In his reply to my post, for which I thank him, Robert George fairly notes that many of the family radicals who signed "Beyond Marriage" favor SSM. Of course they do. But so do nearly all left-wing and queer-theory academics and activists, which is what these folks are. (With the exception of Chai Feldblum and a few others, they have not played prominent roles in the same-sex marriage fight. I mean, Cornel West? Gimme a break.) The important distinction is that SSM is only part of what these folks favor, and the rest is what they really care about. As the title of their manifesto proclaims, they are looking beyond same-sex marriage: they favor SSM, not as an end in itself, but as a way-station toward a post-marriage society in which all concepts of family enjoy equal status and marriage is irrelevant.
There's no denying that they speak for a prominent element of the gay-rights movement (not the gay marriage movement; there's a difference). I worry about their influence, as I do about that of socialized-medicine advocates and anti-globalists and gender-abolishers and other members of the ultra-egalitarian left, but I don't think they'll prevail, even within the gay universe, most of which is neither radical nor "queer."
There's a legitimate argument here about whether the culture will interpret gay marriage as "anything goes" or as "marriage goes." Actually, some of both may happen, but I expect the dominant vector to be reaffirmation of marriage's privileged status as the family structure of choice. Parents asking their gay kids, "So, you guys going to get married?", plus the longstanding social preference for the unique commitment of marriage (as expressed, for example, in corporate benefits reserved for married couples), plus the fact that most marrying gay couples marry precisely because they see marriage as a unique commitment - all these, I expect, will lead the culture to read SSM as a return to the values of marriage, not a further flight from them. The wind brings positive straws from Massachusetts, where a number of employers are revoking domestic-partner benefits now that SSM is legal.
In any case, it's hardly fair to saddle homosexuals with the burden of exclusion from marriage in hopes of preventing heterosexual folly. If straights insist on trashing marriage, it's not gays' job to stop them. Question: how many American heterosexuals would give up their own marriages to (maybe) forfend polygamy? Who would even consider asking them to do so? I'm often saddened by otherwise compassionate conservatives' willingness to think of gay people, in the SSM debate, as pawns to be manipulated for some larger social good. They must forgive us for declining to think of ourselves that way.
Regarding polygamy...OK, let me see if I get this. Polygamy destabilizes societies, is inconsistent with liberal democracy, shows pronounced inegalitarian and misogynistic tendencies, is frivolous by comparison to SSM, has no logical connection to SSM, and indeed is logically antithetical to the principle of SSM properly understood (everyone should have the opportunity to marry)...these are not principled arguments? Whereas "one man plus one woman makes baby" is not just a principled barrier to polygamy, it is the only principled barrier?
The problem, which is immediately obvious, is that "one man plus one woman makes baby" is no kind of barrier to polygamy, either logical or practical. Logically, man-plus-woman-makes-baby is a biological fact, but one-plus-one-makes-marriage in no way follows from it. Men are perfectly happy to marry all the women they can make babies with, as they have been wont to do since the dawn of history. Given that most human cultures have been polygamous (and quite a few still are), and that presumably all of these cultures have been well aware that heterosexual couples make babies, it seems self-evident that the man-woman-baby argument has little or no deterrent effect on polygamy.
A point of honest disagreement with George is this: in my opinion, the reasons to oppose polygamy are instrumental, not metaphysical, and all the stronger for that. And they are the same reasons for favoring gay marriage. Society and (generally) individuals are better off when everyone can marry and most people do.
That disagreement aside, I wish George would reconsider his strategy of pooh-poohing all the arguments against polygamy (and polyamory) that don't also militate against SSM - which is to say, virtually all the arguments against polygamy. Surely we could agree that this strategy does monogamy no favors. As SSM and gay partnerships gain acceptance, conservatives will be stuck with their own arguments that any change to the boundaries of marriage entails every change. It will be harder for the public, sensible though it is, to hold the line with conservatives insisting there is no line to hold. Sometimes I wonder if, like Col. Nicholson in "Bridge on the River Kwai," slippery-slope conservatives are forgetting what they're supposed to be defending. (Hint: not polygamy.)
As for polyamory, if by that George means group marriage, it might be different in some ways from polygamy, but it's analytically similar: frivolous, logically antithetical to SSM, and, to judge by the last several thousand years of experience, likely to devolve in the vast majority cases into polygamy. As for fending off formal recognition of non-marital polyamory (e.g., group cohabitation benefits), gay marriage is the surest method of preventing that.
In any case, it's well to remember that all this polygamy/polyamory talk amounts to changing the subject. Gay people are asking only for what straight people currently have: the opportunity to marry someone we choose (not anyone or everyone we choose). When straights get the right to marry two people, their mother, a dog, or a toaster, gay people will want the same opportunity. But not before.
{ 64 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Good ol’ NE-L. I’m not sure he’s really up with it at the moment. He seems to be addressing Op-Ed, but specifically references arguments I made. I’ll attempt to reply, but his presentation is so ambiguous that it is difficult to say.
I didn’t think “Op Ed” or whoever is trolling the boards would respond to any of my points
I’m not speaking for Op-Ed, but I’ve responded to all of them. Would you care to list points that you feel I did not reply to? I’d be happy to correct that error.
I do note that his constant and hysterical dislike of “romantic freedom” is telling.
The problem was equating love with romantic freedom, nothing against romantic freedom in and of itself. Is your problem just simple reading comprehension? Here it is again for you:
In the end, all they’re reduced to is blasting everyone who isn’t exactly like them as being unthinking, wicked, nasty, horrible people who have no redeeming value
Close, but not entirely. The trait of being “unthinking” is something that is not like me at all, and it has no redeeming value to the conversation. I’m just applying Occam’s razor here. Well, that and I’m not ascribing to your malice what is obviously a product of …
They view government as the power to force other people to be as miserable as they are
That was funny. Are you for expanding marriage to cover homosexual couples? Didn’t you say marriage was government mittens in personal affairs? Seems you are the one wanting to expand government to make everyone equally miserable.
Look, you are obviously getting punch drunk here and are swinging so wildly that you are hitting yourself. Just take a lesson from this that pompous blustering is no substitute for substance.
Learn, move on, do better. That is all.
they hate it as much as history or fact-based learning. … I doubt we’re going to get much more than dictionary quotes …
Wow, you really are getting punch drunk. You just beraded Op-Ed for presenting facts and for not having facts at the same time.
advance some lunatic proposition about how the 98% of the world which doesn’t live the way you do is evil incarnate.
Hmm, I didn’t see anyone calling anyone else evil.
Again, the first thing you should fix is your intellectual honesty.
Channeling Wm F Buckley are we?
My thoughts on marriage are informed by Graff’s What is Marriage For. Which you will probably dismiss as a popular book. Beyond that, my background is in economics. So, my own take on the subject is that looking at arguments for and against same sex marriage, my understanding is that traditionally marriage was an economic transaction. Women were bought and sold. This strikes me as clear from reading history also. But that is a pointless effort as Fitz will simply declare a scholar out of bounds because of ‘leftist’ affiliation.
Fitz says: ‘All the talk of ?patriarchy?, ?restoration of dominance? and ?lording over? reveals the profound oppressor/oppressed dialectic that drive this persons thought. Viewing a institution such as marriage with it multiple variables and storied history through a crude reductionism that robs it of its texture and humanity.
This is precisely the mind set so prevalent on the left that drives critics like Robert George and myself to dismiss any feigned concern over the institution of marriage as a whole; as just so much convenient rhetoric. ‘
Which is neither here nor there, my mind set is beside the point. What I find myself hearing is some gasbag running on and on about how the posters here are:
A. uneducated
B. educated the wrong way
C. not capable of understanding complex thoughts.
D. not using ‘real authorities’ like the ones he uses
OK, who are you? That you should place yourself in the exalted company of ‘Robert George’ must mean that we are being condesended to by someone with grand credentials. So, tell us who you are and what makes you so credible. From your arguments, all I see is sophistry and evasion.
Please to remember, this is a board with strong libertarian leanings. And libertarianism originated from the left. Also, libertarians tend to focus on the contractual elements of human relationships. Leaving ‘true meanings’, ‘just prices’, ‘fair returns’ and so forth in the rubbish bin of history. Or more likely to snickering and ridicule.
We tend here to speak in the language of Mill, who also was not very concerned about ‘real’ meanings and all the rest of this pointless verbiage. Marriage is a contractural relationship. Over time the female partner has acquired more and more rights under the marital contract. I can remember when the law was changed so that women could refuse to have sex with their husbands. If you think forced sex within marriage is not an ‘oppresor/oppressed’ issue, then what is? It is not some ‘dialectic’ driving me but my own native ability to observe the world and draw conclusions.
On a personal note, when my partner was dying, I discovered the cold hard facts of a relationship without marriage. Which is why I advocate same sex marriage. As a contractual relationship.
Perhaps you could speak to the incredible suffering and misery lack of marriage brings to gay people. That would be a helpful start.
Went and read the meanderings of the Robert George person. Which appeared in ‘First Things’, an UltraMontanist publication. Why should anyone care about what such people think? And why Rauch takes this any more seriously than Westboro Baptist Church is beyond me.
George’s argument is that same sex marriage people have not shown a strong aversion to polygamy, polyandry, and other looming menaces.
Well, speaking strictly for me, it is because there is no reason to do so. In advocating SSM, that is all we are advocating. There is no logical reason for us to make others’ arguments for them. Those who favor polygamy and so forth are capable of speaking for themselves. This is entirely a red herring, a time waster.
The topic at hand is same sex marriage. Yea or nay? Dragging in all and sundry other forms of relationships is simply beside the point. ANSWER THE QUESTION!. Do not confuse the issue.
My own take is that George’s approach is morally and intellectually disgraceful. If he is concerned about these other issues, he should take it up with those who advocate them. Not with those who advocate SSM. The prestidigitation and flimflam on show with George is really unsettling. Is he incapable of addressing one issue without festooning all and sundry on it? The article is truly a garish christmas tree of thinking.
My own simile would be that speaking for SSM is a simple ballad, sung without accompniment. George presents it as AIDA, complete with elephant. Truly trashy.
My personal ideas on polygamy etc are these. I find relationships to be a personal matter, best left up to the people entering into them. The law should work to curtail obvious, provable defects. There should also be a fairly simple exit for those who so desire.
Beyond that, I really don’t care how many people enter into relationships. It is none of my business. And I have known a number of three person relationships that worked admirably for the partners and their children.
Polygamy and polyamatory do not ‘pick my pocket’, so I really just wish those in such relationships well. End of story.
Waiting for the Ultramontanists to harrange again.
Dalea,
Channeling Wm F Buckley are we? … My thoughts on marriage are informed by Graff’s … Fitz will simply declare a scholar out of bounds because of ‘leftist’ affiliation. … We tend here to speak in the language of Mill
Your commentary seems to be one of making yourself and others pawns of patron scholars and saints. Sure, if that is your thing. I’m no one’s pawn though.
But I will add this, for someone pleading for an open mind to others beliefs and feelings, you should not be so quick to dismiss George for religious affiliation. As I recall, he did not present a religious argument to Rauch.
Its simply a stone vs glass house thing.
Please to remember, this is a board with strong libertarian leanings. And libertarianism originated from the left.
This is questionable on many levels. Libertarianism since the seventies recognizes itself as a dimension of politics apart from the arbitrary right and left. Perhaps even three dimensions.
From your arguments, all I see is sophistry and evasion.
Feel free to provide some examples.
my understanding is that traditionally marriage was an economic transaction. Women were bought and sold. This strikes me as clear from reading history also.
I’ve heard physics explained as just a series of economic transactions, the currency being money. In fact, currency and current (as in fluid flow and electrical flow) are based on the same word. In a mindset that looks at everything as an exchange of something, whole universal theories of everything can be constructed.
I am not going to speak against that practice. However, if by “economic transaction” you are describing a commercial transaction then please provide your evidence for that statement. Surely if it is so clear, and so universal that the evidence should be readily available.
To put it succinctly, I am calling your bluff. (It wasn’t even a very good bluff attempt if you ask me).
I can remember when the law was changed so that women could refuse to have sex with their husbands.
I believe I know what you are getting at here, but lets call this bluff too just to make sure.
On a personal note, when my partner was dying, I discovered the cold hard facts of a relationship without marriage. Which is why I advocate same sex marriage. As a contractual relationship.
My condolances. I know what it is like to slowly loose touch with someone you love because of physical incapacity. You didn’t not say whether or not they survived, I hope that is the case.
However, if everything is a contract then certainly you didn’t need marriage. With adequate enforcement of the contract you and your partner wished to make, according to your own ideals of a relationship, you could have anything a marriage has. The question is, do you support abstraction of marriage to facilitate the freedom of two people to create their own contract? Or are you against such a freedom and wish to use the government to impose the heterosexual view of marriage on homosexuality (which is Rauch’s view IIRC)?
I believe that is a good place to begin in understanding your position. I have more I could say, but I’d rather build a foundation for the discussion first.
MIchael died. We had all the contracts, powers of attorney, on and on and they did no good. It is comparatively easy to suggest that all gay people need do is get these, and then there is no reason they should marry. But, as gay person after gay person has testified these substitutes do not have the force of marriage. They are easily evaded by those who are not sympathetic to gay people. When I told the doctor my wishes for a comatose man, he said ‘sue me’. Found out it would take at least 4 months to get a court date, and could not afford a lawyer.
The rights of a spouse are absolute. Which is why gay people seek this legal status. And many of us have run into the situation where all the marriage substitutes don’t work. Were you aware of this? Did it occur to you that we have reasons to advocate ssm besides overthrowing three milleniums of whatever? Please listen to the voices of gay people speaking on this subject. We have very profound reasons to seek marriage.
After Michael passed away there was something I felt called upon to do. The hospice workers were persuaded by their pastors and churches that it would be unchristian to care for a dying gay man. So, I was left to do all the work, with no training or skills, of taking care of him. This went on for 18 days. One person who did not know how to give a bed bath doing 24 hour care. When I went to file complaints about these licensed care givers, they were rejected because I was not a spouse or next of kin. This haunts me still 12 years later.
I have personally known many gay men who have been in my position. Have you heard our stories? Listened to our trials and tribulations? Can you see how George’s arguments make no dent in our resolve?
You have abstract arguments. We have experiences. Which strikes me as two very different starting places.
Examples of sophistry and evasion.
Mentioning schools of thought and how they apply here in understanding one’s fellow posters: ‘Your commentary seems to be one of making yourself and others pawns of patron scholars and saints. Sure, if that is your thing. I’m no one’s pawn though.’
I suspect you are trying to say something about how marriage requires a man and a woman, but I am not sure. What does androgyny have to do with ssm? This seems to be the old Buckley tactic of presenting another position in complex language to mystify the discussants. ‘A androgynized conception of marriage that is separated from any necessary connection to childbearing can successfully promote monogamy amongst the population at large’
On what gay people are looking for in ssm: ‘Enter into this Intellectual wasteland a handful of discordant voices maintaining the homosexuals wish to mainstream themselves into monogamy (Which is in tatters and under great strain since the sexual revolution)’
How did monogamy get into the topic? Why is it here? AFAIK we are talking about the needs gays have for full marriage. Not what shape that marriage should take. Strikes me as evasive.
On the way I look at things:’The stark contrast of such analogies reveals the profound oppressor/oppressed dialectic that drive this persons thought.’
This strikes me as an ad hominem argument. Plus evades the idea that marriage has had in the past oppresive elements.
On marriage, or something, not really sure what this is about. ‘Viewing a institution such as marriage with it multiple variables and storied history through a crude reductionism that robs it of its texture and humanity.’
Looks like a word cloud to me, designed to throw people off the topic. Really evades the issues here.
Examples of sophistry and evasion. …
Your only example happened after your accusation. Very sloppy attempt. The other examples were from Fitz, and they don’t seem to fly either.
Also, I’m not sure how your example is one of evasion. You were the one who brought up the questions (well pre-emptive accusations) on my views on your scholars. I believe I addressed that specifically. To speak on that further, personally I don’t think who says an argument speaks much about an argument.
Sorry, your accusations won’t save you from keeping up your end of the conversation. I still expect you to substantiate those accusations, even if that wallows the debate into watching you flail about with increasingly useless and baseless accusations. Its just a pass-time of mine.
What does androgyny have to do with ssm?
Androgenous marriage could reference role-reversals of each gender, or it could just reference the fact that marriage has a dual gendered component. Which were you referencing in relation to a same-sex couple, or what quote were you referencing of mine?
This seems to be the old Buckley tactic of presenting another position in complex language to mystify the discussants.
Mystified? Try asprin
Could you, just for my sake, directly quote my words you are replying to? It is almost impossible to understand what you are referencing here.
How did monogamy get into the topic? Why is it here?
I believe the person who first brought up monogamy was a contributor to this discussion:
In fact it was the person who started this thread, Mr Rauch himself. IIRC, Rauch has stated before his view that manipulating the definition of marriage is a way to encourage monogamy in same-sex relationships. I believe that is an important plank in Rauch’s platform the impact increased monogamy among gays has an impact on social health and STD’s.
So I have to chuckle, you are obviously getting delirious also. So desperate are you to start impugning people (Fitz in this case) that you’ve wound up taking a swipe at your own general.
I tell you, if you were more interested in the debate than in making grand accusations you’d have saved yourself from this folley.
But then this seems to further support Fitz observation of dischord in the voices promoting nuetering the marriage definition for the sake of homosexuality.
This strikes me as an ad hominem argument. Plus evades the idea that marriage has had in the past oppresive elements.
A more thorough reading of Fitz commentary (some quoted by myself above) shows that he is not arguing marriage has not had oppressive elements. But that the overly-constrained construction of marriage history along the lines of oppressed and oppressor is not accurate.
But you said about that:
Looks like a word cloud to me, designed to throw people off the topic. Really evades the issues here.
I’ll give you my take. You seem to have constructed a house of cards. A delicate placement of sorted facts hand selected for the construction of an argument. When it is poited out that you missed various facts, views, and such, you claim its a distraction. You accuse others in order to enforce blinders on them. Thats what I’m seeing.
Now, if you have questions feel free to ask. I’m sure plenty are ready to help you with your confusion. But I wouldn’t be the one to blame someone else for your conflusion, because frankly, you can’t assume others are so narrow minded.
To put it very succinctly, your lack of comprehension and open-mind is not a evasion on someone else’s part.
MIchael died. We had all the contracts, powers of attorney, on and on and they did no good.
I’m sorry to hear that. But when you say they did no “good” I believe you are saying something more meaningful to the debate than those contracts didn’t keep him alive. What specifically did those contracts not do that you expected them to do?
But, as gay person after gay person has testified these substitutes do not have the force of marriage.
This, more than anything else, shows that marriage is more than a contract. You may not see what marriage is more, but you you seem to have discredited the opinion that marriage is just a contract. Well, more than a contract between two people.
And that is probably where the libertarian case of marriage really hits the fan. Marriage is a contract between more than two people. The two people enter the contract of their free will and choice, and others then contribute to it of their free will and choice. That means the government, hospitals, corporations, etc… What the thrust of Delea’s complaints seem to be is that there isn’t enough enforcement to make third parties contribute to the contract. Delea had contracts but they didn’t make anyone else do anything for them. It is saying that the third parties have too much liberty and free choice on the matter. I’m having real trouble justifying that as a libertarian ideal.
But I have news for you. Marriage does not grant absolute power, as you claim. I know this is true from my own experience. My wife has been in many varied medical emergencies, and my say was just as little as yours. In fact I couldn’t even access what medical treatment was happening to her, let alone have any say in it.
The hospitals chose to ignore that I was a husband. I’ll tell you the only thing they wouldn’t ignore was my wife signing a document that specifically names people who can have differing levels of access to her care. And she can put a gay lover there if she wants to. These days we make sure and get these documents signed first thing.
I have other news for you. They still have a choice even if you neutered marriage. They can choose to only recognize gender-complete arrangements, or not recognize marriage at all. Your choice to solve your problems with more government enforcement is fool-hardy.
And what really sickens me is all your commentary looks at is gay couples, not even all same-sex couples but homosexual couples. You can’t see beyond your own nose. I’m here to tell you that there are many couples just as in need as a homsexual couple.
Thats the point of the Beyond Marriage document which Rauch is against. Take it up with him. You two can be bigoted towards homosexuality all you want. You two can focus only on gays all you want. When people see a bigger picture, you and Rauch call it a distraction because all you care about are yourselves and homosexuals.
That truely sickens me.
The mask has come off. We now can see clearly the face of our opponents, this Fitz/ On Lawn.
The contracts did not allow Micheal’s designated agent to make decisions. This was per our discussions. I was not able to do what he had told me to do under circumstances.
I for one would like to know who this person is, and so forth.
The point of contracts from a libertarian perspective is that they are readily enforceable.
dalea: The point of contracts from a libertarian perspective is that they are readily enforceable.
Then you are pushing for contracts, not marriage, which puts you in the Beyond Marriage crowd, not the “if only homosexuals would act like good little heterosexuals” crowd with Rauch.
This may surprise you, but contracts are available today. You can write a contract between a man and a woman today. Rauch calls that a “marriage alternative,” all of which are bad because they will cause the world to end. You can write a contract between two men, or between two women, or between siblings or a mother and a son. Heck, you can even write contracts between three people…or even four or five. And however these alternative groups offend Rauch’s morality, those contracts are just as enforceable as two party contracts or a contract between a man and a woman.
So contracts already exist, and people who can choose them today as an alternative to marriage. But most people don’t make this choice and that offends your sensibilities. So your “libertarian” solution is therefore to abolish marriage so people will have no choice but to behave the way you want and just make their marriage into a contract. While forcing others to conform to your sensibilities may match what you claim is the leftist take on libertarianism, the rest of us consider that to be simple totalitarianism.
Uhhh, my point previously was that having had the contracts, I found them to be unenforcable when time came to use them. Please pay more attention to the what we are talking about. And please quit making stuff up, like: ‘Then you are pushing for contracts, not marriage, which puts you in the Beyond Marriage crowd’
As stated, I regard marriage as a contract. And think gay people should have access to it on the same basis as everyone else.
my point previously was that having had the contracts, I found them to be unenforcable when time came to use them.
You’d have to state more of the circumstances, but it sounds like those contracts were not written well. Or perhaps more probable, you expected too much from them. Things not even marriage would deliver.
I stated this already, you ignored it. That supports my theory on your construction of your argument.
As stated, I regard marriage as a contract. And think gay people should have access to it on the same basis as everyone else.
As Op-Ed noted:
When you reconsile this divide with Rauch and let me know.
The mask has come off. We now can see clearly the face of our opponents, this Fitz/ On Lawn.
It seems your accusations are getting more obscure and vague as the discussion moves on. Fair enough, as all the accusations you’ve made explicit so far have been so easily discredited.
The contracts did not allow Micheal’s designated agent to make decisions. This was per our discussions. I was not able to do what he had told me to do under circumstances.
Neither did my marriage give me the power to make decisions. I’ve often wondered shy I need to be listed with each different medical establishment, but the fact remains no one contract does what you wish. At least not marriage. You are chasing an illusion.
If someone has a wish, as your partner did, it seems a living will is in order. I know I need one, even though I’m married.
The point of contracts from a libertarian perspective is that they are readily enforceable.
Such a plattitude, but one that doesn’t seem to support your argument. Contracts are enforcable, perhaps, between the parties signed onto the contract. Pretending your contracts are enforcable onto non-signatories is simply delusional, let alone contrary to libertarian principles.
Hi, my name is Jinna, I’m pretty sweet girl looking for young man. You can read more about me
on the site, and also you can see my photos there.
[url=http://www.igotfree.com/datingi/]MEET ME HERE![/url]
MORE DATING LINKS:
[url=http://datingi.macvillage.net/]lesbian dating[/url]
[url=http://www.xmail.net/datingi/index3.html]dating personals[/url]
[url=http://www.megspace.com/entertainment/datingi/index.html]free on line dating[/url]
[url=http://www.tbns.net/datingi/index3.html]free dating websites[/url]
[url=http://www.xmail.net/datingi/index.html]100% free dating[/url]
[url=http://www.megspace.com/entertainment/datingi/index2.html]icp dating game[/url]
[url=http://www.tbns.net/datingi/index2.html]free online dating sites[/url]
[url=http://datingi.macvillage.net/index2.html]dating online[/url]
[url=http://www.xmail.net/datingi/index2.html]free sex dating[/url]
[url=http://datingi.macvillage.net/index3.html]dating serice[/url]
[url=http://sitepalace.com/datingi/index3.html]online dating services[/url]
[url=http://www.redrival.com/~datingi/]dating servce[/url]
[url=http://www.megspace.com/entertainment/datingi/index3.html]dating direct[/url]
[url=http://datingi.mrfreehost.com/]gay dating[/url]
[url=http://datingi.t35.com/index3.html]insane clown posse dating game[/url]
[url=http://www.tbns.net/datingi/]herpes dating[/url]
[url=http://datingi.mrfreehost.com/index2.html]russian dating[/url]
[url=http://datingi.t35.com/index2.html]adult dating sites[/url]
[url=http://datingi.mrfreehost.com/index3.html]singles dating[/url]
[url=http://datingi.piranho.com/]uk lottery dating holiday inn cheap flight[/url]
[url=http://datingi.sphosting.com/index3.html]bbw dating[/url]
[url=http://datingi.t35.com/]dating site reviews[/url]
[url=http://datingi.piranho.com/index2.html]free dating site[/url]
[url=http://datingi.sphosting.com/index2.html]ohio valley dating[/url]
[url=http://datingi.piranho.com/index3.html]online dating chat rooms[/url]
[url=http://sitepalace.com/datingi/]the dating game[/url]
[url=http://www.redrival.com/~datingi/index3.html]uk map university hotel agency dating chat dell flight[/url]
[url=http://datingi.sphosting.com/]online dating reviews[/url]
[url=http://sitepalace.com/datingi/index2.html]free adult dating[/url]
[url=http://www.redrival.com/~datingi/index2.html]teen dating[/url]
2admin,moderators: If you dont want to see us anymore [url=http://unsubscribe.hub.io/]click here[/url]
Neither did my marriage give me the power to make decisions. I’ve often wondered shy I need to be listed with each different medical establishment, but the fact remains no one contract does what you wish. At least not marriage. You are chasing an illusion.
That is incorrect. Your ignorance of the law doesn’t serve as an excuse.
Under state-defined “marriage,” spouses are the final arbiters of legal decisions for incapacitated spouses related to life-and-death decision-making. The requirements which hospitals make in listing spouses would result, at worst, in a delay in decision-making which could lead to successful civil litigation — however, the spouse’s right is sacrosanct under the law and protected by jurisprudence.
Such is NOT the case with individual contracts.
Now, it should be — in fact, anyone who an individual designates should be the person who makes the decision, and “marriage” would just be a private designation.
Under state-defined “marriage,” spouses are the final arbiters of legal decisions for incapacitated spouses related to life-and-death decision-making.
Problems in your reading comprehension do not amount to problems in the argument. The question was not in the existance of the power, but in the absolute application of it.
From Delea:
Such is NOT the case with individual contracts.
Which again shows marriage is more than a contract. You can’t have it both ways, do you want marriage to be just a contract or do you want marriage to be a way of making others give their services to your contract?
Now, it should be — in fact, anyone who an individual designates should be the person who makes the decision, and “marriage” would just be a private designation.
If all you want is marriage to be a contract, well you are in luck. Contracts exist that are perfectly private just as you wish.
Beyond that, if you want to make everyone’s marriage have no meaning other than being a contract then you are seperating from the rest of the marriage neuterists in that you are openly insist they promise no harm to the marriage institution whatsoever.
← Previous Comments