Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

Food for thought.

APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 9:46:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Imagine 2 big, tough, heterosexual Viking dudes. For tax benefits and ease of management, they wish to draw up a contract that will combine their finances, property and families. Their wives must sign the contract too in order to share joint marital property and child custody.

The birth certificate of Viking A's son will read:

Father: Viking A
Mother: Mrs Viking A
2nd Father: Viking B
2nd Mother: Mrs Viking B

All 4 parents will have to die before custody of the children goes to next of kin, in accordance with the contract. Only Mr and Mrs Viking A are biological parents, but Mr and Mrs Viking B are automatically considered adopted parents under the contract.

Do you consider this to be a legitimate arrangement? If not, why not?

And now consider this. The only difference between this contract and a gay/polygamous marriage is that, 1, I didn't use the term "marriage", and 2, there's no consummation (which is nobody else's business anyway). So if we allow a pair of big, tough, heterosexual Viking dudes to pool their assets and jointly adopt kids, why can't a gay couple do the same?

It is my opinion that the "gay marriage" versus "gay civil union" debate is utterly stupid, as there is no reason for the latter to be denied the same legal status. Why don't we just change the law so that instead of referring to "marriage" exclusively, it refers to "marriage/civil union/agreement between macho Vikings (who would punch your lights out if you said they were married)/other similar contract"? Legally, the terms would all be equivalent, and people can just choose what label they want to apply when talking about it. That way, if somebody doesn't want to call Bob and Pete's coupling a "marriage", it's purely a matter of etiquette and not of law.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 9:52:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 9:46:56 PM, APB wrote:
Imagine 2 big, tough, heterosexual Viking dudes. For tax benefits and ease of management, they wish to draw up a contract that will combine their finances, property and families. Their wives must sign the contract too in order to share joint marital property and child custody.

The birth certificate of Viking A's son will read:

Father: Viking A
Mother: Mrs Viking A
2nd Father: Viking B
2nd Mother: Mrs Viking B

All 4 parents will have to die before custody of the children goes to next of kin, in accordance with the contract. Only Mr and Mrs Viking A are biological parents, but Mr and Mrs Viking B are automatically considered adopted parents under the contract.

Do you consider this to be a legitimate arrangement? If not, why not?

And now consider this. The only difference between this contract and a gay/polygamous marriage is that, 1, I didn't use the term "marriage", and 2, there's no consummation (which is nobody else's business anyway). So if we allow a pair of big, tough, heterosexual Viking dudes to pool their assets and jointly adopt kids, why can't a gay couple do the same?

It is my opinion that the "gay marriage" versus "gay civil union" debate is utterly stupid, as there is no reason for the latter to be denied the same legal status. Why don't we just change the law so that instead of referring to "marriage" exclusively, it refers to "marriage/civil union/agreement between macho Vikings (who would punch your lights out if you said they were married)/other similar contract"? Legally, the terms would all be equivalent, and people can just choose what label they want to apply when talking about it. That way, if somebody doesn't want to call Bob and Pete's coupling a "marriage", it's purely a matter of etiquette and not of law.

I could deal with that.