Conservatives and Homosexuality

Post Reply New Topic

and if he had been hung, they would have been wearing nooses, but suppose he had been poisoned?

Though I am politically a libertarian, I am personally extremely conservative.

Christianity aside (to ignore the ick factor), Whenever I come to a discussion regarding the civil rights of adults I always give the benefit of the doubt to the individual to do what is best for themselves.

Lets take for example the issues of gay marriage and polygamy. I add polygamy because of what is know as the "slippery slope" argument. Basically what that means, is to take an issue and link it to a possible consequence of which we apparently have no power of stopping. Allow me to demonstrate: "If we let gay people get married then people are going to want to marry 2 people. Then we'll have to let them marry minors, then we'll have to accommodate people who love animals", So we can't support gay marriage because then we would also be supporting bestiality and pedophilia.

I do not support such claims, but many of you are familiar with this debate technique from 'the war on drugs', 'the war on terror', and so forth.

Ideally, for me at least, I would like the government to get out of the marriage business and do away with marriage licenses, and in doing so amend current contract laws to account for marriage instead. Since marriage is a 'social contract' it should be treated as such, with basic legal protections. We could make a standard marriage contract (with the option of an additional prenuptial) that merely gives legal protection to the participants (power of attorney, hospital visits), so long as they are adults, regardless of gender. Meanwhile, should I as an individual want to construct my own contract, I would be free to do so, so long as it falls within contract law.

the slippery slope argument is idiotic. allowing marriage for gays wont lead to bestiality, just like interracial marriage didnt.

animals cant consent , adults can(so that throws out the allowing people to marry minors idea too)

It is indeed idiotic, but it is heavily used. In fact, it is one of Bill O'Reilly's favorites. Marijuana is illegal because apparently, once a drug becomes legal everyone starts using it uncontrollable, and we're going to have 14 year olds performing sexual favors for weed money.

It irritates me some time how people try to impose rules on me, without understanding that I will find a way to do something if I want it bad enough.

So polygamy is illegal; What is stopping me from living with 3 women, pooling our incomes, and fathering children with all of them? Many men already have children by multiple women, many women have children via multiple men.

cyanide pellets around their necks.

ruveyn

http://www.religionfacts.com/jehovahs_w ... ymbols.htm

Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses know everything.

So there you have it: the cross is a "pagan fertility symbol", i.e., a phallic symbol.

Well, it certainly can (as can just about anything, I'm sure) be interpreted as such, but it's hardly a good reason to reject it as a symbol of faith. I personally don't wear cross jewelry, but that's more of an issue of practicality than it is religious conviction. It is well known that the CROSS was an established Roman device for torture and execution. I would think a Witness who has an unbiased or untainted knowledge of recorded fact would understand that crucifixion happened most often on a transverse-beam cross, rather than the less-often used simple vertical beam.

I'm not going to get into the whole Witness-bashing thing, and I'd hate to see it go on like that. Some of them I've known can be genuinely wonderful people, despite where I strongly disagree with them. There are MUCH more pertinent things regarding faith and doctrine to debate than the shape of the device used to kill Jesus.

I will tack on a bit of a different view.

While adults should certainly be free to form whatever relationships they choose, your proposition only works in the context of equality of bargaining power. If one party in the relationship has significantly more power (i.e. money, cultural authority) than the other, there is every likelihood that the other party will be at a disadvantage. Take, for example, the phenomenon of arranged marriage that continues to be practiced in many cultures. If a North American woman's father agrees to her marrying a man "from the old country" she may well find herself being pressured into entering into a disadvantageous marriage agreement for the benefit not of her, but of her father (money, favours, etc.) and her future husband (immigration). Similarly, if a man has entered voluntarily into a relationship with a woman with signficantly more earning power than he, and has chosen to be a "househusband", he may find himself at a significant disadvantage should the relationship dissolve, with nothing to show for his intangible investments into their collective prosperity.

There must (at least in my political view) be some level of protection for spouses upon dissolution of the relationship from which neither party should be free to contract out.

There already is, as I said, under contract law. In the US a contract of slavery, unfair indentured servitude, or impossible conditions will be deemed invalid and void.

First lets address your cultural concern of arranged marriages. Arranged marriages already happen under our current system; whether they are of Indian descent or by the heads of two corporations, and daughters/sons being pressured by their parents is not something that can be legislated out of existence. I understand your concerns. If you are referring to minors being 'sold', they would be protected, as minors are now, with the option of opting out of contracts when they become legal adults.

Secondly, I am not sure where you are coming from with 'one sided' marriage agreements, we have those now. When a rich powerful person gets married now, they often have prenuptial agreements. Donald Trump is a prime example of the pros and cons of marriage agreements. I believe his latest marriage had a prenup that gives his wife more power of attorney over him and his finances as more years pass.

Personally I would promote prenuptial agreements, now AND if my idea was implemented. It puts everything on the table, will speed up the courts job later, and would be much easier on everyone. Think about it, wouldn't you rather decide what happens to your stuff and your children while you both still love each other and can think clearly without spite and anger?

My wife and I have a prenuptial agreement.

We agreed before getting married to never get divorced.

Well, for one, there is not one law of contract in the United States, there are fifty-one (but let's assume that "full faith and credit" will get us some way through that particular minefield). An unbalanced marriage agreement is not equivalent to a contract of slavery. One cannot simply assume that a Court will exercise jurisdiction to invalidate these agreements. An unfair contract is not legally equivalent to a contract that is impossible to perform. The latter is certainly unenforcable (though recision may not be available as a remedy), however the former most certain is enforcable.

I am not for a moment suggesting that arranged marriages be legislated out of existence. What I am suggesting is that the law should act to protect people from being exploited by a spouse or partner. There are far too many women left high and dry in the ages between 50 and 65 with no property settlement, no maintenance, and few, if any, prospects for employment. A spouse should not be required to exchange letters with her husband saying, "in exchange for pregnancy, childbirth and staying home to raise the children, you will provide me with x.y.z. in the event that our marriage dissolves."

Pre-nuptial agreements cannot put everything on the table, because a contract made today cannot contemplate the circumstances of the contracting parties at an undetermined point in the future. Will there be children or not? Will one partner stay home to raise the children? If so, which one? Will one partner will the lottery? Will they use one partner's inherentance to make the downpayment on the family home? On the cottage? Will they send the kids to private school? Whose income will pay the tuition fees? In the event of a breakup, which school catchment area will each partner live in? What will the opinion of the children be about which parent they want to live with after dissolution of the relationship?

All of these elements are factors that can contribute to the dispute between spouses upon breakup. In a perfect world, spouse's would approach the division of their assets and the custody of their children in a mature and objective fashion. In a perfect world, each partner would have employment income and pension savings that would suffice to allow them to continue the style of living that they both enjoyed while they were together. The reality is that mature, objective resolution of disputes is the exception rather than the rule, and no one, even the most careful, rational person, can predict every possibility at the time they enter into a relationship.

That's lovely. Unfortunately it's also completely unenforcable. You can turn around tomorrow and petition for divorce and there is absolutely no legal way to prevent that.

But it's a lovely sentiment, nonetheless.

Ha! You are only TECHNICALLY right. My wife and I have had LOOOOOOONG discussions about this. My wife is a paralegal in a firm that deals predominantly in family law and bankruptcy. She knows every trick in the book, and she could easily build her own case in pro se. You don't want to mess with this chick!

But I also briefly worked as an office assistant for a different law firm while I was between colleges, so I know a few tricks, also.

#1: No one can obligate or force you to sign a NFD
#2: Quibbling over joint property and custody is time consuming, mentally draining, and painful. It's also EFFECTIVE.
#3: Paperwork. 'Nuff said.
#4: Private investigators are wonderfully creative people.
#5: Can't reconcile with a cheater? Take 'em to the cleaners. Take their lover to civil court, too. Alienation of affection isn't too hard to prove, and there's much money to be had in that business.

Yeah, we take our wedding vows SERIOUSLY, maybe even too seriously. We also share an intense love for each other and our children. We have no reason at all to simply let the other person go.

One might say, "If you care about someone, wouldn't you want to let them go so they'll be happy?" My response is that person agreed to be happy with ME, no matter what. The truth is, we don't wake up every day excited to see each other like we did in those early years. Love is an action, not just an emotion or affection. If you don't do the work to maintain it, the relationship will fall apart. That's why, I think, that marriages so often don't work out. Couples don't care for the work! Sure, it gets exhausting, especially with kids in the picture. But it is what it is. As long as I know it means I can be secure in my relationship with my wife, I don't care what I have to do.

Visagrunt - I appreciate your feedback.

Your concerns are valid, should we ever come to real marriage reform. If we were ever to embark on a path to put more power in the hands of individuals it would without a doubt require a large amount of reform and amending to deal with this. I'm afraid I would not be able to present to you a comprehensive plan, since we are, as you noted, debating largely expansive and differentiated contract laws, as well as a non-existent rhetorical reform idea that I presented, which was up to your interpretation.

I believe strongly in putting individuals in charge of their own destiny, and to be free to love and marry whomever they choose. Being a heterosexual puts me out of discrimination's way, but if I was told I could not love another, merely because it was the law, I would be outraged. I am surprised that homosexuals have as much restraint as they do.

My greatest concern, is when the government stops regulating marriage, and starts relegating to particular groups. Marriage, as for some reason it requires a license, can be denied to an individual who is an adult and a citizen, simply because they are both male.

Fortunately, in this country, almost all of that is out the window. Adultery is grounds for divorce in Canada, but it is almost never the basis on which an order is granted. In 99% of cases divorce is granted on the basis that the parties have been living separate and apart for one year, and have not, in the meanwhile, reconciled.

Also, no Common Law jursidiction in Canada (and I suspect the same is true of Québec) will recognize a claim for alienation of affection. The Courts have long since established that they have no role to play in that kind of dispute. Furthermore, they will not hear evidence of wrongdoing in relation to matriomonial causes (except to the extent that this might be relevant to the best interests of a child).

They will dissolve the marriage and--if the parties can't agree--divide property, determine custody and guardianship and establish support. As for the rest, take it outside.

Aaaaaah, ok. I wasn't thinking about legal differences between USA and Canada. Just a little background, I'm from Mississippi, which in a lot of ways is like looking backwards in time, say, about 60 years (and even further back if you live in the Delta like I do). If you like that sort of thing, it's a great place to live. Just avoid the gang cliques that move between New Orleans and Chicago and you'll be fine (I used to be a public school teacher--I know more about it than I ever wanted to).

Many of us still espouse traditionalist ideas, not all of which are necessarily bad. My mom is often appalled by how far from the tree I've fallen! But we do still have a lot of values in common. My wife and I have had much more time apart than we ever really wanted and we've been with other people for much of that time. We have an amazing bond because we both seem to get thrown together when the other person or both of us is at our absolute WORST. Just when we get out of a tight spot personally or relationally, we think things couldn't possibly ever get any worse--and then they DO. She tells me about divorce cases where the marriage begins to dissolve within two months (referring to the legal proceedings, filing for NFD within 2 months). It depresses her so much that she's asked her employer not to give her divorce cases. We do have our differences from time to time, just like any couple, but the really AWEFUL fights seem to have magically vanished after she quit handling divorces. The only really sensitive point of contention right now is I won't agree to let her file for bankruptcy protection--medical bills. I say pay off your debts! Collectors are truly horrible people, and our experience with them has caused us to take threats much less seriously. They know good and well if they force us to do something we don't have the resources for, we can work through the law to make it all disappear. The GOOD ones get this, so we've mostly been able to work outside the courts to resolve issues.

Anyway, I digress. It really is in any country's best interest to preserve family law as best it can. I think some might fear government intrusion into family life (we've had a little of that, too, but that's another story). But people in non-abusive, committed relationships in general seem to have better physical and mental health and fairly well-adjusted children. Note I said non-abusive. My father was a scary, mentally abusive person--I'm neither physically healthy (a few extra pounds) nor well-adjusted! Despite somewhat impoverished circumstances, our children are very happy and, all things considered, so are we. Any kind of support system, perhaps even a mandate that couples make it work or prove extreme, dangerous circumstances in which marriage should be dissolved, that local/state/federal government can provide would likely be beneficial to the society as a whole.

All that, of course, IMHO.