Inkbunny

I would argue that you’ve got it backwards. Marriage is and has always been an administrative matter. Religion would have never gotten involved, if it wasn’t for all the people who can’t approach a major life decision without seeking divine approval/blessing.

Jimmy

12 years, 3 months ago

link

I believe you have it backwards. Marriage has always been a religious thing for thousands of years. Government gets involved to "legalize" it. The whole supreme court cases are for legal approval. If people did not want approval to make their major life decision then there wouldn't be a need for the supreme court to be involved.

I know there is a lot more involved but when money is involved, people will do anything to get it. Greed is a powerful tool.

Erkhyan

12 years, 3 months ago

link

Really? Marriage was always about founding a family, making sure property remains in the family, and making sure children are born into a clearly defined family. It has been the case with every marriage, everywhere, in every period. The only approval that mattered was always that of the relevant authority, the one that’s in charge of the laws. Yeah, I’ll admit, in the last two millennia, religion has tried its best to be that authority, but guess what? Unless you live in a theocracy, it is not the case anymore. In most parts of the world, the state dictates the laws, not religion, so marriage belongs to the state. What belongs to religion is the decision whether to bless the marriage or not (see: divorced Catholics being able to remarry despite their church’s refusal to bless said remarriage).

Oh, and you keep mentioning money. It’s always the tax breaks, right? Inheritance rights, decision-taking rights (i.e. healthcare and child custody), even immigration rights (http://www.domaproject.org/our-project) don’t matter at all, it’s all about money?

So yeah, I’m greedy. I want my other half to be recognized as my closest next of kin in all legal matters. Keep your tax breaks and just give me THAT, it’ll be more than enough for me.

VoodooKitty

12 years, 3 months ago

link

The reason that St. Valentine is celebrated is because he was willing to perform marriages during a time when the practice had been banned by... I believe it was the roman government.. at the time.

See, the Catholics were becoming an annoyance kind of the way that the puritans were kicked out of England and sent to a penal colony for challenging the government with their religious views and general meddling. The religious view was that sexual contact or reproduction out of marriage was a sin and was prohibited in the Christian communities. Outlaw marriage, get rid of the Christians, you see. No marriage, no babies, no more indoctrinated Christians.

Marriage is all about the church. It's just on the state as to rather or not they recognize it. And by that philosophy, if marriage is legal, if you can find a church who will join two persons in holy union, then the state has no right to go sticking their hands down people's pants. If it is legal for any couple to get married, it has to be legal for all couples to be married..

Erkhyan

12 years, 3 months ago

link

So, Valentine got in trouble because he tried to wrestle marriage from the law, exactly the way you want current religions to do. He tried to substitute some religious ceremony for the legal contract that was marriage at the time. And, by your own words, the Puritans got in trouble for allowing their religious views to meddle with legal matters, the same way the major churches want to.

I’m asking you to consider one thing: marriage exists in all cultures. One thing that differs in all cultures is the religion (or absence of religion) involved in it, and the importance of said involvement. One thing that does NOT differ is the administrative aspects of marriage and its significance under the law. I’d rather believe that the one thing that is common everywhere is the real meaning of marriage, and not the add-on that varies with geography and personal beliefs.

Again, religions are free to call whatever blessing ceremony they created as they wish. What they do NOT get to do is dictate that only they own the name of that union they’ve been asked (or not) to bless. Marriage is marriage. If a church won’t bless or recognize a fully legal marriage, it his within its rights to do so (because the government has no right to force them to), but what is NOT within its rights is to force the couple, or the government, to submit to their view and call it something else than a marriage. Non-ingerence goes both ways, after all: for example, the government cannot force the Roman Catholic Church to recognize remarriages… but on the other side, the RCC cannot force the government not to recognize them.

VoodooKitty

12 years, 3 months ago

link

You know, I honestly think we are attacking the subject from completely different directions, and as I am not entirely sure either of us are making our point of view clear, I am going to drop this conversation before someone drags Godwin's law into it.

Thank's for the conversation though.

indorri

12 years, 3 months ago

link

a) The legend is that he performed weddings for soldiers, who were forbidden by military law to wed. He was martyred for attempting to convert the emperor, though there are other legends.

b) The Puritans weren't kicked out of England, they left. They did experience persecution, in being denied civil office for belonging to the wrong sect, but the English government didn't actually interfere in their particular running of the church (the opposite, actually: the Puritans, and Calvinist/Zwingli Reformers in general, wished to install their own religious government and outlaw activities they saw as morally degenerate. Like dancing.)

Niji

12 years, 3 months ago

link

I don't know, I still think marriage should be abolished entirely(or couples should no longer be allowed to divorce under any circumstances). Less privacy more freedom imo

VoodooKitty

12 years, 3 months ago

link

@ Niji

Abolishing the institution of marriage has problems. Banning divorce would see spousal murder rates climb through the roof.

The easiest thing would be to arrange a planned period of union, which may be re-upped at the end.

Problem is situations like those between my Stepfather and Mother, where in my Mother had a stable job and good health when they met, and now, 10 years later, having not been allowed to work, not been allowed to go to a doctor, not even allowed to have her own bank account, her health is destroyed, she has no job to fall back on, and no money to try to provide for her self till she can make living arrangements.. I.E. stuck. I say this to punctuate that our system is not perfect, but trying to modify significantly how it works could prove significantly dangerous to the victims of abusers.

I apologize for detailing my personal problems, but it was the most readily available example..

Jaxen

12 years, 3 months ago

link

I think saying spousal murder would increase is a little crazy, to be quite honest.

Bigamy, though? Ohhhh yeah.

VoodooKitty

12 years, 3 months ago

link

@ Jaxen

Justice in cases of domestic violence is a joke. Right now the only escape available to a person in an abusive relationship is divorce. You actually force people in an abusive relationship to live together, either the abuser will eventually beat the victim to death, or else the victim will end up shooting their abuser or killing them in their sleep.

Banning divorce is right on up there with banning abortion in the realm of terrible ideas.

I work in a hotel. I once had a guy come in and demand the room number of his wife who was taking refuge from the ignorant sob in one of our rooms. I called the room and asked if she wanted him to have her room number, and, sobbing, she begged me not to give it to him. When I refused to give the man the room number, the mother fucker pulled a gun on me....So I gave him a key to an empty room and by the time he got back the police were waiting for him and tased him into a smoking heap.

Human beings are garbage.

Niji

12 years, 3 months ago

link

seems like you are missing the 3rd option of both parties fix the abusive problem and resolve the issues tho. But again would prever marriage to not be allowed at all, that would solve all these major problems.

Wolfblade

12 years, 3 months ago

link

@ Niji

Most people in abusive relationships are there because they have convinced themselves that there is a fix to the abusive problem. "Oh, no, he's a good man, really, he only hits me when he's drunk, and we're working on that, we really are."

If someone's abusing you, you don't stick around. There's no "fix" for that. A one-time anomaly may happen, but if there's abuse, and it is not an absolute solid "never again," then telling the abused that they can "fix" it if they just stick it out is pretty damn horrible. XD

Jaxen

12 years, 3 months ago

link

I think the idea that authorities would force a woman (or man) to live with their abuser simply because they're married is completely absurd. Aside from fringe loonies who get booted out of office (Todd Akin, anyone?) lawmakers in this day and age would not enact legislation that barbaric by a long shot.

Wolfblade

12 years, 3 months ago

link

@ Jaxen

I think he was saying that 'banning divorce' is a ridiculous notion. In such a hypothetical, people in abusive relationships WOULD be extremely more pressured to stay together regardless of the abuse. If you can't divorce someone once wed, then even if you left them, you'd never be able to be with someone else in that capacity. Anyone wanting marriage and a permanent relationship would see you as off the menu. Your choices would be either return to the abusive marriage, or forever be alone or in impermanent relationships barred from progressing to anything permanent (not to mention to inevitable extreme social mistreatment that would undoubtedly befall people in an extra-marital relationship in such circumstances).

So, yeah, IF the hypothetical circumstance of "banned divorce" were real, then yeah, it would effectively force people to stay despite abuse. Hence why he was declaring it a ridiculous notion.

VoodooKitty

12 years, 3 months ago

link

EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO BE TRAPPED IN A SHITTY, LEGALLY BINDING RELATIONSHIP EQUALLY!

In all honesty though, it isn't a matter of "can the cause be won", but "when will it be won". The fact is most of the people who are most violently apposed to marriage equality are dieing en mass. In about 15 years the attitude towards LBG and even TG has changed by an order of magnitude. Eventually it will reach a point where being "anti-equality" will be a politically damaging viewpoint.

Jimmy

12 years, 3 months ago

link

The easiest solution is to remove the financial loophole for all people.  No more single person tax penalty.  The whole idea is to make people equal, is it not?

Legalizing domestic unions is probably the best thing to happen.  It will keep those who bounce from one relationship to another from whine to everyone how miserable they are. Ok, so we will still have the whining...

To me the bottom line is this:  Marriage is religious thing, not a state run program.  It should be a civil union.  Remove the word marriage and you keep the extreme right quiet. Marriage stays in the church and the state issues a civil union license. The whole idea is to make individuals equal, not give more rights to one group and not the other.

Erkhyan

12 years, 3 months ago

link

See my reply to Echo for the whole religious/administrative thing. Insisting that we rename the thing and leave the word “marriage” to religion would be the equivalent of a homeowner giving up his home to a guest who was invited once too many and who now insists that the homeowner get a copy of the house instead.

Krechevskoy

12 years, 3 months ago

link

I may have elaborated a little bit...

Krechevskoy

12 years, 3 months ago

link

This seems like an odd approach to having your cake and eating it too...

Marriage is not, and has never really been, a religious thing.  If it were a religious thing, then how come all religions can get married, including to members of other religions?  If it were a religious thing, then why can atheists get married?  Those things wouldn't happen if religions had claim to marriage.

A marriage is, and always has been, a public declaration of togetherness.  In the distant past this was done for very different reasons, such as the marriage of two countries (By means of their monarchs), or the marriage of two families, etc.., but even today it is still just a declaration of togetherness.  The whole reason religion has so many fingers in the pie comes from the fact that their holy books all seem to have rules and regulations about who they are allowed to associate themselves with, and certainly who they are allowed to publicly declare a union with.

Religion aside though, a marriage has considerable legal consequences.  Regardless of what religion, church, or denomination you get married through, even if you just go to the courthouse to get married, it is all filled out on the same certificate, and it all goes to be filed with the government.  Because a lot of things tend to change when you go from being single to being in a committed  relationship (even before marriage).  Your resources are allocated very differently, you spend your time in different ways, you have a better balance of monetary income and outcome, you are even privy to very different information.

Once you have been married, that is to say, once you have publicly announced that your relationship will be continuing indefinitely, then the government can take a lot of these changes into account.  They can tax you in a manner that is more appropriate for couples, provide you benefits that are more appropriate for couples, allow things like medical decisions to be shared between you, remove some of the privacy barriers that are needed to insulate single persons, etc...

I'd need to look up the exact number of laws, rights, and policies, just on the federal level, that apply exclusively to married couples, but I do know that it was a good way into the triple digits.  It was certainly high enough, that the idea of suddenly "removing" marriage as a legal device becomes totally unrealistic.  Like it or not, it is a very needed and very useful legal descriptor.

As for simply changing the name to "Civil union" and separating the religious and legal sides... Well, I don't think the religious have nearly so much control over marriage as you think.  If we split the religious and legal sides, then you have the churches, that can still perform a flashy ceremony, and then you have the government, which still does everything else past that, including the actual "Marriage", which is filed via state government.  The government is still the one that is approving it, filing it, giving you rights and benefits for it, policing it, and even deciding when and on what terms it ends.  The religious are basically just flashy and expensive front ends for your local courthouse.

So bottom line... marriage is barely a religious institution in the first place, and if all the churches in the world suddenly decided to stop marrying people, then marriage would carry on just fine.  We wouldn't even flinch, since all they do is fill out and sign a certificate for you to take to the courthouse.  Seeing as they are such a small and superfluous part of this very important and highly integrated dynamic of society and our legal system, I vote that the religious be given a "Religious Union", and the rest of us can carry on with "Marriage".

Krechevskoy

12 years, 3 months ago

link

Also, I know I've already gone on a bit of a rant, but one last thing I wanted to point out here:

"	Jimmy wrote:
	The whole idea is to make individuals equal, not give more rights to one group and not the other.

This is very true... save for the fact we stopped talking about individuals. The whole reason Marriage is treated differently by the legal system is because they aren't discussing an individual anymore, but rather a couple. The "special rights" that are given out for married couples, and to parents for that matter, are specifically given because they are no longer individuals. Through either marriage or parenthood, their sphere of influence covers more than just themselves, and so they are given new rights, and responsibilities, to reflect that change.

I don't think that it is unfair to single persons that married persons are treated differently.

Krechevskoy

12 years, 3 months ago

link

Edited 12 years, 3 months ago by Owner

Just one last thing... I swear!

"	Jimmy wrote:
	Remove the word marriage and you keep the extreme right quiet.

I don't make a habit of yielding on important subjects simply because it means that my opponent will put up less of a fight.

The people who want to exclude and belittle others, for the crime of simply being different, are wrong and deplorable, and I don't want to offer credence of any kind. I want it to be terribly uncomfortable for them as they watch their bigoted ideals crash down around them. I want them to cringe every time they hear the words "Gay Marriage". They are wrong, and they need to be shown the full brunt of how wrong they are. I don't want them to think for a second that they will be able to survive this by simply being stubborn.

Wolfblade

12 years, 3 months ago

link

Edited 12 years, 3 months ago by Owner

I love the fuck out of this comment.

People who are Wrong need to know they are wrong in no uncertain terms.

How else will they ever have even a chance to stop being wrong?

Krechevskoy

12 years, 3 months ago

link

@ Wolfblade

I saw that icon and I totally thought I had replied to myself in my sleep. XD

But yes... If not as a service to them, correcting their error and showing them why it was an error in the first place, then at least as a service to all the others who suffer when bigotry is allowed to exist. This isn't just some high school debate, in a closed room with no consequences. This is the real world, and these decisions have very real effects. There is no room to shuffle our feet or pull punches when we are pursuing these very essential human rights and legal equalities. Every blow should be decisive.

Wolfblade

12 years, 3 months ago

link

If you don't mind, I might use this entire paragraph in the future. It excellently sums up why I argue with stupid bullshit almost every time I'm arguing with stupid bullshit. <3

Krechevskoy

12 years, 3 months ago

link

@ Wolfblade

Please, help yourself. It would be something of an honor.

Krechevskoy

12 years, 3 months ago

link

Can win; Will try.

I've got a wedding I'd like to plan! >:V

bencoon

12 years, 3 months ago

link

Pah. Marriage. Feh. You know who likes marriage? People who want to be married! *scoff* *etc*

Besides, anybody who thinks it isn't inevitable is fooling themselves. Even if the supreme court rules against it (and I doubt they will) it'll happen sooner or later, anyways. Boggles my mind that anybody is fighting so hard against it.

VoodooKitty

12 years, 3 months ago

link

@ bencoon

And now I have married with children's theme song stuck in my head...

Wolfblade

12 years, 3 months ago

link

@ bencoon

"Eventually" as a Given is still less preferable than the possibly attainable "Now."

Any civil rights movement in American History has shown that once there's a fight about it, the outcome is inevitable. But it's still worth fighting to the fullest to make it happen sooner rather than later.

PandaStorm

12 years, 3 months ago

link

@ Wolfblade

So. Lets take the movie 'The Purge' for example. If someone fights for that... Then does that mean...

Oh no...

AlyssaKamber

12 years, 3 months ago

link

Removing the word "marriage" won't quiet the right. They won't stop arguing. If you give an inch, they'll take a mile and then argue for another inch.

We have the complaint that churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages? No, as far as I can see, they won't - separation of church and state should cut that off. This is not about forcing any church to go against its principles; churches should be allowed to refuse to perform same-gender marriages if they see fit.

We have the complaint that this is a slippery slope; this will open the door for someone to marry their horse, or marry a ten-year-old kid, or marry their daughter, or marry twenty women, or... and *gasp* the churches will HAVE to perform these horrors! (See above - no, they won't) People suggesting this slippery slope: What part of "between two consenting adults, though regardless of gender" don't you get? Oh, that's right, you KNOW we're not pushing for that. You know there's no slippery slope. But it's a great tactic for frightening the gullible into voting hard against this. The people who think that the secular world is gassing up the steamrollers to drive right over their churches.

I don't have a smartphone, or I'd do this. We CAN win this fight.

indorri

12 years, 3 months ago

link

Edited 12 years, 3 months ago by Owner

Those who say marriage is primarily religious institution: It's not. At the very least, it coexisted in legal systems: ancient Babylon had laws on marriage, ancient Rome had laws on marriage, all civilizations have somehow codified marriage into their systems, and not all of them describing it in terms of religion. From what I've read, in fact, very few do: that the few religions that do happen to now be dominant is an accident of history, not a generalization of it.

Incidentally, a good chunk of the early church fathers saw marriage as a worldly fetter, and advocated celibacy as a higher moral.

AlyssaKamber

12 years, 3 months ago

link

Yes. But oh, no, "marriage" has always been a religious thing, they say. (I'm even Christian myself and I acknowledge that that's not correct!)

My big problem, as noted, is the scare tactic used to try to convince people to vote against this. They not only insist that it's always been a Christian tradition - and hope the voters just believe them instead of fact-checking for themselves - but, further, they suggest that this will bring the moral collapse of the nation. Gays getting married! They'll forever destroy the meaning of marriage, so, uh... heterosexual marriages will lose their meaning...or something... And what about when a guy wants to marry his son, or his pet dog, or his computer, or his car, huh? Huh!? It'll all be okay, and the churches will be forced to do it and approve it! (Sure they will) And what about partner benefits, like being able to visit your dying spouse in the hospital?

...uhhh... uhm.... HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA!!!

It really is painful to hear the arguments. They argue that a gay man has the same right that a straight man has - to marry any woman - so being able to marry a man is "special rights"? No. No. Any consenting adult should have the right to marry any other consenting adult. That's the way to put this. There's no "special" rights being requested. This is absolutely not about GAY rights. This is about HUMAN rights.

jeffpossible

12 years, 3 months ago

link

Marriage was around long before there was that "Adam and Eve, not Steve" bullshit. Ugh, that annoying saying. Anyway, it'd be great to see my state (Texas) be able to marry two cowboys or cowgirls. Believe me, there is NOTHING to be in the closet about down here ;D

Shokuji

12 years, 3 months ago

link

New icon for marriage equality! =3

Let me know if anyone wants one. ^^

Shokuji

12 years, 3 months ago

link

@ Shokuji

Details here: https://inkbunny.net/journalview.php?id=88766

Krechevskoy

12 years, 3 months ago

link

@ Shokuji

Thank you for this! ^^

Shokuji

12 years, 3 months ago

link

You're welcome. =3

PandaStorm

12 years, 3 months ago

link

Ugh... Ok... Whatever...

I'm uninterested. Leave me out. Two guys or girls wanna be stuck together? Sure! Why not? Go for it!

Make some gay babies, heh...

You know... Since gays are born gay, then that means its genetics...?
If that's the case then they will make gay babies because two gays can TOTALLY make babies! :)

(Tis a joke... Move along... Nothing to see here...)

PandaStorm

12 years, 3 months ago

link

Anyone ever heard of objectomsexual (or however it's spelled)???

They should be allowed to get married too!!! I heard of a guy who loved his cars that much. On Taboo!!!!(TV show)

Shokuji

12 years, 3 months ago

link

If the inanimate object can sign the marriage forums, maybe. But I think at least being alive is required to get married to something, unless we're going to allow people to marry dead people. o_o;

Krechevskoy

12 years, 3 months ago

link

@ Shokuji

I think you are looking for the words "Cognitive Consent"

Krechevskoy

12 years, 3 months ago

link

Not that it necessarily needs addressed, as I believe (or at least hope) this comment was made in jest.  However, it is very easy to address, simply by the fact that a marriage is meant to be between consenting parties.  Objects can't consciously consent, so they could never enter into a union of marriage.

Also, for the reasons I've listed above, Marriage has legal significance because of the way living in groups changes people's lifestyles.  I'm fairly sure that a union with an object doesn't provide the same or even similar social, financial, or structural changes for the involved parties.

So yes... to take a joke post far too seriously, the answer is NO due to the number of absurdities involved in claiming that the marriage of an unthinking, unfeeling, non-consenting, non-citizen, who does not affect your life in hardly any of the ways in which a coupling of two thinking, consenting adults does.  The proposition is invalid, and does not warrant any added rights or responsibilities.  Even if it did, only one of the two involved parties would be able to exercise either of them, and so the marriage would only be binding to the human counterpart.

Cheers~

PandaStorm

12 years, 3 months ago

link

Edited 12 years, 3 months ago by Owner

Ok. Alright then. No objectomsexuals then.... Homosexuals yes, though. Got it.

Krechevskoy

12 years, 3 months ago

link

Pretty much ^^

PandaStorm

12 years, 3 months ago

link

What if its a girl and a robot? Heh...

(Assuming the robot has enough A.I. To either have or mimic emotions.)

Krechevskoy

12 years, 3 months ago

link

Thats a whole can of worms I'm not even going to get into.... Not now anyway...

PandaStorm

12 years, 3 months ago

link