I'd say it does. You can get the same emotional connections from your friends.
Yes but two lovers have something that friends don't have... sexual intimacy. If you look at the ideal marriage and take away commitment, something more than mere friendship remains. And if you take away the sex, something more than mere commitment remains. And if you take away friendship, something more than mere sex remains. The ideal marriage is a unique relationship - a seamless blend of friendship, sex and commitment. The union of these three is unique in the sense that no other human relationship can match that.
Yes but two lovers have something that friends don't have... sexual intimacy. If you look at the ideal marriage and take away commitment, something more than mere friendship remains. And if you take away the sex, something more than mere commitment remains. And if you take away friendship, something more than mere sex remains. The ideal marriage is a unique relationship - a seamless blend of friendship, sex and commitment. The union of these three is unique in the sense that no other human relationship can match that.
Fantastic post.
I never "get" why those opposed to gay relationships seem to think its just like a friendship and the feelings involved are no different than that you would have with a freind of the same gender.
This is of course nonsense, and same-sex couples share exactly the same levels of emotional (and physical) intimacy as hetrosexual ones. A marriage and relationship is not just about sex, there needs to be a special bond between the two people in the first place that goes beyond "just freinds", even if no sex is involved.
I have heard many times from certain people that homosexuals want same sex marriage legalised so that they can be 'accepted into society', and that because we can't get acceptance for our lifestyle from the majority opinion, we need to get acceptance from the federal government. To all of those who think this, I have a one question:
If your loved one, who you lived with, who you shared all your hopes and dreams with, who you'd known for 20 years, was hit by a car and was rushed to hospital, and you were denied visitation rights or indeed, any knowledge at all as to the welfare of your beloved, and no say in how your loved one's affairs are dealt with, how would you feel?
Contemplate the above question, and then tell me I want to get married so I can, 'gain approval of my lifestyle'. Never mind approval! I want the ~1400 rights that heterosexual couples get! I want the visitation rights, social security benefits, the tax advantages - societal approval is at the bottom of my list!
It's "the emotional argument." Seen this before.
I agree that you should have visitation rights. Nobody should tell you that you can't visit someone who you consider to be family, details of the relationship aside.
__________________
"That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself." -- Abraham Lincoln
I'd say it does. You can get the same emotional connections from your friends.
I'm guessing you have not been married? No, you can't get the same emotional connections from your friends. This is partially because in marriage you share everything and the actions you take directly effect your spouse. Whereas with friends, while they might help you celebrate successes and sympathize with your failures, they do not directly benefit or are harmed. As such, you don't have the same emotional connections. Further, studies have shown that married people have fewer mental health problems than those who are not married.
Originally Posted by Madcoil
And these benefits go to the organizations, not the individual members.
Doesn't really matter, it is still the government supporting clubs or other groups that create friendships. Also, even though the money goes directly to the club, this is passed on to the members in lower membership fees and lower costs for activities.
Originally Posted by Madcoil
I disagree with this. Singles and couples are equally likely to maintain ties to the community AND purchase homes.
Statistics show married couples more frequently purchase homes as compared to singles.
Originally Posted by Madcoil
The only part I can agree with is that a single may be able to more easily move than a couple who is not childless.
Furthermore, if married couples are more stable, and stability is the important factor, then surely it would be the singles who, by what you say, are generally less stable, would need more economic security and therefore it would be singles who received such benefits.
Except you originally claimed that benefits were to encourage behaviors; now suddenly you are saying benefits are to help those who need help in becoming more productive. You can't have this both ways. Beyond that, not being as "stable" does not mean they do not feel they have enough financial security.
Originally Posted by Madcoil
I consider this to be your reasoning: (please correct me if I'm wrong)
We take for granted that married couples are more stable than singles.
We take for granted that marriage enables emotional connections and stability that other relationships cannot.
False. Rather, it is proven that married couples are more stable and have greater emotional attachments. For example, studies consistently show married people live longer. Some of the reasons surveys list as reasons for this greater longevity: "First, marriage appears to reduce risky and unhealthy behaviors. Second, marriage increases material well-being — income, assets and wealth — to purchase better medical care, better diet, and safer surroundings. Third, marriage provides people with a network of help and support. Fourth, marriage provides adults with a readily available sex partner, something most people consider a great human good."
Originally Posted by Madcoil
We take for granted that society wants stable inhabitants.
To ensure stability of as many people as possible, marital status is given economic benefits to encourage people to get married because marriage gives these stabilities, as well as the economic benefits themselves giving economic security which causes more stability.
If I agreed with the premises in this, I could agree with the conclusion.
I disagree with the first and second premise, obviously. It is quite simply alien to me that marriage ensures more stability in itself than other social whatchamacallits (emotional connections?).
And while it may be alien to you, that is what studies have repeatedly claimed.
Originally Posted by Madcoil
I can agree with the third premise, but I consider this premise to be secondary, and merely a factor in my suggested premise that society wants increased <amagad my brain has run out of words...> population. (ie. increased stability leads to increased chance of babymaking)
Should we each build a premise-conclusion thingy? I think discussions are supposed to use it at some point.
Again, I'm not building premises based on personal belief but what studies tend to consistently show.
__________________ The people I respect most behave as if they were immortal and as if society was eternal. ~ E. M. Forster
Fantastic post.
Linear Mode
