Well, my personal ideals on the whole marriage deal are a bit out there.

I do belive that the Church Marriage should count (legally) for nothing at all. It can be like a cerimony that you can have on the side, and there is instead a civil marriage, which for all cases of tax laws, seeing realitives in hospitals, etc, is the actual union between people.

This civil marriage is given to people reguardless of sex or race.

Well, what are you ideas on marriage?

Marriage should have no legal standing what so ever. Feel free to include "civil unions" and things of the like as well as it is just another label for marriage.

I remember six months ago when I said things like this, and no one agreed (or said it couldn't be done in the case of Gen. Suicide); glad to see that there are actually reasonable people out there now, or they're changing their minds.

Ending "marriage" as a legal institution solves much of the problems with the issue now. Most of the religious opposition centers around the word "marriage", which is viewed as a religious rite, and it just happens that most of the religious sects in existence right now only recognize "marriage" as a heterosexual bond, so all the different religious groups can band together in opposition to gay marriage.

Fine, let them keep marriage to themselves; but have the government issue a standardized civil union contract (you can't call it "civil marriage" without running into the same problems) for any two adult individuals, regardless of sex, providing the rights we now associate with "marriage".

Actually, I've been trying to convince people of this for ages as well. The only people who agreed are my best friends who agree with me on most social issues.

Well, what purpose does having gov't reconized marriage have?

Other than tax breaks, nothing, in my opinion.

I agree that marriage shouldn't be restricted on the basis of gender, in other words I am in favor of same sex marriage.

My issue with doing away with "marriage" and instead granting civil unions is it becomes too easy for the religious right to strip away rights from civil unions and grant them to "marriages." IN otherwords I feel to protect same sex unions they have to use the same term as heterosexual unions to prevent bigoted law makers from tampering with same sex unions.

Well, what I meant by what is the benifit for gov't reconzied marriages, I meant for the gov't. What purpose does that serve for the gov't?

And I get what you are saying Boru. We don't need Jim Crow laws for gays.

eh, I don't remember saying that.

Why should civil unions, marriage or anything of the kind be legally recognized? This is what I was saying. I took it a step further then you in this respect.

Quiet honestly I don't see what it is adding. It only really is just adding to the mess in the law books. Inheritance, etc. could be done without such a thing.

Indeed. Having a legally reconized marriage does have some pros in respect to money/medical visits/ children and the like. THe best bet is probably just pull out the stops on legal marriages, and have only church cerimonies for those who wish to have them.

But as I asked before, and I really don't get this, what does the gov't have to gain by keeping marriage a civil issue? There has to be somthing

It's an expedient way to encourage orderly child-raising and making common interpersonal relations just that much easier (and that's really the point of government, obvious or not).

And, hell, why not?

Can you clarify what you mean by civil issue?

And I get the impression that you're viewing government as some kind of independant body working for it's own benefit, and only makes the laws so that it can profit in some way. The government (at least in our case) is an organization created by the general populace for the purpose of public benefit. You should be asking what the people have to gain.

The discussion is about calling all unions (both hetero- and homosexual) "Civil Unions" rather than "Marriages". The result being that there would be no rights granted to "marriage", which would become purely a private religious ceremony; and all benefits (and penalties) associated with marriage become the realm of civil unions.

then all it takes is a law granting privilages to "marriages" that normal civil unions won't receive, even heterosexual ones.

My personal thoughts on this... blame the insurance agencies. When you consider the fact that most of the states that voted to ban gay marriages also voted to revoke the rights to heterosexual civil unions... I think the insurance agencies are trying to limit who they have to offer joint coverage to. This way both partners have to get individual coverage, you can't claim either person as a spouse, even for heterosexual civil unions. In short, kickbacks from the insurance agencies.

Medical visits, etc. are able to be done through legislation itself and don't need marriage. Why must only married couples be able to visit those close anyway? Should not those who have been together for years be able to visit each other even if not married?

I see no pros when it comes to children and the money aspect can be solved through lower taxes on the poor and more importantly increasing the benefit for claiming dependants.

You do know that more and more individuals are having children and living together without being married, right? You don't think increasing the benefit of having dependants will help encourage child raising?


Now, what about interpersonal relations needs to be easier? I think it would be easier without papers needing to be signed.

True. I wasn't using it for justification, merely pointing out why if laws where kept as they where, it is unfair for homosexuals to not be able to obtian one.
I'm pretty much for getting rid of marriages as they are now.

I also know that such children go through a far more turbulent development period. As for the dependants thing, this would only make it less clear as to who can rightfully claim dependants, and which ones.

And you still haven't answered my question: why not?

Everything would be easier if it could be accomplished without paperwork. Everyting cannot (yet) be accomplished without paperwork.

That largely would have to do with the enviornment at home; how the two parents act towards one another and towards the children.

Also I don't exactly think the divorce rate helps the development period. Divorces can be very messy.

This is rather simple, maximum of say 8 people with at most two of them being above the age of 23. This will allow for them to go to have some money for college through saving on taxes and they will most likely be entering the working world if not already in it.

Better question why should it be in government? No ones rights or privileges are violated if government isn't involved and so I fail to see why government should be so.

Yep, thats right.

Not necessarily. Laws do not come about necessarily "for" something but often "on account of" or "because of" something.

In other words, Texas anti-sodomy laws didn't come about "for" anything (for the protection of Texans, or something like that), they came about because of the attitudes of the Texans in power.

Same goes for the civil/religious mush that is marriage. The formulation and definition of marriage came about not because the state suddenly decided that people should get married, but rather on account of the traditions and customs that the majority of Americans at the time held.

I for one can only hope and work for a time when the majority of Americans do not see the need for the state to treat marriages as they currently do, and perhaps then our legislators will change those laws.

My EUR 0,02 on the subject:

What this thread is forgetting, is that a marriage is a "nice" (it´s a lame word but the best one for a sarcastic "bonito") ceremony. The smart clothes, the photo album, possibly the video, the family coming together for the first time in 12 years since grandad´s funeral (and consequently arguing and fighting), the presents! ;) , the rice being thrown over you, an excuse for a honeymoon afterwards, the speeches from drunken friends, the possible divorce drama years later, etc. etc.
Getting rid of marriages is like getting rid of birthday parties or most people´s Christmas or Halloween or the World Cup or the Eurovision Song Contest (which are all just as silly and fun as a wedding is).

So, apart from the massive objections from religious people that getting rid of marriage would bring for another century at least, marriage is and should be here to stay, for the simple reason of making life more colourful and less dull.


However, the following quote from LP is very accurate and true:

So, in theory I would say keep marriage as a religious/fun ceremony, but having no legal binding in our society. So Ahmed and Fatima have an Islamic marriage, María and Angela have a gay civil marriage and John and Yoko have a Buddhist marriage in Ohio on the same day and everyone has a great time, satisfies their religious deities and goes their way.

To be entitled to all the legal paraphenelia (inheritance, medical visits, etc.) or to deal with the the linguistic paraphenelia (surname change, saying "my husband" instead of "my boyfriend/my lover/my cohabiting long-term partner" etc.),
a contract is drawn up to be registered as an official couple, just like you already register with the city authorities that you live at a certain address (like empadronamiento here, don´t know the word in English).

However, until we - ie our societies - get that far (which will take time), it is of course essential that gays can marry for the simple reason to show that they are not 2nd class citizens and therefore entitled to ALL things that a heterosexual is. Just like women can now vote in most countries since from a century onwards on (even though many don´t), blacks can now marry whites in the USA since around 40 years (even though many don´t), and women may one day soon drive cars in Saudi Arabia. In short, you must have equality on this issue, and whilst marriage exists as a legal & linguistic concept, gays must have access to it. Otherwise there is no sense.
If one day in the future they stop making/driving cars for the reason que sea, then fine, but both Saudi men and women get out of their cars at the same time.
That´s the theory. On a practical level I´m a gay man in a steady relationship with a guy and - despite the recent political change in Spain that I´m sure you all know about - neither of us are very interested in marrying (as of yet, at least he tells me he isn´t, and I´m not too bothered either way to be honest). But of course we 100% support the right of those that wish to.

Hope that makes sense.

If you need that to make your life "colorful" then you already are dull. I doubt this ceremony will do much if anything to change that.

However I never said get rid of marriage altogether but remove its legal standing. For that all you really do is sign a paper and that's it.

On the side not really meant for discussion but more meant so you can better understand my view of marriage, I do personally think marriage is pointless. You are asking someone to confirm what should already be obvious. I would love it if people could get over the construct of marriage and just cohabitate. Look at how much money people would save from that alone. Could possibly put up a morgage for a small house with what gets spent.

Mmm, think you missed the point there cariño. I´m didn´t say I, or anyone, needed marriage or weddings to make our otherwise totally worthless and dull existences remotely interesting and meaningful, gracias.
I was merely saying that the wedding, I find personally, to be a fun ceremony, like all the other things I listed, like birthdays, navidades or the Oktoberfest, that are simply a further facet of life´s experiences. Like the Bar Mitzvah we went to in Caracas in March, like the heterosexual wedding we went to in Ávila in May, they were great experiences and formed part of enjoyable days. So if people meet up and chat and dance together at a ceremony, I really don´t see what´s the big deal or why it should be done away with. As rituals go, they´re as good as any others (even if not all are as action-packed as "Monsoon Wedding"), and well yes, I like rituals. Apart from which, great food is also always guaranteed.
Also, if anyone thinks that weddings are pointless, fine. I think going to a football or cricket or tennis match is pointless and uninteresting personally, but would certainly not look down on those who do get into it. Each to their own.

Agree, that´s also what I said above more or less. At least in theory, and one day in the distant future. As I wrote before, marriage should be theoretically a legal formality like empadronamiento (registering your place of abode with the authorities), and merely filling in a form and signing it.

If I ever marry, it will be primarily to make official for the authorities that my partner is my next of kin (and I am his). If we wish this, it is our right. And until there is another way of doing this (as I wrote above), then that´s the way it has to be. And if we want the ceremony too, and if I wish to refer to "my husband" or take his surname, then again this is a personal decision and personal rights.

And again, how much one spends is a personal decision. If people spend too much on new cars, exotic holidays, drugs, luxurious weddings, or just plain have a credit-card problem, then over-spending is hardly a marriage-related problem, but a general one. At least here anyway, people spend what they want to and can on a wedding, and small credits is taken out on loads of things anyway. There are modest ones and splash-out ones, each to their own.

Well I am gay, so obviously I support gay marriage.

The question I would ask you is, without referring to religion (because not all of us are religious): Can you think of one logical reason, with evidence, to prevent gays from getting married.

You could say it corrupts society, but I want to see evidence that it does.

I always thought of marriage as a social contract between two people binding their futures together in mutual support of one another. The income is shared. The hardships and benefits are shared. Each is obligated to cover the others debts. As they co-sign for each others obligations, they should be allowed to insure each other & any offspring born or adopted into the family. If they are willing to take on these obligations in sickness & in health then perhaps this should be delegated to the federal, allowing a universal age to marry, creating conformity to the society, but I don't see this as a pressing issue. It is my understanding that according to the constitution, that this falls into the realm of state jurisdiction. That the actual ceremony may take place in the churches, is a freedom of religion, but the actual marriage is a written contract with the state before witnesses.

I don't care if gays want to marry. In fact that they want to I see as a good thing, versus sexual promiscuity without obligation to each other. I think the contract strengthens a binding commitment to each which strengthens the relationship between people. It is the sexual promiscuity among relationships which I find harms offspring emotionally & creates deep distrust among people. That each partner has an economical stake in each other allows for disincentives to break the commitment & work harder on the relationship. I am all for any healthy & honest relationships among people. I'm against polygamy because people often under or over estimate how much they are willing to burden, and because people rarely understand until after the fact, their ability to be jealous. There is a higher risk in polygamy for even more people to get hurt which I don't condone. There's risks involved in even the simplest contractual agreement. That risk is multiplied with more partners.

If you really believe that heterosexual relationships are the tendency of natural order, then there's nothing to fear from such relationships as they will always occur naturally. Even in nature there is variation from the norm and nature accepts this. Why shouldn't we? If by some occurrence, homosexuality should become the norm, which hasn't occurred in nature I point out, then it is because homosexuality has allowed for some needed aspect that the species needs in order to survive. I don't see signs of this occurring in all the natural history of the planet. It is actually the possibility of test tube babies becoming the norm that I find a greater risk. There's little likelihood of that occurring though because of the expense. Natural procreation is infinitely less expensive.

I don't think religious ceremony should be banned from the churches on this contract. It allows for numerous forms of celebratory variation which unifies these institutions community. I don't think it fair of a minority of the people within a church to try to force the churches to recognize their individual rights. Churches are institutions based on the beliefs of commandments from a higher being. It is not based on individual rights. If you don't accept the beliefs of a church, it is not a requirement that you be a supporting member, therefore don't practice that faith, but rather find or establish one that accepts your beliefs. If you are born into a catholic family, it is up to the family to decide between the church & you on this issue. That this a hardship I do not deny. Even in nature though those that do not conform to the norm suffer unfair hardships because of this. You can only do what's right for you. Perhaps your family will support you, perhaps not. If enough do leave the faith based on this issue, you can be sure the church will eventually find a way to include those followers back into the faith, if the balance of those staying & leaving because of it, favors so. At least historically I find this to be true.

I don't think these issues should be dealt with in learning institutions of our young. Trying to program or deprogram children that are not yours, nor of your family's community is no ones right. You can address this among your own children and families. You can address this in public forums. Institutions of learning of young children is not your right & overstepping of boundaries between people.

In some Arab countries, children are taught prejudice against America. I would never tell those Arab parents how to raise their children, nor condone programming to the otherwise. Rather I would focus on changing the minds of those Arab parents who see Americans as a threat. To me the means to an end matters. I recognize not all agree with me on this & that often it means taking a longer, less efficient route to achieve an end. I feel however that it gives better, longer lasting results because it builds trust.

Banning marriages weakens human community and removes incentive to take relationships seriously.

Not only am I opposed to gay marriage, I am conservative on this issue, I support the whole don't ask don't tell mentality. Civil Unions may be a lesser evil but "the lesser of two evils is still evil, no matter how lesser." (popular quote)

Any reason?

Government needs to get out of the marriage business.

Yeah, that idea has been stated a few times in this thread. What do you see as gov't incentive to be in the marriage business to begin with?

It need not be encouraged. It need not be broadcasted. It need not be accepted as morally equal to hetereosexual marriage.

I believe the question was why?

The idea of abolishing marrige is one I never thought of before and it is pretty interesting, but there are legal things connected with marrige such as children, money, etc. and I don't know if it would work to completely abolish it.

One of the first ideas of having the church ceremony a seperate thing and then an official marrige seems perfect to me.


But at the same time, many against gay marrige say:
1. Gay people are sinners by Christianity and therefore should not be married.
BUT there is a law seperating church and state and therefore this should be ignored in all respects.

2. Marrige is defined as between a man and a woman.
BUT this makes no since and give me one reason WHY?! Both presidential candidates said this and I just don't understand why on Earth they think marrige is defined that way. It doesn't lessen a woman/man marrige nor does it change a man/woman marrige in any way. All it does is strengthen the community, accept all people, and start to end the descrimination against gay people.


How can the governement expect to stop the violent and awful descrimination against gay people if they themselves descriminate against them with their laws?

I believe the question was "any reasons" but I'll answer your question also.

I believe marriage is necessary to insure a well-raised posterity. Outside of that, there is no need to openly declare or show your sexuality or what you think of sex. Keep it to yourself.

Yeah, but Delta's bad about making his questions unclear, I usually end up picking up his slack and clarifying.

But isn't heterosexual marriage a "declaration and show" of sexuality (of the heterogenous kind) as well? Why should gay couples be restricted in doing that?

I believe children need to be raised by two parents as much as possible. If you didn't have an institution like marriage, that would be difficult. But good luck having biological children with a homosexual couple, lol!

How is the need for children to have 2 parents an argument against Gay marriage?

And there are gay couples which do adopt children.

That's what marriage is designed to help with. To keep childbearing families together. Gays can't have childbearing families. So they don't need marriage to keep themselves together.

And that isn't fair to the child...

I thought you were a bloodsucking conservative prick, lol!

Very true ^_^

How is it not fair to the child? A child with gay parents is no more likely to be gay than one with heteosexual ones. What makes gays worse parents??

Can you prove that?

# There is absolutely no evidence that children are psychologically or physically harmed in any way by having LGBT parents. There is, however, much evidence that shows that they are not.
# People with LGBT parents have the same incidence of homosexuality as the general population, about 10%. No research has ever shown that LGBT parents have any affect on the sexuality of their children. (Patterson, Charlotte J. 1992)

Research claims that children with LGBT parents are exposed to more people of the opposite sex than many kids of straight parents. (Rofes, E.E., 1983, Herdt, 1989)

# Studies have shown that people with LGBT parents are more open-minded about a wide variety of things than people with straight parents. (Harris and Turner, 1985/86)
Above from...[link]


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/12/...ain938234.shtml

There more, I don't feel like getting it. Do you have any proof to the contrary?

-Using absence of evidence as the evidence of absence?

-Lets assume what research claims is true, what was that suppose to prove?

-Isn't that purely opinion? And how vague could they be with their studies, open-minded about a wide variety of things...?

I actually did find claims that same-sex parenting is harmful to children. It's fairly long, so here's the source.

I found a few others, but this should be enough for now.

I'm very neutral on same-sex marriage. We have it in Canada and while many people complain about it, I'm just like "meh". Just as equally, when Americans complain that they don't have it, I'm just like "meh". It doesn't matter to me either way whether its legal or not... I don't care what happens behind the doors of two consenting adults. I'm okay with same-sex marriage but what I am not okay with is adoption by same-sex couples. Twin studies have shown that identical twins only have a 53% correlation in sexual orientation. This means that if a person is gay, there is a 53% chance their identical twin is homosexual, 47% chance heterosexual. Now what makes up for that other 47%?

Obviously environment because identical twins are the same genes. Therefore I would be against adoption by gay couples because environment does play a role to some degree. Currently less than 8% of people are homosexual (this is probably an inflated guess anyway but that could very well be the real figure with all those people in the closet), that number could very well rise if more and more children are raised by gay couples.