From Human Stupidity, an MRA blog rather obsessed with underage girls and the alleged evil of age of consent laws:
[I]f a 15 year old … can decide to have sex with a 16 year old … [h]ow come she cannot have sex with a 35 year old? Age discrimination by law?
Are you worried about manipulation of the tender 15 year old? I have a solution:
what about legalizing sex with underage adolescents, if they first undergo an hour of mandatory counselling and a 2 day cool off period? That should take care of this issue. This would guarantee safety for the 15 year old against being conned or manipulated. More safety that is offered to 21 year old tipsy Friday night party girls who may feel sorry for what they did yesterday
I think he might actually be serious here. Though it’s pretty clear he’d be happy with any excuse to make it legal for 35 year-old men to have sex with 15 year-old girls.
If I put my partner in my will, I don’t see my family challenging it. Therefore, by Brandon!logic, it’s not an issue.
Brandon: @Pecunium: I never said that every single “benefit” of marriage can be duplicated with contracts and other legal agreements.
Yes, you did.
Back to the salt mines (this is the fourth time I’ve gone back to the Dudes Republic of China thread, to read every word you wrote. I really ought to find a way to download it
@Molly Ren: I think we just have two different world views. I just can’t see any long term benefits to being married that ONLY exist in the marriage framework.
That says the “long term benefits” can all be replicated.
Immigration is probably the only sticking point with marriage. If I wanted to marry a foreigner, I would only have the option of marrying her in order for her to come into the country. This really is one of the very few benefits of marriage that doesn’t have a counterpart outside of marriage.
So here we have an exclusionary admission. “one of the very few” which doesn’t have a counterpart.
@Pecunium: Most of those questions you put forth can be solved with a Power of Attorney and a Medical Proxy….so instead of one step (marriage license) I take 2-3 steps…but I completely avoid ALL the future liabilities of marriage and divorce courts. Seems like a no brainer.
Again, you argue that you can get what you want, and the downside is a little more work, but the upside is no divorce courts.
But fine, we can grant that you never said “all”, but on the flip side the only one you have actually admitted to is related to immigration. It’s not an unreasonable reading of your actual views that you really don’t think their is one which can’t be replicated.
But wait! You clarified.
Needless to say, you are not really giving up much my not marrying. Immigration issues seems to be the only real thing that has no counterpart for the non-married.
Immigration is the only thing which has no counterpart. That’s perilously close to, saying all the benefits can be replicated.
And… the money quote: So I ask again, if I got married what benefit would I receive that I could only get by being married. This isn’t about having a damn slave wife…I want to see a benefit that is given out by law that would benefit me if I got married.
When such were provided, you handwaved them away, even going so far as to say that the tax benefits could be equaled with a little bit of careful moving of money about.
So, you did say that there were no benefits which exist only to those in the married state.
You want the privileges, without the obligations. That’s why people say your attitude is, “FYJIGM”
BrandonFine…IF alimony is awarded the man is most likely going to be the one paying it. It’s my bad if I didn’t add that first “if” in there.
Yes, and, looking at your quote, and how long it went before someone actually pointed it out, you ran with this Fine…IF alimony is awarded the man is most likely going to be the one paying it. It’s my bad if I didn’t add that first “if” in there. for a damned long time, and kept coming back to alimony as if it was something, you in particular, really needed to worry about.
Which, since were you to get married you don’t plan to “let” your wife not work… is a null-set. Working spouses don’t get alimony.
It’s a straw man, and you keep stuffing it.
In response to my “litmus test”: If someone says “men should really do X”. I flip it around to “women should really do X”. While that person said the former example…would they still say the latter. Helps me see double standards.
But you don’t do that, or when you do you tend to do it dishonestly. The folks here, the one’s you’ve been lecturing on how to do feminism, have consistently said the application of all those things should be gender neutral.
You’ve presented your ideas (or Business Week’s) and said that represents the opinions of either feminists (not proven) or all women (disproved; even if you try to make it, most women, you can’t. The source material is, at best, questionable).
Brandon @Magpie: Ya, but you are holding people to a contract they didn’t sign…hence it is possibly illegal. By signing a marriage contract you are entitled to all the benefits and responsibilities. By broadening that out to co-habituating couples, you are subjecting them to a contract they didn’t sign.
I recommend you avoid living with a girlfriend in certain common law states (e.g. New Hampshire or the District of Columbia), because it’s possible for you to end up married without actually going to the courthouse. I also recommend you don’t engage in a polyamorous lifestyle in Utah (that can get one put into prison for bigamy, no official marriage, be it civil or merely a private “commitment ceremony” needed. And it’s legal, been upheld).
It’s not automatic, but public perception can end up making it legal.
@pecunium:
“Yes, you did.
Back to the salt mines (this is the fourth time I’ve gone back to the Dudes Republic of China thread, to read every word you wrote. I really ought to find a way to download it”
And I also mentioned spousal protection in court cases and insurance benefits for the non-working spouse.
“@Molly Ren: I think we just have two different world views. I just can’t see any long term benefits to being married that ONLY exist in the marriage framework.
That says the “long term benefits” can all be replicated.”
No…it means that I PERSONALLY don’t see any long term benefits to marriage. You can see this with me using “I think” and “I just can’t” to mean I am talking about my own personal opinion.
“Immigration is probably the only sticking point with marriage. If I wanted to marry a foreigner, I would only have the option of marrying her in order for her to come into the country. This really is one of the very few benefits of marriage that doesn’t have a counterpart outside of marriage.
So here we have an exclusionary admission. “one of the very few” which doesn’t have a counterpart.”
So I give two examples of benefits that can not be duplicated (spousal protection and immigration issues) without marriage and somehow that means I said ALL benefits of marriage can be replicated.
“But wait! You clarified.
Needless to say, you are not really giving up much my not marrying. Immigration issues seems to be the only real thing that has no counterpart for the non-married.
Immigration is the only thing which has no counterpart. That’s perilously close to, saying all the benefits can be replicated.”
Again, spousal protections and immigration. Also 99% is perilously close to 100%…but it isn’t 100%!
I don’t want the privileges or the obligations of marriage. The reason is I PERSONALLY see the obligations far outweigh a few privileges.
Yes…and by her remaining in the workforce. She doesn’t lose any years of experience in the job market so if there was a divorce, she wouldn’t be at a disadvantage and I have a lower chance of not being forced to pay alimony…which seems like a win-win. Although this is all based on actually getting married.
Alimony is something I don’t have to worry about. However people that are 1) the breadwinnner 2) supports a SAHM or D 3) filing for divorce have to think about it.
It’s easy to dismiss sources when they disagree with your POV. If businessweek ran an article about the wage gap, I bet a lot of feminist blogs would either write a full blown article about it or even just link to it as further “proof” of the wage gap.
I wouldn’t live in DC if you paid me. Also, New Hampshire only recognizes common law marriages posthumously. And in that case, I am dead….so it doesn’t really matter what happens.
“I wouldn’t live in DC if you paid me.”
Thank god, I’d hate to meet you in a bar somewhere.
Brandon: Why didn’t you reply to this part of my quoting you.
So I ask again, if I got married what benefit would I receive that I could only get by being married. This isn’t about having a damn slave wife…I want to see a benefit that is given out by law that would benefit me if I got married.
You then defended this, saying that every example offered was replicable.
Brandon, LGBT folk have worked really hard to make their relationships like marriages, legally, with contracts and other documents, but it still doesn’t work.
For you to assert that it DOES is frustrating, because it ignores the fact that, without marriage, queer couples’ contracts and legal paperwork are all too often dismissed or overruled.
In your fantasy world, queer people can get married, and I appreciate your support of same sex marriage.
But why can’t you simply imagine a world in which you get married without a ceremony and a huge expensive party? Seriously, you can imagine a world in which same sex marriage is universally legal and accepted, but you can’t imagine a world in which you, Brandon, can personally get married without a fancy wedding? A world in which you, Brandon, marry a woman who you can be in an equal partnership with? A world in which you, Brandon, can have an open marriage?
All of these things are really, truly, more possible currently than same sex marriage. And it is frustrating that you dismiss all of the legal guarantees that marriage offers … guarantees that really cannot be reliably duplicated for queer couples via the methods you outline … and then you refuse to acknowledge that all of the things YOU fear about marriage are actually choices that people can legally make freely. Social pressure does apply, of course, but legally, you could marry your girlfriend tomorrow at the courthouse, no wedding, be equal partners, and be in an open relationship. That legal possibility is literally impossible for my girlfriend and me.
To hell with whether we want a big wedding or not, whether we’re both going to be wage-earners or whether one would stay home with children, or whether we are going to be monogamous. Those are all decisions we can LEGALLY make on our own, as can you.
@Molly: I have visited…so you might have.
@Pecunium: And I acknowledged that issues about immigration and spousal protections count as two examples of benefits that can’t be replicated outside of marriage. However there are a lot of benefits that very well can be duplicated whether or not it is more or less difficult…the point is they CAN be duplicated not the difficulty in obtaining them.
@Comrade Svilova: I am not against the LGBT community. If straight people are allowed to get married then LGBT folks should be able as well. Anything less is discrimination.
However, I think straight and LGBT’s would be better served if the insitution of marriage didn’t exist and the benefits of marriage would just be benefits for everyone regardless of marital status.
Also marriage is nothing but another type of contract. So if the queer community isn’t getting contracts enforced…that doesn’t mean they marriage contracts will be enforced. The root issue here is if the courts are not upholding legal contracts…that is the problem.
It’s not that I can’t imagine a marriage without a wedding. I can and in fact I know someone that actually did just that. However, that scenario is very much in the minority. While you can get married without a wedding, I find it highly unrealistic because even if I didn’t want a wedding, my fiancee might. So even if you don’t want one, you might go to one because your partner wanted one.
Also, what is the point of being in an open marriage…when I can have an open relationship now? Having an open marriage seems to defeat the purpose. Plus it’s more pointless government paperwork.
You know, the reason that the state got dragged in kicking and screaming into the marriage biz is because of the fact that when relationships break up (and they do), someone has to determine the distribution of the marital assets with the parties refuse to agree. Same goes for when someone drops dead.
Since the state has to deal with that portion, it makes eminent sense to regulate marriage.
Brandon: You’re waffling. You said that you had never said what you said. Right here you are, again, denying your own words.
Which is a large part of why you have trouble in debate. You keep saying things which are at odds with what you have previously said, while maintaining your positions haven’t changed.
Then you get offended/upset when people tell you that sort of shit doesn’t fly, and asking you to defend your positions.
@Elisabeth: The state is involved because the idea of “private marriages” has never really been debated. Also, other contracts can have belligerent and hostile parties (people fighting over trusts, wills, property, service agreements, etc..) and the state doesn’t issue out “will licenses”.
Also, the point of the legal system is to help mediate and arbitrate ALL contracts. Marriage doesn’t just give the state the ability just mediate or arbitrate. The state basically drafts up the contract and you have NO say in it other than if you do or don’t want to sign it. I think people should have a right to customize their marriages (since marriage probably isn’t going away). Marriage is a one size fits all contract and it shouldn’t be.
Marriage is more easily controlled under state control. If marriage just became another contract, then queer people wouldn’t have to fight for gay marriage because they could just make a “relationship contract”. People would be able to make their own custom contracts just like married people create prenups.
Lastly, a Marriage license is by far one of the weakest contracts in existence. Typically when one party breaks a contract they usually have to prove the other party didn’t follow the contract. If we took the concept of “no fault” divorce and applied it to other contracts…would the judge really accept “irreconcilable differences” as a reason to break the contract. Probably not.
Brandon: There are any number of contracts (credit cards for example) which allow for either party to withdraw, for any reason whatsoever.
Although they are both fruit, an apple is not an orange.
Although both marriage and contracts entail certain legally enforceable obligations, a marriage is not a contract.
Also: Marriage, by its very nature, involves the community’s affirmation of the given relationship. So if you call upon the government (or any other quasi-governmental authority, such as organized religion) to stay the hell out of marriage, you might as well call on it to stay the hell out of naturalization or something. Marriage is a legal and social status conferred upon people by their communities, through those communities’ institutions. Duh.
Again, Brandon, I understand that you are pro LGBT rights, and that’s great. But seriously, you can get married without a wedding today. All the things you dislike about marriage you can totally avoid.
Why don’t you just find a woman who is actually compatible with you so that getting married or simply being in a committed relationship with her isn’t so fraught with danger for you? Find someone who doesn’t want a wedding, wants an open relationship, wants to work full time. Such women exist.
To elaborate, any number of contracts allow ether party to unilaterally cancel it. Marriage requires a court order.
@Pecunium: For one thing you can withdraw from credit cards anytime you want…as long as you have a zero balance. So you still have to comply with the original agreement. If you rack up a bunch of charges and refuse to pay, the company will most likely take you to court after they go through the “debt collection” process. So by walking away from a credit card with a zero balance, you aren’t breaking the contract.
@Amused:
First line of marriage article on Wikipedia: Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=3eH&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=marriage&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=JtdvTo3AB-PisQK95aSFAQ&ved=0CCMQkQ4&biw=1348&bih=573
Four words come up often when defining marriage: contract, union, framework, institution.
I also found the definition of contract includes: Enter into a formal and legally binding agreement
So to say marriage isn’t a contract is just wrong. The definition of both marriage and contract confirm it.
And why should the community have any damn say in who I sleep with, live with, have children with, etc… It seems like that “community” is meddling in my life. Also, every contract doesn’t get “community approval”. Why is marriage so different? It’s not…it’s just a state controlled contract.
I affirm my own life…I don’t need the validation of others to say I am doing the right thing.
@Comrade: I am for rights…not just LGBT rights. Also, I am not whining about my own personal love life when I am debating marriage. I might state my opinion but for the most part I believe everyone should have the rights married people have without having to sign a contract to get them. Marriage is a discriminating institution that needs to be abolished. LGBT’s shouldn’t be fighting for the right to get married…they should be working to abolish marriage and extend those rights to everyone.
Marriage needs a court order because it is controlled by the state itself. If marriage was treated like any other contract, you wouldn’t need a court order. It would also free up court time since all divorces have to go through the courts while most contracts don’t. The courts are used only when a dispute happens with private contracts not for everything like marriage is.
There is a z in my name. Not that hard to get right Brandon.
As for your claim that the concept of private marriage has never been debated-it was centuries ago and the state, which had the courts, got dragged into handling the break ups. So they quite reasonably started imposing some conditions on the institution. And the concept of marriage (two people joining together in one publicly declared union) has been around long before the invention of what we view as the state.
Just because YOU were born too many centuries to debate it means that the institution is not a bad one.
I believe everyone should have the rights married people have without having to sign a contract to get them
And yet when people talk about Australia’s practice of treating cohabiting couples similarly to married couples, you freak out. I don’t follow….?
I’m against marriage as an institution, but not because I’m against supporting my partner, committing to her exclusively, or having a wedding. You, it seems, object to weddings, financially supporting your partner when necessary, and exclusive commitment.
Brandon: You can withdraw from the credit card with a balance due as well. There are terms and conditions which govern it. In that regard it is like a marriage.
If you withdraw from the agreement you owe the money, but will not be able to use the credit you are extended.
No court order required. Zero Balance not required. If you have a negative balance the card company must pay it to you.
The point is marriages are not the easiest of contracts to break. Most contracts do not require court orders to terminate.
@Beth: Ya…not really worried about it. If you are going to nitpick a common misspelling, then you probably nitpick a lot of other trite and pointless issues. I might correct someone if they say Brendan instead of Brandon…but I don’t act all high and mighty and give the “it’s not that difficult to get right” snide remark.
Also, marriage has evolved differently between cultures. It even predates recorded history. For the western world however, it was handled by the church (which in certain times was the state as well),
Since the founding of the US, there has been no time where marriage was not handled by either the church or the state (or both).
Also, nothing has changed…the court system still handles the breakups. So either way (private contracts or marriage licenses) the courts are going to handle disputes…that is their function.
While I have my own personal feelings towards marriage, this recent thread has been about subjecting people to obligations which that person did not agree to or approve.
It seems that just because someone has a live in boyfriend or girlfriend…that entitles him/her to compensation, money or anything else for that matter if that relationship fails…it doesn’t. Both parties pack their shit and go separate ways. Case closed, end of story.
Cohabitation does not equal marriage.
I forgot there for a minute that only Brandon is to be respected enough to get things like a person’s name spelled correctly. Only Brandon’s wants, needs and desires are to be considered and not anyone else’s. Certainly not a person wanting the small measure of respect to have their name spelled properly when an example of it is right there for you to copy.
As for the marriage, Boston has domestic partnership. So do many other locations in Massachusetts-which means, surprise! you have legal obligations to the other person. Including money.
Now, right this second, you and the fictional Ashley (sorry, I just do not believe she is real) would have the bare bones of the break up and take your stuff out of the home…unless of course you have a common lease agreement. And furniture you purchased together. And that credit card you guys got to pay for the furniture. And…
Simply because you do not get married does not mean you still do not have legal obligations towards one another.
Brandon: Names are different from common nouns. Simple courtesy dictates make some effort to get them correct. Dismissing someone who corrects you when you make that sort of mistake (esp. when it is offered as a simple correction) is assholish.
Just sayin’.
@Elizabeth: I would have just said “sorry about that” but you had to make some snide remark. Hence, I felt the need to not be quite so accepting and friendly about it. You weren’t just correcting an error…you were being derogatory about it.
Domestic partnerships are only recognized in Boston and Cambridge to the best of my knowledge. Unlike marriage, you don’t get the rights and privileges of marriage. Also, harder to enforce since you might not have written agreements and only verbal.
Some states still require you to volunterily enter into domestic partnerships. Which means the state isn’t forcing that designation on the couple but they are willingly signing to enter into that agreement.
Your second point can be fixed by not mingling money together. Bills get split evenly and each piece of furniture is owned by one party.
@Pecunium: Ya…and making snide remarks isn’t assholish at all. Why don’t you hold everyone to the same standard. I was dismissive because of the rudeness of it. If Elizabeth just said “Just letting you know there is a z in my name” I would have been far more friendlier. Rudeness begets rudeness
You would know all about rudeness begetting rudeness, now wouldn’t you, Brandon? A little too late to be having a tone argument.