I thought it was possible to be married without cohabitation. That is what I thought you were alluding to in your statement:Tero wrote:It's love. They have no kids most of the time, so they want an heir and friend at their death bed.
Marrying without cohabitation is impractical. You would need two gays and two lesbians "married" in a house.
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”
What I'm saying is the precedent is there, so such a marriage would be unremarkable. Anyway, smart people would let on that they're screwing the IRS instead of each other, I think.Tero wrote:Sure for love. We were talking about loophole marriages where the financial gain is the motive.
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”
Absolutely.Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Another thought. It's not illegal for an openly gay man and an openly lesbian woman to get married.
I can picture an intimate dinner for four, followed by couples pairing off and going to their rooms.rainbow wrote:Absolutely.Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Another thought. It's not illegal for an openly gay man and an openly lesbian woman to get married.
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”
http://www.theonion.com/articles/suprem ... tfe,31826/WASHINGTON—Listening to oral arguments Wednesday regarding the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, all nine Supreme Court justices were reportedly moved to tears by the heartfelt and highly personal testimony of a bigot who despises homosexuals unreservedly. “It’s impossible for anyone who hasn’t spent their whole life in a state of benighted prejudice to know the pain and hardship that people like myself endure every day in our efforts to ensure that gays and lesbians remain oppressed and unequal,” said the immense homophobe, whose stirring, emotional speech about his harrowing daily struggles to impede social progress prompted a weeping Chief Justice John Roberts to halt the proceedings briefly so that he and the 500 individuals in attendance could compose themselves. “Just for a moment, put yourself in my shoes and try to imagine how difficult it is to know that the elevated social standing that I so unjustly enjoy is at stake. We have come too far and worked too hard to make sure that gays are second-class citizens, and all we’re asking for is basic unfairness. After all, isn’t that what this country is founded on?” Forgoing their typical months of deliberation, the justices issued an immediate 9-0 decision upholding DOMA, with Roberts writing that the testimony had “opened [his] eyes” to the plight of the nation’s intolerant and vowing that the court would never again allow progress and equality to impede the happiness of the nation’s close-minded and prejudiced
In an impassioned defence of gay marriage, Melbourne lord mayor Robert Doyle says government has no place in people's bedrooms and should be happy if ''people find each other, love each other and develop strong partnerships''.
Government should say ''it is not our business to determine who you should love'', Cr Doyle told Fairfax Media.
His stance contrasts sharply with that of new Premier Denis Napthine and is likely to put pressure on the Liberal Party he once led in Victoria. As lord mayor, Cr Doyle signs relationship declaration certificates for ceremonies at the Town Hall.
Cr Doyle, who has spoken of growing up in a non-traditional family, urged the state and federal governments to change laws to allow same-sex marriage.
''Don't try and define what a family unit is. A family unit is a family unit that functions,'' he said.
''I didn't have a father from when I was very young, wasn't in my life at all. I was raised by my mother and she is still the most admired person in my life. Don't tell me that we weren't a family unit because there wasn't a father in the family.''
The lord mayor, who is a patron of gay and lesbian radio station Joy FM, said it was time for change.
''Same-sex marriages should be treated in exactly the same way as heterosexual marriages,'' he said. ''It is time we actually said Melbourne is one of the most tolerant, diverse cities in the world, that is what we should be proud about.''
His comments come in the same week as US television star Ellen DeGeneres said that Dr Napthine was wrong for opposing same-sex marriage and the US Supreme Court considered the legality of gay marriage.
Cr Doyle said: ''I think we've all moved on. I think it's time to say this doesn't need to be a divisive issue. It is not the job of government to stare into people's bedroom windows. It is not the job of government to tell couples whom they should love and spend their lives with.
''What we should be happy about is that people … develop strong partnerships, that's what makes good community.
''I think you have got to be a bit careful about judging others. What you should strive for is … personal fulfilment in relationships and hope that all others in our community have exactly the same opportunity.''
Melbourne city councillor Richard Foster said he also supported marriage equality.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/let-g ... z2OzXswZs6
I believe you are thinking the wrong way around this one Coito. What you are telling are actually reasons why this should be allowed and not the other way. Currently, those situations do happen in real life for real people. But they are not regulated in law in any way, which means that the weakest (often the kids) are defenceless. E.g. I personally know lesbian couples, who have kids, where the biological father is a gay man, and he has a working parent relationship with the kids. These kids factually have three sociological parents, but the law does not recognize this, and allows only two legal parents for any child (at least here), so these kids are less secure in cases of divorce or death, than they could and should be. True, this isn't really about plural marriage, but parenthood and marriage are so closely linked in our society, that it is hard to see how one could be changed without affecting the other.Coito ergo sum wrote: Look at a plural marriage --
A marries B, and they have a child. A and B then agree to marry C and A and C have a child. They all live together as a family for 10 years. Then B divorces A and C divorces B. A earns $100,000 per year, B $50,000 per year, and C was a stay at home parent for both children for the entire 10 years. Assuming they can't agree on anything amicably, who gets custody of the kids? Does C get custody of both as a stay at home parent? Or does C only get custody of the one child who C is biologically connected to? Does the child of A and B have any right to association with C, since that child (although not biologically C's) has a 10 year relationship with C? What about alimony/spousal support? Does A have to pay C and B both? Does B have to pay C too?
alternative complication -- Same as above, except that C divorces B because C has begun to hate B, but C stays married to A. A also stays married to B. Does B have to pay spousal support to C? Can C still live in the same house as his/her spouse A? Should the court order C to leave the house? Why not B? Don't they all have rights in the home? Can C compel a sale of the home, like in a regular divorce case, even though A and B still want to live there and A and C are still married?
I think he was addressing (and opposing) those people who haven't stopped believing that being gay is wrong at some level or another, and bring that mindset into their decision to oppose gay marriage, even though they may not openly say so...mistermack wrote:While I agree that same sex marriage should be allowed, I think the mayor is using a false argument, saying that we shouldn't interfere in the bedroom, or tell people who they can love.
That stopped some time ago. This is about whether society recognises a marriage as legal marriage, and endows it with the same rights and resoponsibilities as heterosexual marriage.
I think society should, because I've never heard a good reason why we shouldn't. If people want to stand up in public, and swear to forsake all others etc, it should be recognised just like straight marriage.
It's making a public declaration and a legal commitment, and having it recorded and witnessed. There's nothing inherently straight or gay about it.
They didn't have legal status in the US because of bigotry disguised as religious protectionism.Tyrannical wrote:Homosexual men and lesbians are free to marry each other, and always have been. Why effeminate men and masculine women don't take more advantage of it, I don't know.
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests
