End marriage?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by supercaliber, Aug 26, 2010.

  1. supercaliber macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    #1
    Edit: To be clear: as I have always stated in this forum, I am not against gay's marrying.

    I was contemplating the gay-marriage situation and was trying to reason through the idea that we all deserve equal treatment under the law, why then would we exclude gay couples. I also reasoned further about other types of unions like polygamy, why is it any of our business what people do in their homes?

    Then I realized that the real problem is not that the law excludes gays or polygamists, but that it includes marriage! Marriage is a religious notion isn't it? When did man ever start marrying in the first place? Probably right after the first church was built, so why is it in our laws so much.

    Then I found this article

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1885190,00.html

    Looks like it isn't such a novel idea after all? So why do we need marriage in our government, in our tax code, and in our courts? If we get rid of marriage in the government don't we get rid of all marriage issues from the political landscape.

    Marriage wouldn't really end btw, it would still exist, but only at your church or some other institution that blesses you as "married"
     
  2. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #2
    In the first place, women would get shafted much worse than they already are unless we had some sort of cultural structure in place to prevent that.

    The overall net effect would be a return to tribalism, which could be an improvement in some ways over what we have now, though business would probably see some losses. It was my understanding that the concept of the nuclear family (before Three Mile Island) was established by the Roman Empire to facilitate control of the populace, because small family groups tend to be less of a threat to the establishment than tribes. In our present society, tribes would be rather comparable to gangs, so again our culture would have to change to minimize the negative impact that gangs can have.

    Sounds good on paper, but...
     
  3. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #3
    No no, gang affiliation wouldn't get tax rebates either. ;)


    I like the thought, and what Sydde said was interesting, but you'd have to change a significant number of laws associated with marriage, and being married, before eliminating the recognition of marriage altogether. Recognition of marriages is useful in situations where there's a dispute over ownership after separation between a man and a woman (or homosexual relationships, if your government currently recognises them). I suppose there would be no such thing as 'co-ownership' if your marriage with your 'wife' (i.e. you're married in the church sense) had no legal standing in a federal or municipal sense, but that just makes being in a relationship a lot more difficult if the couple were to separate later.

    If a working husband and a housewife were to separate, yet their relationship has no legal recognition from any level of government, then what does the wife get in the separation? The husband can say he purchased everything. If he can prove this, then legally, I suppose she'd get nothing, because according to the government, they know nothing of any relationship or living arrangement between her and her 'husband', and thought she was simply unemployed for the past 7 years. ;)


    Tell me if I misunderstood.


    EDIT: Nevermind. Just read the Times article, and it makes more sense that way. Couples would still get a certificate from the government to recognise their relationship, but it wouldn't be called marriage, whether gay or straight. Nice. :)
     
  4. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #4
    The premise is built on a false idea that religion owns marriage. Marriage is about preservation of property rights and the uniting of family groups, and has been retained as an institution throughout the millennia as it provides stability to society as a whole. Religions have typically co-opted marriage into their zone of influence, as they have done with winter solstice festivals, births, coming of age traditions, etc; but as with those other examples their claim of ownership is essentially bogus and completely reliant on consensus acquiescence (i.e. people having "faith" in the idea).

    Therefore whilst it is an interesting notion to remove marriage entirely from the legal code I suspect that would have far more damaging results to society than expanding it to those that fall outside of the co-opted religious definition, and that it is religion that should back off rather than the state. Looking at those societies where gay marriage is already legal the sky is steadfastly refusing to fall. That to me at least* proves that the anti-gay marriage arguments are basically nonsense and encouraging relationship longevity for all is the way forward.



    * Disclaimer : Gay married man approaching 3rd anniversary.
     
  5. OllyW Moderator

    OllyW

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Location:
    The Black Country, England
    #5
    Marriage is not a religious notion, it even pre-dates recorded history.
     
  6. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #6
    For incredibly obvious reasons.

    I like to beat my partner. It's fun to do. After a busy day working I find no better way of winding down than to plant a few punches on my lovelies face. Why should the law get involved, it's none of their business what I do in my own home.

    I'm proper addicted to class A drugs! My toddler sometimes see's the syringes lying around but she's a smart girl and knows not to touch them. One time she took a pill that I dropped on the ground and had to be taken to the hospital. The police turned up but it's none of their business what I do in my own home.

    etc.
     
  7. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #7
    At 4 in the morning, Eastern?? :confused:

    Maybe you need more roughage in your diet?
     
  8. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #8
    Well, you went wrong when you thought that marriage was a religious thing. Marriage, from the state's point of view, is a contract. If your the kind of person that likes to throw a wedding in a church to celebrate that contract, so be it, but it doesn't change the very nature of marriage to the government.
     
  9. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #9
    Yeah, it would really suck for a woman to lose the right to cheat on you and take half of your finances on the way out the door. :rolleyes:

    Leaving that aside for the moment, the government is never going to get out of the marriage, and subsequently divorce, business. I've said this before here; maybe more people will listen this time - when you enter into the marriage contract, the state becomes a party to that contract. It's completely abhorrent that the government should have a vested interest in the dissolution of marriages, gay or straight, but as we've allowed the state to stick its finger in that particular pie, it's not coming out anytime soon.
     
  10. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
  11. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #11
    Government doesn't need to play a part in people joining together.

    But when people divorce or die and divide up property, the courts usually become involved.

    Perhaps the OP is a mediator and is looking to drum up business.
     
  12. supercaliber thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    #12
    Well in today's world the government does look at the marriage as a contract, but that is what the article is about solving. I think the Time article covers your concerns. We have contracts today, we have partnerships. We have ways to divide assets that are similar to marriage.

    I think our government would handle removing marriage from its laws rather easily.
     
  13. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #13
    We should be talking about ending bigotry, not marriage.
     
  14. supercaliber thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    #14
    I think the effort of the Princeton group was to solve a problem quickly and without the insane battles that we are seeing in the courts today. I might be wrong, but that is how I interpreted their efforts.
     
  15. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #15
    From the OP's linked article...

    Instead, give gay and straight couples alike the same license, a certificate confirming them as a family, and call it a civil union — anything, really, other than marriage.


    Personally, I'm fine with the idea of civil unions. My wife and I were married in our back garden by the county clerk.

    But it galls me to give in to stupidity. And those who claim the word marriage is sacred are just that: stupit. <-- With a 't'... even stupiter than stupid.
     
  16. steviem macrumors 68020

    steviem

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Location:
    New York, Baby!
    #16
    /s/ This is going to be like that 'metrosexual' trend all over again. Now gay people are getting married, everyone else will be too!
     
  17. supercaliber thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    #17
    Well I don't think you are arguing that people that think marriage is sacred are stupid, but that because of that "sacred" view they want to decide who gets to participate. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I can't imagine that you would have a problem with someone that treats their marriage as some holy union, would you?
     
  18. Corndog5595 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    #18
    Marriage is a lawful binding contract as well as a religious ceremony.
     
  19. supercaliber thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    #19
    If it pre-dates recorded history, how would we know :)
     
  20. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #20
    Good luck telling all straight couples they aren't married anymore.
     
  21. supercaliber thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    #21
    Does ignore not apply to new threads, dang, need to file an enhancement request.

    Marriage would still exist, just ended from the governments point of view, replaced with civil contracts.
     
  22. OllyW Moderator

    OllyW

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Location:
    The Black Country, England
    #22
    Because the first recorded history (Mesopotamia c 3100 BC) included references to marriage meaning it was already established. :rolleyes:
     
  23. ViViDboarder macrumors 68040

    ViViDboarder

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    #23
    Well they still could be if recognized by a church as a marriage. Just the government would consider them a civil union.

    Really it seems like semantics though...
     
  24. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #24
    Just because gay people want to be treated equally under the law, everything has to change? Really?

    Does no one see what's wrong here?

    Religion does NOT own marriage. It's time to stop treating it like they do.
     
  25. ViViDboarder macrumors 68040

    ViViDboarder

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    #25
    No, it doesn't "have to" all change. The thing is there are too many people that are bigoted and need those baby steps.

    As a straight person, I can say that to me it's just semantics if I get married or have a civil union. At the same time I feel that things should be equal for sure. I wouldn't bother me at all if gay people can get married.

    Perhaps the biggest issue we have is that things are being decided by voting. I would think that gay marriage is more of a judicial/congressional type decision. It's not illegal, the constitution says we have equal rights. It should be a done deal.

    DC it was decided, not voted on. Did we let white people in the South vote on slavery issues? No.

    Unfortunately we do not live in a world of rational people...
     

Share This Page