The "Gaystapo"

[Unchecked Expansion]

Yes it is a RELIGOUS CEREMONY. That is the fundamental point. It is a religous ceremony.

Marriage is a legal contract. Inheritance, next-of-kin rights, filling joint tax returns...
God should get out of the governments contract

[Grave_n_idle]

Yeah, okay.
I would just love to see a source on that.

The patent office sir.

I'm assuming this is some kind of joke, because that's obviously false.

[Grave_n_idle]

A wedding ceremony can be religious. You can attach whatever religious significance you like to your own 'marriage' - but 'marriage' itself is not a religious institution.

Indeed it is.

Atheists can marry. Theists and Atheists can, if they wish, marry in non-religious ceremonies, in non-religious venues.

Thus, marriage is not a religious institution.

[Farnhamia]

I'm not implying anything.
I'm flat out stating that marriage has been around longer than (specifically the Christian) church has, thus marriage simply can't solely be a religious tradition.
Unless Jesus was also a time traveller but I don't recall anyone mentioning a Tardis in the Bible.

Yes it is a RELIGOUS CEREMONY. That is the fundamental point. It is a religous ceremony. I don't need to pay my taxes towards some ridiculous government institutiont hat doesn't even work. Let the religous institutions do what they want, as long as they pay taxes. I don't care. Not my business. Government shouldn't be involved.

Except it is. So, until that goes away, your objection is pointless. Right now, all marriages in the US are civil: you can get married without benefit of clergy but not without a government-issued license.

[Grave_n_idle]

False.
The church did not invent the concept of marriage.

Not even gonna touch the rest of your ramble.

Yes, that would require some sort of refutation.

No need to 'refute' an 'argument' that hasn't been supported.

[Farnhamia]

Obvious troll is obvious.

That sounded like sarcasm/satire to me. You shouldn't be so reactionary.

Indeed? How about this one, with the video on how to make a hangman's noose? http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=7617748#p7617748

[Arrakis Dune]

Yes it is a RELIGOUS CEREMONY..

No, it isn't.

You can get married without any religious overtone or ceremony if you wish.

You're confusing a wedding ceremony with the institution of marriage.

Then by all means, do so. I simply do not want government as a part of it. If religous institutions wants to marry by all means. If someone wants to create a private institution that carries out such affairs by all means. I dont want government part of it.

[Grave_n_idle]

Notice how trolling starts failing the second someone asks you for the slightest bit of substance?

All i want you to do is to show me who invented the concept of marriage. I troll not

Well, we know it already existed in Pre-Christian (even pre-Judaic) Mesopotamia - so the idea that it's a religious invention of the Judeo-Christian church can be instantly discounted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

[Farnhamia]

No, it isn't.

You can get married without any religious overtone or ceremony if you wish.

You're confusing a wedding ceremony with the institution of marriage.

Then by all means, do so. I simply do not want government as a part of it. If religous institutions wants to marry by all means. If someone wants to create a private institution that carries out such affairs by all means. I dont want government part of it.

And what are you doing to get government out of marriage?

[Arrakis Dune]

Yes it is a RELIGOUS CEREMONY. That is the fundamental point. It is a religous ceremony.

Marriage is a legal contract. Inheritance, next-of-kin rights, filling joint tax returns...
God should get out of the governments contract

Again, this can be resolved between people and contracts they themselves sign. It does not require government. Do it yourself.

[Grave_n_idle]

Notice how trolling starts failing the second someone asks you for the slightest bit of substance?

Wait a second. Are you actually implying marriage is not based upon religon? So all the backchatter in the Old Testament is rubbish? Marriage didn't exist until the government formalized it?

Almost right. It existed before the Old Testament. It was 'formalised' before Judeo-Christian religion even existed.

[Arrakis Dune]

And what are you doing to get government out of marriage?

This is a discussion, not a place for me to divulge my political ambitions or activities.

[Zaras]

Then by all means, do so. I simply do not want government as a part of it. If religous institutions wants to marry by all means. If someone wants to create a private institution that carries out such affairs by all means. I dont want government part of it.

And what are you doing to get government out of marriage?

I'd suggest starting with redrafting marriage laws to remove all gender-based pronouns, so that they only say that marriage is between two citizens.

[Arrakis Dune]

Almost right. It existed before the Old Testament. It was 'formalised' before Judeo-Christian religion even existed.

This is still avoiding the core point. Any private institution can sell their services and create contracts. It does not require a centralized government to do it. If you want a union, do it yourself. Sign contracts.

Marriage and Government do not mix and the intervention has caused major problems. If a chruch wants to sell its services to specific people, that's their own things. They lose customers. Someone else or some other institution will take them in.

Government isn't needed.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, it isn't.

You can get married without any religious overtone or ceremony if you wish.

You're confusing a wedding ceremony with the institution of marriage.

Then by all means, do so. I simply do not want government as a part of it. If religous institutions wants to marry by all means. If someone wants to create a private institution that carries out such affairs by all means. I dont want government part of it.

Whether or not you 'want government as a part of it' is irrelevant. Our laws are not religious laws (thankfully), so churches do not get to decide what 'rights' people get.

That's a question of law, not religion. State. Not church.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Marriage is a legal contract. Inheritance, next-of-kin rights, filling joint tax returns...
God should get out of the governments contract

Again, this can be resolved between people and contracts they themselves sign. It does not require government. Do it yourself.

So, where does god come into it in your version?

It's all well and good saying 'they can just sign contracts'. But these relate to other rights and laws, which are enforced by the government. So yes, you could make up your own contract, but what validity would anything have if all laws were DIY?

[Arrakis Dune]

I'd suggest starting with redrafting marriage laws to remove all gender-based pronouns, so that they only say that marriage is between two citizens.

So you advocate more government intervention to solve problems caused by government intervention? How about we just skip the whole thing altogether and let couples decide.

Seeing as man and woman are so arbitrary. Why not rid ourselves of numbers to? Multiple people within marriages.

Or we can get rid of government involvement and let individuals choose fo themselves how they set up unified contracts.

[GeneralHaNor]

It's been a couple of years since I last studied Nazi Germany but remind me: were they pro- or anti-gay?

There Uniforms were designed by Hugo Boss
So.."Pro"?

[Zaras]

I'd suggest starting with redrafting marriage laws to remove all gender-based pronouns, so that they only say that marriage is between two citizens.

So you advocate more government intervention to solve problems caused by government intervention? How about we just skip the whole thing altogether and let couples decide.

No, it's government intervention to arbitrarily decide that marriages are supposed to be between separate genders. Removing that means less government intervention.

[Grave_n_idle]

Almost right. It existed before the Old Testament. It was 'formalised' before Judeo-Christian religion even existed.

This is still avoiding the core point. Any private institution can sell their services and create contracts. It does not require a centralized government to do it. If you want a union, do it yourself. Sign contracts.

Nonsense argument.

I love the idea of individuals designing their own contracts, I really do... but that 'right' currently does not exist. Indeed, there are forces at work to block that 'right', or any 'right' that recognises certain arrangements of civil union.

Once we get to the point where religious and political groups can't apply pressure to stop consenting adults deciding how they want to associate, I'd be all in favour of taking the further step of establishing personal 'marriage' contracts.

Marriage and Government do not mix and the intervention has caused major problems.

The state has not 'intervened'. Marriage has always been a legal contract. It's also sometimes been religious, for some people.

[Arrakis Dune]

So, where does god come into it in your version?

It's all well and good saying 'they can just sign contracts'. But these relate to other rights and laws, which are enforced by the government. So yes, you could make up your own contract, but what validity would anything have if all laws were DIY?

God doesn't. It can if you want but it isn't my business. Having a centralized idea of marriage is pointless. The whole system is ridiculous and flawed. It's not hard to setup a will and testmament within private institutions, nor is it hard to set up unions between people with their own rules, god or no god.

Marriage is about tax incetives and other government quagmired bullshit. Just end it. Let people choose for themselves and pay taxes like everyone else.

[Grave_n_idle]

So, where does god come into it in your version?

It's all well and good saying 'they can just sign contracts'. But these relate to other rights and laws, which are enforced by the government. So yes, you could make up your own contract, but what validity would anything have if all laws were DIY?

God doesn't. It can if you want but it isn't my business.

Then this post was just trolling?

viewtopic.php?p=7618125#p7618125

"It's a religous institution and a religous celebration".


You're not even being consistent. Even when you constantly go back and revise your posts.

[Arrakis Dune]

Nonsense argument. I love the idea of individuals designing their own contracts, I really do... but that 'right' currently does not exist. Indeed, there are forces at work to block that 'right', or any 'right' that recognises certain arrangements of civil union. Once we get to the point where religious and political groups can't apply pressure to stop consenting adults deciding how they want to associate, I'd be all in favour of taking the further step of establishing personal 'marriage' contracts.

Forces at work to block that right? Yes, it's called a centralized legal idea of marriage setup by the state. End it and let people decide for thesmelves. Chruches, stables, halls, houses. Whatever. It's a contract people should be able to write up themselves.

My only issue with the church is it's lack of taxes and its funding by government. They can accept whomever they want. That is their right. Other people will make uniions between homosexuals and heteros or multiple people.

The problem is the state monoploy on marriage. End it. Problem solved.

[Arrakis Dune]

God doesn't. It can if you want but it isn't my business.

Then this post was just trolling?

viewtopic.php?p=7618125#p7618125

"It's a religous institution and a religous celebration".


You're not even being consistent. Even when you constantly go back and revise your posts.

It is a religous celebration. I didn't say ONLY religous institutions could set up marriages. I simply said government shouldn't. Religous institutions are a private instutiton, marriage is a private affair.

I honestly dont care what unions people setup or where they do it. I just want government involvement to cease. They have a monoploy that needs to end.

[Grave_n_idle]

Nonsense argument. I love the idea of individuals designing their own contracts, I really do... but that 'right' currently does not exist. Indeed, there are forces at work to block that 'right', or any 'right' that recognises certain arrangements of civil union. Once we get to the point where religious and political groups can't apply pressure to stop consenting adults deciding how they want to associate, I'd be all in favour of taking the further step of establishing personal 'marriage' contracts.

My only issue with the church is it's lack of taxes and its funding by government. They can accept whomever they want. That is their right. Other people will make uniions between homosexuals and heteros or multiple people.

The problem is the state monoploy on marriage. End it. Problem solved.

First, whether or not churches get tax breaks or are funded by the government... is irrelevant to THIS debate.

Second, ending the 'state monopoly' on marriage doesn't solve the problem, if the problem is that people can politically or religiously decide to remove certain rights from other people.

Indeed, a 'state monopoly' on marriage is arguably the only realistic way to assure such rights.