Shared publicly  - 
3
1
Pedro Rodriguez's profile photoRicardo Reyes's profile photoAaron Taggart's profile photoMario Chico's profile photo
15 comments
 
Marriage should be something between your Church and you - to Hell with what your street or city says, never mind the federal government or someone else's church.
 
It is now of course, which is why I say it shouldn't be anything but a Church and you issue. So that taxes aren't in the equation.
 
I agree with you, they should re-work the tax system and the government should have nothing to do with enforcing morality.  The government should only work to provide a safe and fair place for its citizens.  
 
+Ricardo Reyes What if you have no church? (an Atheist, or a Muslim living in an all-Christian place where there is no mosque)? 

There should be some way of doing that secularly. Or are you trying to make marriage some abstract thing that doesn't actually have any tangible effects? 

There are other reason to marry besides taxes. Wills get done automatically, hospital visitation rights are done automatically, ability to ask for a partner to become a citizen (if he or she isn't one) and other things like that. Or do you propose we also get rid of those? 

Then marriage really does become between you, your partner and something some priest said one time. And, just as easy, getting divorced becomes every easier. 
 
Whoa there +Pedro Rodriguez no one said, especially me, anything about making marriage abstract. My idea of removing the government from defining or not defining marriage is all I'm asking for. As +Ron Ellenbecker said, there shouldn't be a law legislating marriage one way or another. Sure there are other reasons for marriage other than taxes - like for whatever the reason you want.

When your refer to them (e.g. wills, hospital visitations) don't require the federal government in there or a state government. It requires a lawyer, a doctor and a family.

In respects to naturalization of a spouse/partner: you still need to go to the process. Of course that's another topic on another thread for another time.

Atheism's church is their own intellectualism (lol, sorry I had to) :-)

Now it's time to turn this bad boy off so I can watch Dark Skies in the theatre. :-)
 
 The time has come to end government recognition of marriage. Though all are said to be equal, governmental recognition of marriage undermines equality. It is wrong to give favoritism to some based solely on a quasi-contractual religious ceremony.
Ending government recognition of marriage would be good for the country. Economically, it would remove tax loopholes afforded to married couples and free employers from providing benefits to dependents. Legally, it would free the courts from this subset of legal problems and end other protections marriage affords. Constitutionally, it would promote individual equality and separate the state from this religious institution.
Abolishing marriage will not be easy. The favoritism toward this institution is attached with strong emotional, religious and legal underpinnings. Some will fight to protect their favored status. Some will fight to expand this favoritism for them.
We should not defend favoritism for some. We should fight for equality for all.
 
+Ricardo Reyes 
"When your refer to them (e.g. wills, hospital visitations) don't require the federal government in there or a state government. It requires a lawyer, a doctor and a family. "

Err, you know I can do that right now, right? Without being married. However I would need to do it manually and individually for each thing. Getting married takes care of all of that in one sweeping move. 

"In respects to naturalization of a spouse/partner: you still need to go to the process."

You cannot get in the process unless you are married (and recognized so by the gov't).......I'm not following you. 

There is no point in getting married anymore: women no longer need protection and men no longer need to secure sex (since it is now open). Only reason you get married is because you want the nice services it brings along. You should get married for love, but sadly most people get married for lust (which is why the divorce rate is so high in the US). 

I don't think we should get rid of marriage in the gov't, since if that happens, then people will really not get married (except for the uber-religious, and those people are dying out). And again, it is nice to have a system that gives your SO automatic rights over your life and will. 
 
+Pedro Rodriguez regardless of whether you're married or not Wills still require lawyers to muddle through the mumbo jumbo and families and doctors still are part of the hospital equation. But the federal government in today's marriage laws or in the one I described shouldn't require their meddling. Only reason I addressed wills and hospitals was because it was brought up.

In respects to the naturalization in this scenario I know one needs to be married. What I was getting at was that marrying someone still requires you go to the legal process. That's all I was implying. Your application stating your marriage to a citizen should be looked upon with more consideration for approval.

Wait, what? Marriage was about women being protected and men needing secured sex?
Sure people have done that, which sucks because it dilutes what we hold it to be. But if people want to marry for love, secured sex, or for the niceties, how to stop that? I have no desire to say, “ok, new marriage law: no marrying unless its for love" that's redefining marriage in a different way.

I still hold that there is no reason to keep government in the business of defining which marriages are legal or not legal. That has always been my position.

“...it is so nice to have a system that gives your SO automatic rights over your life and will..."

That, my friend is scary, because a government that gives you rights can readily take them away. Your rights come from being a human and from a creator and that creator isn't your mom, dad or the government.

If you were wondering the movie last night was good. :-)
 
I'm of the opinion that is a constitutional rights issue; both in regards to freedom of speech (expression) and freedom of religion. Ergo, it should not have been illegal in the first place.
 
+Pedro Rodriguez, there should be an easy way to set all that stuff up that doesn't involve a historically religious event. Perhaps just a simple standard contract that the government has two people sign. Unraveling that contract would, of course, be as difficult as getting a divorce. Then civil rights would apply much more easily since two men should be able to make a contract with each other. Since marriage wouldn't be recognized by the government at all, they wouldn't have to spend all this time figuring out if it should be legal or illegal, when they shouldn't have been involved in the first place.
 
+Aaron Taggart Well marriage has long stopped being religious (I mean, it was never really supposed to be religious. It was a way for women to force men into taking care of the children by controlling sex, and that happened much before modern humans even existed). Nowadays it is a way for the gov't to keep track of who is with who for, again, life decisions, benefits, etc etc. 

+Ricardo Reyes "Your rights come from being a human and from a creator and that creator isn't your mom, dad or the government. "

Well that is where we differ. I don't believe that human rights is a "thing" (some natural thing that exists). Human rights are the things we humans things are "right" (where right changes from culture to culture, from person to person), and the ability for someone to enforce these "good things". All we can hope for is that the person enforcing these laws (the strongest person) has a perception of what is "right" that is comprisable with the greater majority of the people's perception of what is right.

Of course you don't (fundamentally) believe that, so no point in arguing that. Good day. 
 
I don't want to leave my hopes in humanity to defend rights +Pedro Rodriguez . History should be a glowing example of what relying and hoping on humanity leads us to.


 
+Pedro Rodriguez "Well marriage has long stopped being religious"

Well at least in America (since that is the jurisdiction and government we are talking about) a vast majority of marriages take place in churches and have religious leaders presiding over them. So I would say you are wrong. 

"it is a way for the gov't to keep track of who is with who for, again, life decisions, benefits, etc etc."

If that is the case, then a simple standard contractual agreement would be a far better solution. Since if people want to be together, they will. And if the government wants accurate information, then it is silly to make laws saying some people can marry while others cannot. If it was a simple contract, then anyone over the age of 18 could easily and legally sign it. What is the disadvantage of that solution?
Add a comment...