Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Ban Marriage
I hear a lot about gay marriage or protecting its sanctity, but I have a better idea. Why not get rid of it? It's stupid and serves no other purpose other than to oppress men in to a legally binding contract that is costly for them to terminate and deprives them of meeting their sexual needs.
So you mean get rid of marriage completly? Are you also proposing a complete dissolution of the current momogamy arrangements? Would this not throw our society into chaos? And do not people, of all genders and sexual orrintations, desire a momogramic relationship with a soulmate (whether they find one or not) and that the people most likely to desire a more casual polyamoroic model of relationships tend to be young twenty-somethings who tend to have the time and mentality to enter such a world and as such do, generally without too much discrimination or reprecusions from society as a whole, assuming they keep to a casual model.
Thus if the model of monogamic living is most desirable by the majority of society should we not protect his model? Now if this is the most desirable model and most effective do we not then offer it to all society? If we are a free people without discriminations how can we then deny a large percentage of the population the same rights and oppotunities as the rest of society?
You can't ban marriage lol
Its not just a legal thing, its a religious journey. And seeing as how you can't control religion, you can't "ban" marriage.
LOL
you cannot control religion?
Religion itself is designed to take control over the masses, and can be controlled like any other politic group
Nolio,
Oh, I think you misunderstood me. I did not mean banning people from calling themselves married or from participating in activities that seal their commitment to one another, rather that the state simply not recognize it.
Fool,
If a person wants to be monogamous and committed to one person for life, then that is fine. If they want to celebrate it with a wedding, fine. But the state will not recognize them as being married or offer them any legal benefits by virtue of being married. If a person wants someone to have special rights over them not generally granted to anyone but family, then they can specify it in a legal document.
Justinian, there is one benefit to monogamous marriages: they create relative stability in raising children. Generally, children are better raised when in stable, two-parent families due to both the stability of dependence and the mutual incomes.
That being said, I have generally had a theory for solving the gay marriage issue that is extremely similar to your stance: ban "marriage" as a legal concept, and replace the term "marriage" with "civil union," which could be more liberally applied to groups such as homosexuals. This solves the worries of gay marriage advocates while still preserving the identity of "marriage" as a religious institution, as "marriage" would be left solely to religions to determine.
Just wanted to throw that out there.
i think banning state recognition of marriage is pretty likely
as with anything that the courts order be run with disregard for a majority of the public
but then I live in CA
If marriage was a religious journey, then how come boat captains and justice of the peace can marry people besides priests?
Let's face it, marriage is nothing more than to allow a two party income to purchase a home. Also to file joint income tax.
Zarf,
But you can have stability of two parents living together and sharing resources without marriage. So it isn't marriage that causes stability, it is monogamy. Hell, it may not even be monogamy, but a commitment by both parents to assist raising a child.
Key,
My mom was a single parent and still is. My father never married my mother because he was afraid he'd be abusive to his children as much as his father was abusive to him and his siblings.
um that's really a reason not to shtup, not to dodge marriage
So IA you want to just remove the wording 'marriage' because it has religious connotations? But as stated marriage is no longer the domain of religion and thus should not be looked on as a religious concept, it is however a legal concept now, and even if you just replace the wording it is still the same thing. Civil union = marriage. Thus it makes sense to extend this legal concept of a monogamous relationship to all citizens/peoples regardless of any affliation.
Please note that this doesn't therefore extend to the normal arguments used by idiots that if gay marriage is allowed then polyamorous relationships should be allowed as we are cementing in law the concept of monogomous relationships between two people of any kind.
> Key wrote:
> If marriage was a religious journey, then how come boat captains and justice of the peace can marry people besides priests?
Let's face it, marriage is nothing more than to allow a two party income to purchase a home. Also to file joint income tax.
Distinguish "marriage" as is, and "marriage" after the term "marriage" is removed from its government definition. Then answer the question.
After any legal definition is taken away it would not change the meaning in many peoples eyes, and it still wouldn't be a religious concept except in the eyes of the already religious, who would see it that way before hand anyway. The question is more, is the term marriage still the main domain of a religious ceremony, or has it's common usage overtaken the religious connotations thus leaving it as merely a vague term to be used to any legally signed monogomous relationship?
Ughr. I did not say change the wording of marriage because it has religious connotations. I said the state should no longer recognize marriage as an institution. That means no "civil unions," and no legal benefits or recognition. Effectively, a married couple today would be cohabiting or room mates, and "husband" and "wife" would only have meaning to them and those recognizing them as "married." But it would have no meaning to the state.
HAHA! Justinian, they mixed you and me up. 
I don't like homos but I don't care if they get married - it's not my problem
IA: I am merely trying to understand your concept better... so you are saying that the state itself has no legal definition of relationships of any kind.... that marriage or otherwise would therefore just be a legal document drafted up by them giving what ever rights they wish to give to each other as part of the relationship? Thus it could be between any 2 people...
How then is this a preffered state of being compared to one in which marriage is leggally defined by the state as between two consenting adults? Other than you don't have religious nutbars complianing about the use of the work 'marriage' though this would still happen as anyone could call their legal relationship a 'marriage' unless you allow copyright laws to be used...
Fool,
What I am saying is that the state simply does not recognize marriage, and therefore does not reward those who are married.
However, for those who want their effective boyfriend or girlfriend to be given the right to receive their property in the event of their death, or to receive hospital visitation rights etc, then they can specify those rights in a legal document. This is not an alternative to marriage, rather it is an option that can be pursued by couples who decide they want their boyfriend/girlfriend to exercise rights relating to each other's person that have been voided by the abolition of marriage as a legal institution. Hell, you can deny your girlfriend the right to visit you in the hospital or receive your property if you die, if you so chose.
And I like this set up because then women would first stfu about getting married. Women use marriage to raise the price of sex. It gives them security and control, yet at a man's perspective the risks outweigh the rewards. By eliminating marriage, people become more equal and more easily able to control their own bank accounts and assets. And if you removed those senseless and archaic legal benefits of marriage, which are more unfair than beneficial, then it would become completely meaningless for the state to recognize.
Though for different reasoning thay Justinian I am all for the removal of state ownership and management of marriage.
I also agree with the removal of benefits and penalties for marriage.
I think then the word will be restored (except by those who seek to steal it so they can corrupt its meaning) to the old meaning behind it.
Again, different reasonigs, total agreement with the proposal. I endorse this idea.
So IA this has no practicallity other than you feel upset about girls wanting to wait for marriage for sex... Do you have any actual reasons for this concept that would be viable in any logical sense... i.e. not 'girls are teh sucks and i can nev0r get teh sex0r
Einstein,
. What are your reasons?
Fool,
I have my personal reasons. But in short, the social benefit of marriage is limited, and it is inherently oppressive.
Divorce often benefits someone currently, and the idea of marriage is cheapened by it being a tax write off.
Add in the fact people choose to try to 'be married' while gay is because of percieved advantages to it despite framework for those advantages being available via alternative and more socially acceptable means.
When there is no advantage, then only those using it for the religious connentation will elect to 'get married' resulting in a strengthening of the purpose, religiously, of marriage and giving back all the strengths with no flaws in it.
With no advantage in divorce except to get a share equal to your own earnings, divorce looks less palatable and so marriage for sake of divorce ends.
IA: Why is that, in regards to the social limitations and oppression? Why is being limited and oppressive? Esp given most people choose to be in a monogamous relationship of some kind.
Flint: Is it still a religious construct if a majority of people use the word in a non-religious meaning? If a state definition was dropped and it was replaced with private legal relationships as determined by legal documents, could you stop anybody then calling such a relationship a marriage? Could you then stop anyone from entering into such a 'marriage'? Could you stop a crazy (wo)man from 'marrying' an animal, a soft toy or the concept of liberty? Or do you then expect the church to enter into copyright infringement law suits to stop people calling such legal relationships 'marriages.' Then if you could stop them being legally called marriages when not being done due to religious means, then could you stop people calling it that in private?
Einstein,
Fair enough, and I largely agree.
Fool,
Marriage right now has limited utility because its greatest benefit to men is lower taxes, and on the other hand it is a huge gamble. A man faces a high risk for suffering the highest burden of alimony/child support payments and a loss of property in a divorce settlement etc. And while there are pre-nuptial agreements, and yes they are a huge protective measure, it is no guarantee because all it takes to nullify it is for a judge to determine that it was unfair or coerced. Divorce, however, unfairly benefits women. They are much more likely to receive alimony and child support payments and custody etc.
That is why I think marriage is currently oppressive. That said, it does not have to be that way. It is conceivable that divorce laws could be reformed to be fair, or in fact that marriage offers no legal benefits. In the case of the latter, I question why we have to legally recognize a marriage in the first place. There would only be administrative costs and no tangible return other than people's desire to be legally recognized, which is no compelling reason at all.
In the case of the former. If marriage results in lower taxes, certain legal rights over one another's person like hospital visitation, and fair divorce settlements, then the question for me is utility and whether there are alternative ways to accomplish the same thing.
As for lower taxes in marriage, it seems the only utility for this idea is to increase the availability of resources for raising children. However, a marriage tax deduction is not fair for couples with children who have decided not to marry. Moreover, it is an abuse if people can easily just marry and decide to have no children just to pay lower taxes. Increasing the available resources for people raising children with tax deductions can be fairly accomplished without marriage.
As for rights relating to one's own person like visitation rights in a hospital, that too can be accomplished by alternative means. And divorce settlements can also apply to unmarried couples who have decided to separate as a form of separation settlement, as a way to protect children etc.
It seems to me that the most compelling reason for marriage in a modern western society is to benefit children by increasing the available resources for them, because this is the sensible way to justify its unique feature of lower taxes and payments accompanied by divorce. If marriage is seen this way, then it is presently unfair and open to abuse. If marriage was reformed to accomplish the intended goal to benefit children in a way that was fair and less open to abuse, then marriage would just become an option with the same legal standing among others (like those who just wanted to raise a family with the same effective standing today as a girlfriend/boyfriend) and therefore be meaningless and not worth the administrative costs. The other benefits that marriage provides like rights to one's person can moreover be easily accomplished through other means.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Ban Marriage
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.