The solution to the great Marriage Debate

[Armatus]

Regarding the U.S. debate over the definition of marriage and what that entails legally and morally. I'm sure someone already thought this up somewhere in the forums and elsewhere, but after it occurred to me I began to wonder why don't we hear this proposed more often?

And the solution you say?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Get rid of it.

Yep that's right you heard me. Get the state out of marriage.

Leave it to the churches and the individuals. Problem solved.

Thank you.

[Darth Red]

I fully agree with taking the government out of the marriage buisness all together and rewording it to say Civil Unions for everyone. It the best plan that caters to both sides of the debate. And yes this has been debated before but I'll give this thread a go in the Acedemy.

Moved.

[Treize]

If this is about same sex marriage, just legalise it. It won't hurt anyone except for the feelings of people who don't understand the division of state and religion.

[Tiberios]

^ This.

Sex same marriages should be allowed. There's no reason not to.

[MAXlMUS]

^ This.

Sex same marriages should be allowed. There's no reason not to.

what's the point of getting married? for stability mainly, and most people who get married do so because they plan to start a family rather than just a relationship involving 2 people
so unless you want kid's running around saying they have 2 daddies or 2 mommies, i don't think same sex marriage is really important

don't get me wrong i don't hate homosexuals... but as long as homosexuals are not prosecuted by the law, i don't wanna hear politicians talk about them 24/7, and i don't wanna see them have a parade or a protest in downtown ever couple of months.

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

^ This.

Sex same marriages should be allowed. There's no reason not to.

No, They should never be allowed.

Only man and woman can marry. And with only 1 wife.

[xcorps]

No, They should never be allowed.

Only man and woman can marry. And with only 1 wife.

Why do you want to impose this on people who disagree with you?

I despise drunks, but I don't think alcohol should be prohibited.

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

Why do you want to impose this on people who disagree with you?

I despise drunks, but I don't think alcohol should be prohibited.

Typical Western answer. I'm sick of this democratic nonsense!!! Everyone can do whatever he wants, soon you'll be able to kill people, but you can't judge killer because of human rights! Will this also be normal for you, westerners too?

This is the reason why USA and Western world is going to fall.

God wanted man to marry woman not man marry man.

[Enemy of the State]

No, They should never be allowed.

Only man and woman can marry. And with only 1 wife.

How primitive. NO, BECAUSE I SAY SO!

[Brain_in_a_vat]

No, They should never be allowed.

Only man and woman can marry. And with only 1 wife.

Why? I'm tempted to call you a bigot on the spot but that'd be me being presumptuous.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Well if you take marriage out of the state then basically that gives you two options: Churches issuing licenses alongside states. I suppose for people who are not religious and dont want to get married in a church they would go to the state but if the state is out of marriage then why would they issue marriage licenses since technically they are out of marriage this would immediately be struck down by a court leaving only one option churches or another option which you didnt elaborate on: Individuals. How does that work? Maybe banks can issue licenses or private marriage corporations? Possible.

Not many churches will allow gay marriage and unless a gay marriage corporation came out and began issuing marriages then they will be excluded.

Marriage issued by the state is essential because the constitution explicitly forbids discrimination and the act of denying marriage to homosexuals is unconstitutional.

[Armatus]

I really don't care who issues little pieces of paper they are pretty close to meaningless and are more about moral dictation than any benefit received.

The point is that the state shouldn't be involved at all. It's the people's choice who they decide to live and commit to provided they are consenting (Human) adults.

[Ältester der Motten]

Marriage should hardly be bothered about at any higher level than the personal one. Regulating marriage is like regulating the teddy bear industry.

"No, you can't have red teddy bears! Also your teddybears have to be stuffed by us, and only with cotton! Okay, maybe you can have red teddybears, but they still have to be stuffed by us, and with cotton!"

This isn't really a matter of legalising other concepts of marriage, this is a matter of disintegrating the legal regulations regarding marriage in generaliter.





This notwithstanding, registered homosexual couples should be granted the same status as registered heterosexual couples.

It's the people's choice who they decide to live and commit to provided they are consenting (Human) adults.

Why can't you marry and still live in an open relationship?

Obvious ageism. Why shouldn't children and teens be allowed to openly announce their adoration for each other too? Or what about intergenerational relationships?

[jankren]

what about intergenerational relationships?

Is that NAMBLA's way of saying 'pedophilic relationships'?

[MathiasOfAthens]

Im all with you on allowing straight and gay people to right to choose who they want to marry but what about the sisters and brothers who want to marry each other or the little kids. Some religious cults may choose to marry little kids too young to know what they want. You need someone to decide these matters and thats where government comes in. But currently government is restricting equal rights to homosexuals and theres no guarantee they wont be restricted if you get govt out of marriage.

[cenkiss]

I think marriage should be in state's hands.Religious marriages should not have any authority in the state.People should know the seperation between state and religion.States should not favor any religion over other.

[Col. Tartleton]

I think its stupid in general. Just get rid of marriage and break it down into state recognized civil unions for everyone. IMO marriage is a ceremony conducted by a religious/cultural official. A justice of the peace should only be able to grant civil unions. The state should only recognize civil unions as a secular institution with almost no restrictions on it. Like the beef of marriage is the rights and protections of recognized couplings. But a non secular marriage should be whatever it wants to be. Marriage is an idea. If I want to marry a cat I'm married to that cat. But it doesn't get my tax benefits. If I want to marry a man I can get tax benefits because its a human.

Heck you should be able to have civil unions with a best friend. Its simply a legality like guardianship. He's a legal guardian of your well being. He isn't inherently your lover. Say you're a guy who isn't married living a promiscuous lifestyle hooking up with randoms all the time. You then get hit by a car. Your best friend should be able to see you, you know? If you're living with a roommate I don't see why you can't legally share your wealth with them for a mutual benefit.

Civil Union should be a purely non sexually living situation thing. Marriage is whatever you want it to be. If you're married to a woman she's your wife and you can have a civil union. When you want a divorce from that union its just paperwork. A priest can marry you and you can have that whole thing as recognized within the church but it need not be related to the affairs of a secular state.

[Manco]

Changing the name just to appease a few bigots is daft.

[nemgod]

Regarding the U.S. debate over the definition of marriage and what that entails legally and morally. I'm sure someone already thought this up somewhere in the forums and elsewhere, but after it occurred to me I began to wonder why don't we hear this proposed more often?

And the solution you say?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Get rid of it.

Yep that's right you heard me. Get the state out of marriage.

Leave it to the churches and the individuals. Problem solved.

Thank you.

How about GET RELIGION OUT OF IT.

Marriage has ALWAYS been a state institution and was hijacked by religion not the other way around. If Churches and religious people don't like Homosexual marriages how about they move out of it. Pre Christian Rome had Homosexual marriages legal till Christianity hijacked it they can back off.

Problem solved, religion out of marriage.

[Armatus]

Im all with you on allowing straight and gay people to right to choose who they want to marry but what about the sisters and brothers who want to marry each other or the little kids. Some religious cults may choose to marry little kids too young to know what they want. You need someone to decide these matters and thats where government comes in. But currently government is restricting equal rights to homosexuals and theres no guarantee they wont be restricted if you get govt out of marriage.

Actually all that is pretty much covered under the law. So dumping marriage doesn't promote anything that isn't already being done nor would dumping it let people get away with committing crimes.

I think its stupid in general. Just get rid of marriage and break it down into state recognized civil unions for everyone. IMO marriage is a ceremony conducted by a religious/cultural official. A justice of the peace should only be able to grant civil unions. The state should only recognize civil unions as a secular institution with almost no restrictions on it. Like the beef of marriage is the rights and protections of recognized couplings. But a non secular marriage should be whatever it wants to be. Marriage is an idea. If I want to marry a cat I'm married to that cat. But it doesn't get my tax benefits. If I want to marry a man I can get tax benefits because its a human.

Heck you should be able to have civil unions with a best friend. Its simply a legality like guardianship. He's a legal guardian of your well being. He isn't inherently your lover. Say you're a guy who isn't married living a promiscuous lifestyle hooking up with randoms all the time. You then get hit by a car. Your best friend should be able to see you, you know? If you're living with a roommate I don't see why you can't legally share your wealth with them for a mutual benefit.

Civil Union should be a purely non sexually living situation thing. Marriage is whatever you want it to be. If you're married to a woman she's your wife and you can have a civil union. When you want a divorce from that union its just paperwork. A priest can marry you and you can have that whole thing as recognized within the church but it need not be related to the affairs of a secular state.

I'm actually married to my computer. I see your point, marriage is a mater of committing yourself to something or someone or others if you remove the religion. As for your cat you're proving a point about relationships, obviously the cat cannot consent to being married by our standard definition. The relationship is what it's all about, the sexual component isn't required.

Regarding civil unions, I think the only reason to consider them would be to benefit and protect the children. Otherwise if you're not having kids and you don't have dependents then I think there's little reason the state should butt in with legality.

How about GET RELIGION OUT OF IT.

Marriage has ALWAYS been a state institution and was hijacked by religion not the other way around. If Churches and religious people don't like Homosexual marriages how about they move out of it. Pre Christian Rome had Homosexual marriages legal till Christianity hijacked it they can back off.

Problem solved, religion out of marriage.

I'm fully aware of marriage in ancient Rome and still think the state has no business in defining it other than to ensure that children are provided for.