I really enjoyed discussing those things but I've no wish to alienate others.

KAH
User ID: 0541004 Mar 9th 11:31 AM
Yah...well, there's always e-mail. :P

Sphinx
User ID: 8882983 Mar 9th 1:14 PM
See my latest post on 'Nuns, Nuns, Nuns'. I've bowed out of Guns because I just felt too strongly about it. I'm sure there are lots of things we can discuss, on this and other topics.

Sphinx
User ID: 8882983 Mar 9th 1:24 PM
On gay marriage, the only thing I have withit is that marriage is originally a religious institution, and if the religion doesn't recognise a gay marriage as legitimate (much as I may disagree), how can it be recognised?

However, with the state benefits, I don't think you can talk about the benefits to society of a hetero couple as opposed to a gay couple. Married people (generally) have different needs and lifestyles to single people, so the way the state looks at their finances and contributions to the community is different, too. Gay couples shouldn't be denied that.

Also there are the rights of a married couple, In many cases, the parents of one half of a gay couple, when he or she has died, have completely frozen out the other partner in terms of the will, right to organise/go to the funeral, etc, despite the dead partners express wishes otherwise (stated clearly and well-known by friends, but never put in a formal will.)

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Mar 9th 1:52 PM
Sphinx, to be honest, if I'm going to discuss controversial issues anymore, it's going to be by e-mail. Virtually all of these topics can offend someone, and I have no desire to be bound by guidelines that discourages longer posts. That almost requires us to deal in "sound bites" and that really holds no appeal for me. I know I'm long-winded, and so is Kay-Arne, so maybe this will work out better for everyone.

Claidhaim
User ID: 8590713 Mar 9th 1:55 PM
Screw 'em Jeff, post all you want. :0)

Kevin
User ID: 0053014 Mar 9th 6:08 PM
Jeff I believe the 'post shorter' was specifically for the Nun's thread. That original intent of that thread was I believe a summary of how our positions changed by being involved in the Guns thread. For in depth threads, longer posts are sometimes a requirement. It is impossible to discuss gay rights, guns, religion, or any other important issue in a paragraph.

Post on Jeff.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Mar 10th 11:09 AM
Ack. If things seem like they're getting long or heated, we can more this to the "Speakers" thread started by my fellow windbag, Kay-Arne.

Sphinx, churches marry gay folk all the time. The question is whether it is a "legal" marriage in the eyes of the law. I agree that married people have different needs and lifestyles, but the only reason I can think of that society should subsidize those needs and lifestyles is for childrearing purposes, which are more applicable to hetero couples. Also, "legal" marriage results in additional burdens to private employers, so it doesn't just affect the government and the individuals. As of for the wills, I agree that its unfair. But really, if its important enough to a gay couple to preserve those rights through marriage, why not take the much easier route of simply getting a will?

Sphinx
User ID: 8882983 Mar 13th 9:12 AM
Jeff, the will was just the most obvious example. All kinds of rights that don't equate to any monetary value or cost the taxpayer anything are held by a wife in relation to a husband or vice versa.

Also, I don't agree that the only reason a married couple should be subsidised is for childrearing purposes. If a hetero couple with both infertile, would you advocate that, for financial/legal purposes, they not be considered married?

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Mar 13th 9:27 AM
It think most of the other examples are mones that impose burdens/costs on either public or private entities.

What other reasons do you think justify the subsidizing of marriages, if a any?

I would not advocate denying the benefits of marriage for infertile couples for a lot of reasons. First, it is impractical due to the burden of determining who is fertile and who is not. Fertility can be a somewhat mutable characteristic given certain medical advances.

Also, the stability and legal obligations of marriage are of such benefit to child rearing that encouraging male/female marriage as an institution has value to society, even if a particular marriage cannot produce children.

Arend
User ID: 8590713 Mar 14th 2:35 PM
Lots of couples do not have wills. However, if you are married, the surviving partner will have rights to the estate, which is not true for an unmarried couple. And even if a will is made up surviving family members still have rights to some parts of the estate. Along the same line lie pension rights and health benefits.

I'm not sure that with a 45% divorce rate I would call marriage a stable institution, especially not with regards to child rearing. In any case, I don't think "to have children" and "to be married" are equivalent statements. Neither is logically connected to the other, so promoting marriage as a child-rearing institution seems a bit strange. A romantic institution, yes. An economic institution, yes. A license to marry is a license to rear children, no.

IMHO.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Mar 14th 3:50 PM
Arend, all that you've said is true.

Marriage certainly is an imperfect institution. But a marriage does provide _some_ additional stability, particularly economic stability, that is generally of benefit to child-rearing. You certainly can have children out of wedlock. But every study I've seen shows that, statistically, being born out of wedlock is a disadvantage to children. Obviously, there are exceptions to this, but statistically there is a definite correlation.

Arend, I think gay advocates have a pretty good argument on this issue. I'd really have to see some concrete costs to society before I'd be willing to say gays can't marry. I'm just trying to articulate the arguments against it, and I do think there is _some_ validity, at least, to those arguments. Whether its enough to justify denying marriage to gays is something I'd have to think about more, and probably want to here more pro/con arguments.

Sphinx
User ID: 8882983 Mar 16th 1:39 PM
I think Arend's outlined the basic idea of the kinds of benefits; as to my justifications for subsidising marriage...

I'm not sure that I do, wholeheartedly. I think that people living together has benefits in terms of shared resources and protection and nurturing, so on those terms I think it may be justifiable.

In terms of the child-rearing thing, I think it's a natural instinct for the child's parents to gravitate towards rearing the child together. There will always be exceptions, but I think that even did marriage not exist, many couples would make their own pacts, whether formalised or even spoken or not, and form a family unit.

this may also affect the 'shared resources', etc., but, IMHO, not as much. I just think that it is a matter of fairness and equality to give the same rights and benefits to gay couples.

LindaElane
User ID: 0276214 Mar 22nd 10:31 PM
Marriage is a relationship between a wife and a husband. There is a wide range of behaviors wives may so, and husbands as well. Sometimes a "wife" may fit the masculine sterotype better than her husband. However, only a woman can be a wife and mother. Only a man can be a husband and father.

Gay people who live together in commited relationships are entitled to equal protection under the law. However, they are not wives and husbands to each other. They may have a better relationship that most husbands and wifes. What they have can be of equal value to marriage, in some cases more, but our society does to need to be legally forced to refer to it as a marriage.

Marriage is something that has been around for thousands of years and we don't really know if we would have civilization without it. I suggest we not insist that the definition be changed.

In a way, its just that words matter. If I had a child, I would not sue for the legal right to be referred to as the child's "father". Some things are gender dependent. Father is for males, mother is for females, marriage is for males and females.

But I don't want to be unfair. Again, I think gay people should have something with equal value and rights to a marriage. Just as fathers and mothers are equally as valuable, "whatever we will call it" and "marriage" could be viewed as equally valuable.

Sphinx
User ID: 8882983 Mar 23rd 12:39 PM
I agree that the terminology is fairly irrelevant, especially considering my points about marriage per se, without the tax breaks etc, being a religious institution, and it therefore being up to the religion concerned. But being a 'committed couple who love and live together and are thus treated in a certain way by the state' shouldn't just be open to man/woman partnerships, IMHO.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Mar 24th 7:58 AM
LindaElane, that was very well said. Words do matter because we have long associated certain words with certain meanings. Rather than trying to change the meaning of a word to accommodate something new, it's probably better simply to use a different word.

Jeff User ID: 1536664	Mar 9th 8:57 AM I'm sort of continuing the now filled up Section 28 topic. Kay-Arne, because of the course taken in "Nuns, Nuns, Nuns", I'm bowing out of this and other political discussions lest we be accused of starting another "Jeff-Kay-Arne debate" topic. Unfortunate, because I really enjoyed discussing those things but I've no wish to alienate others.
KAH User ID: 0541004	Mar 9th 11:31 AM Yah...well, there's always e-mail. :P
Sphinx User ID: 8882983	Mar 9th 1:14 PM See my latest post on 'Nuns, Nuns, Nuns'. I've bowed out of Guns because I just felt too strongly about it. I'm sure there are lots of things we can discuss, on this and other topics.
Sphinx User ID: 8882983	Mar 9th 1:24 PM On gay marriage, the only thing I have withit is that marriage is originally a religious institution, and if the religion doesn't recognise a gay marriage as legitimate (much as I may disagree), how can it be recognised? However, with the state benefits, I don't think you can talk about the benefits to society of a hetero couple as opposed to a gay couple. Married people (generally) have different needs and lifestyles to single people, so the way the state looks at their finances and contributions to the community is different, too. Gay couples shouldn't be denied that. Also there are the rights of a married couple, In many cases, the parents of one half of a gay couple, when he or she has died, have completely frozen out the other partner in terms of the will, right to organise/go to the funeral, etc, despite the dead partners express wishes otherwise (stated clearly and well-known by friends, but never put in a formal will.)
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Mar 9th 1:52 PM Sphinx, to be honest, if I'm going to discuss controversial issues anymore, it's going to be by e-mail. Virtually all of these topics can offend someone, and I have no desire to be bound by guidelines that discourages longer posts. That almost requires us to deal in "sound bites" and that really holds no appeal for me. I know I'm long-winded, and so is Kay-Arne, so maybe this will work out better for everyone.
Claidhaim User ID: 8590713	Mar 9th 1:55 PM Screw 'em Jeff, post all you want. :0)
Kevin User ID: 0053014	Mar 9th 6:08 PM Jeff I believe the 'post shorter' was specifically for the Nun's thread. That original intent of that thread was I believe a summary of how our positions changed by being involved in the Guns thread. For in depth threads, longer posts are sometimes a requirement. It is impossible to discuss gay rights, guns, religion, or any other important issue in a paragraph. Post on Jeff.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Mar 10th 11:09 AM Ack. If things seem like they're getting long or heated, we can more this to the "Speakers" thread started by my fellow windbag, Kay-Arne. Sphinx, churches marry gay folk all the time. The question is whether it is a "legal" marriage in the eyes of the law. I agree that married people have different needs and lifestyles, but the only reason I can think of that society should subsidize those needs and lifestyles is for childrearing purposes, which are more applicable to hetero couples. Also, "legal" marriage results in additional burdens to private employers, so it doesn't just affect the government and the individuals. As of for the wills, I agree that its unfair. But really, if its important enough to a gay couple to preserve those rights through marriage, why not take the much easier route of simply getting a will?
Sphinx User ID: 8882983	Mar 13th 9:12 AM Jeff, the will was just the most obvious example. All kinds of rights that don't equate to any monetary value or cost the taxpayer anything are held by a wife in relation to a husband or vice versa. Also, I don't agree that the only reason a married couple should be subsidised is for childrearing purposes. If a hetero couple with both infertile, would you advocate that, for financial/legal purposes, they not be considered married?
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Mar 13th 9:27 AM It think most of the other examples are mones that impose burdens/costs on either public or private entities. What other reasons do you think justify the subsidizing of marriages, if a any? I would not advocate denying the benefits of marriage for infertile couples for a lot of reasons. First, it is impractical due to the burden of determining who is fertile and who is not. Fertility can be a somewhat mutable characteristic given certain medical advances. Also, the stability and legal obligations of marriage are of such benefit to child rearing that encouraging male/female marriage as an institution has value to society, even if a particular marriage cannot produce children.
Arend User ID: 8590713	Mar 14th 2:35 PM Lots of couples do not have wills. However, if you are married, the surviving partner will have rights to the estate, which is not true for an unmarried couple. And even if a will is made up surviving family members still have rights to some parts of the estate. Along the same line lie pension rights and health benefits. I'm not sure that with a 45% divorce rate I would call marriage a stable institution, especially not with regards to child rearing. In any case, I don't think "to have children" and "to be married" are equivalent statements. Neither is logically connected to the other, so promoting marriage as a child-rearing institution seems a bit strange. A romantic institution, yes. An economic institution, yes. A license to marry is a license to rear children, no. IMHO.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Mar 14th 3:50 PM Arend, all that you've said is true. Marriage certainly is an imperfect institution. But a marriage does provide _some_ additional stability, particularly economic stability, that is generally of benefit to child-rearing. You certainly can have children out of wedlock. But every study I've seen shows that, statistically, being born out of wedlock is a disadvantage to children. Obviously, there are exceptions to this, but statistically there is a definite correlation. Arend, I think gay advocates have a pretty good argument on this issue. I'd really have to see some concrete costs to society before I'd be willing to say gays can't marry. I'm just trying to articulate the arguments against it, and I do think there is _some_ validity, at least, to those arguments. Whether its enough to justify denying marriage to gays is something I'd have to think about more, and probably want to here more pro/con arguments.
Sphinx User ID: 8882983	Mar 16th 1:39 PM I think Arend's outlined the basic idea of the kinds of benefits; as to my justifications for subsidising marriage... I'm not sure that I do, wholeheartedly. I think that people living together has benefits in terms of shared resources and protection and nurturing, so on those terms I think it may be justifiable. In terms of the child-rearing thing, I think it's a natural instinct for the child's parents to gravitate towards rearing the child together. There will always be exceptions, but I think that even did marriage not exist, many couples would make their own pacts, whether formalised or even spoken or not, and form a family unit. this may also affect the 'shared resources', etc., but, IMHO, not as much. I just think that it is a matter of fairness and equality to give the same rights and benefits to gay couples.
LindaElane User ID: 0276214	Mar 22nd 10:31 PM Marriage is a relationship between a wife and a husband. There is a wide range of behaviors wives may so, and husbands as well. Sometimes a "wife" may fit the masculine sterotype better than her husband. However, only a woman can be a wife and mother. Only a man can be a husband and father. Gay people who live together in commited relationships are entitled to equal protection under the law. However, they are not wives and husbands to each other. They may have a better relationship that most husbands and wifes. What they have can be of equal value to marriage, in some cases more, but our society does to need to be legally forced to refer to it as a marriage. Marriage is something that has been around for thousands of years and we don't really know if we would have civilization without it. I suggest we not insist that the definition be changed. In a way, its just that words matter. If I had a child, I would not sue for the legal right to be referred to as the child's "father". Some things are gender dependent. Father is for males, mother is for females, marriage is for males and females. But I don't want to be unfair. Again, I think gay people should have something with equal value and rights to a marriage. Just as fathers and mothers are equally as valuable, "whatever we will call it" and "marriage" could be viewed as equally valuable.
Sphinx User ID: 8882983	Mar 23rd 12:39 PM I agree that the terminology is fairly irrelevant, especially considering my points about marriage per se, without the tax breaks etc, being a religious institution, and it therefore being up to the religion concerned. But being a 'committed couple who love and live together and are thus treated in a certain way by the state' shouldn't just be open to man/woman partnerships, IMHO.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Mar 24th 7:58 AM LindaElane, that was very well said. Words do matter because we have long associated certain words with certain meanings. Rather than trying to change the meaning of a word to accommodate something new, it's probably better simply to use a different word.