Gay marriages....now what about siblings parents or animals?

[Anachronous Rex]

Well no, if they both agreed to that then what business is it of mine?

Then why is marriage the business of anyone but the two people getting married and why is there a need for a state marriage license and why does the priest or officiating officer ask if for people to "speak now or forever hold your peace." and why is there any need for any witnesses to the marriage. clearly marriage is meant to be subject to the will of the society to some extent (just keep the govt far away before they start dictating who can and can't marry).

The answer to these questions lies in my moniker.

[Llamalandia]

Then why is marriage the business of anyone but the two people getting married and why is there a need for a state marriage license and why does the priest or officiating officer ask if for people to "speak now or forever hold your peace." and why is there any need for any witnesses to the marriage. clearly marriage is meant to be subject to the will of the society to some extent (just keep the govt far away before they start dictating who can and can't marry).

The government does that already. They say Steve and Mary can get hitched, without asking questions. But Steve and Mark wanna get hitched.... now there's this whole hullabaloo.

Yeah and the govt needs to get out of the business of marriage and divorce. Leave it to the churches (some of which allow same sex marriage and openly gay clergy members. )

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Well no, if they both agreed to that then what business is it of mine?

Then why is marriage the business of anyone but the two people getting married and why is there a need for a state marriage license and why does the priest or officiating officer ask if for people to "speak now or forever hold your peace." and why is there any need for any witnesses to the marriage. clearly marriage is meant to be subject to the will of the society to some extent (just keep the govt far away before they start dictating who can and can't marry).

A certain amount of government regulation is needed, affording the couple joint and separate protections under state law. A certain amount of regulation is needed for the marriage to mean something in the eyes of the law.

What needs to be kept away from marriage, unless the couple in questions wishes otherwise, is religion.

[Individuality-ness]

Have you ever been in the same room when your parents are fighting one another? It's horrible.

My parents should probably get a divorce, since they're often fighting over money and how to spend it and over how to best raise my brother and my father's credit card usage and stuff. They won't though, because of legal complications (mother's a permanent resident and father's a citizen, and if they got divorced my mother's residency might be at stake) and because my father's old and can't really live on his own with the amount of money he makes -- he's near retirement age now.

Yes I have and I have always found my parents fights even the most serious ones to be rather comical (i literally remember lolling at some of them) because I knew they would always make up and reconcile any differences and I don't in fact believe that irreconcilable difference are real I believe there are only people too lazy to make their relationships work.

Comical? Your parents probably don't hate each other to their very bones.

My mother absolutely DETESTS my father, it's obvious to my brother and me. Again, they should probably get a divorce, but they won't.

[Heltonia]

This escalated quickly.

Everyone thinks just because gay marriages are ok, its ok to screw a dog....What messed up world do we live in?

As for siblings and parents, Im not touching that with a 50metre stick.

[Pillea]

The government does that already. They say Steve and Mary can get hitched, without asking questions. But Steve and Mark wanna get hitched.... now there's this whole hullabaloo.

Yeah and the govt needs to get out of the business of marriage and divorce. Leave it to the churches (some of which allow same sex marriage and openly gay clergy members. )

Which means that divorce is fine and dandy, because hey, some groups have no qualms with it in the slightest, and it should be up to them.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

The government does that already. They say Steve and Mary can get hitched, without asking questions. But Steve and Mark wanna get hitched.... now there's this whole hullabaloo.

Yeah and the govt needs to get out of the business of marriage and divorce. Leave it to the churches (some of which allow same sex marriage and openly gay clergy members. )

Did you come from the Middle Ages? Do you know what a mistake it is to leave churches, religion in general, to regulate marriage? Or divorce?

[Llamalandia]

Then why is marriage the business of anyone but the two people getting married and why is there a need for a state marriage license and why does the priest or officiating officer ask if for people to "speak now or forever hold your peace." and why is there any need for any witnesses to the marriage. clearly marriage is meant to be subject to the will of the society to some extent (just keep the govt far away before they start dictating who can and can't marry).

The answer to these questions lies in my moniker.

so you believe all these things are merely anachronisms that are no longer relevant to modern society or that you are king and thus your word is some how beyond contestation?

[Individuality-ness]

This escalated quickly.

Everyone thinks just because gay marriages are ok, its ok to screw a dog....What messed up world do we live in?

Except that no one's arguing that.

As for siblings and parents, Im not touching that with a 50metre stick.

If they're of legal age and are able to consent, I see no problem with it. Making it legal doesn't mean everyone's going to marry their sibling or something like that, only that the option is there.

[AiliailiA]

Llamalandia, would you also allow (in your preferred form of marriage) a divorce or annulment in cases where one partner turns out to be infertile?

See, what I'm thinking is that the other partner had no way of knowing that when they entered the marriage. Yes, maybe they could adopt, or maybe they could arrange to have the woman impregnated by someone else (with or without sex) or if it's the woman who's infertile, arrange some kind of surrogacy. But isn't it reasonable to think that when getting married they considered later having children, and may well NOT have got married if they'd known that a child biologically related to both of them wasn't possible?

Also, what about incest. I presume you oppose marriage for incestuous couples. Would divorce be acceptable if a couple find out AFTER getting married that they are close blood relatives? This does happen.

[Anachronous Rex]

The answer to these questions lies in my moniker.

so you believe all these things are merely anachronisms that are no longer relevant to modern society or that you are king and thus your word is some how beyond contestation?

Well... both.

"Speak now or forever hold your peace," is an obvious anachronism. No other legal matter uses language or procedure like that. Witnesses exist largely on account of a time where marriage very much was a property arrangement, it prevents forgery (you and a magistrate could very easily make it seem as though you were legally married to someone you were not, provided you could forge a signature.) And so on.

[Individuality-ness]

The government does that already. They say Steve and Mary can get hitched, without asking questions. But Steve and Mark wanna get hitched.... now there's this whole hullabaloo.

Yeah and the govt needs to get out of the business of marriage and divorce. Leave it to the churches (some of which allow same sex marriage and openly gay clergy members. )

I'm an atheist. I should have the right to get married somewhere that isn't a church. Marriage should remain secular, so that it's equal for everyone, and not just restricted to those who have large amounts of money or who belong to a certain religion.

[Llamalandia]

Yeah and the govt needs to get out of the business of marriage and divorce. Leave it to the churches (some of which allow same sex marriage and openly gay clergy members. )

Did you come from the Middle Ages? Do you know what a mistake it is to leave churches, religion in general, to regulate marriage? Or divorce?

I want people only to be allowed to marry and not to divorce (again abuse exceptions etc) thus I believe churches should do a fair and equitable job of it. I just want an end to all the divorces and broken homes etc it's destroying the fabric of society. Of course I admit the churches aren't paragons of virtue but at least their slightly better than the govt.

[Grainne Ni Malley]

Well no, if they both agreed to that then what business is it of mine?

Then why is marriage the business of anyone but the two people getting married and why is there a need for a state marriage license and why does the priest or officiating officer ask if for people to "speak now or forever hold your peace." and why is there any need for any witnesses to the marriage. clearly marriage is meant to be subject to the will of the society to some extent (just keep the govt far away before they start dictating who can and can't marry).

It's called legality, tradition and ceremony. Couples can get married without a single soul present other than themselves, a witness and an officiator. Most choose to include family and friends to be a part of their happiness. Also, gifts. And hey, a party!

People can choose to omit a lot of those archaic terms such as "'Til death do us part" nowadays anyway. Legality wise, married couples take on a whole slew of issues such as taxes, rights to determine procedures regarding health issues, property sharing and such. Having state involvement essentially serves as a safety net should any conflict arise. Also, you know, they get money from people so they have their noses in all of that crap regardless.

[AiliailiA]

Everyone thinks just because gay marriages are ok, its ok to screw a dog....What messed up world do we live in?

Except that no one's arguing that.

True. The link was made by the OP, in the form of "here's a really dumb argument, but it's not my argument. What do you think?"

Pretty much strawman from the start.

[Anachronous Rex]

Did you come from the Middle Ages? Do you know what a mistake it is to leave churches, religion in general, to regulate marriage? Or divorce?

I want people only to be allowed to marry and not to divorce (again abuse exceptions etc) thus I believe churches should do a fair and equitable job of it. I just want an end to all the divorces and broken homes etc it's destroying the fabric of society. Of course I admit the churches aren't paragons of virtue but at least their slightly better than the govt.

Demonstrate this point. No really.

For all the play it gets, it is totally unsupported.

[Individuality-ness]

Except that no one's arguing that.

True. The link was made by the OP, in the form of "here's a really dumb argument, but it's not my argument. What do you think?"

Pretty much strawman from the start.

Exactly. The entire OP was a strawman begging to be burned, then reconstructed so that it could be burned again.

[Grainne Ni Malley]

Llamalandia, would you also allow (in your preferred form of marriage) a divorce or annulment in cases where one partner turns out to be infertile?

See, what I'm thinking is that the other partner had no way of knowing that when they entered the marriage. Yes, maybe they could adopt, or maybe they could arrange to have the woman impregnated by someone else (with or without sex) or if it's the woman who's infertile, arrange some kind of surrogacy. But isn't it reasonable to think that when getting married they considered later having children, and may well NOT have got married if they'd known that a child biologically related to both of them wasn't possible?

Also, what about incest. I presume you oppose marriage for incestuous couples. Would divorce be acceptable if a couple find out AFTER getting married that they are close blood relatives? This does happen.

Or, as in my situation, an annulment because the other part was still married to someone else! There are a whole slew of varying factors as to why marriages dissolve.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Did you come from the Middle Ages? Do you know what a mistake it is to leave churches, religion in general, to regulate marriage? Or divorce?

I want people only to be allowed to marry and not to divorce (again abuse exceptions etc) thus I believe churches should do a fair and equitable job of it. I just want an end to all the divorces and broken homes etc it's destroying the fabric of society. Of course I admit the churches aren't paragons of virtue but at least their slightly better than the govt.

Goodness, am I glad you have no say in policy making. Really, very happy.

Divorce should be open to people, for whatever reasons they find fitting for splitting up. You have no right to dictate how they will conduct themselves, get down from your high horse. The churches will not do a fair and equitable job at handling divorce. I don't know from where you're getting your notions.

[Llamalandia]

Yeah and the govt needs to get out of the business of marriage and divorce. Leave it to the churches (some of which allow same sex marriage and openly gay clergy members. )

I'm an atheist. I should have the right to get married somewhere that isn't a church. Marriage should remain secular, so that it's equal for everyone, and not just restricted to those who have large amounts of money or who belong to a certain religion.

Not a certain religion any religion and show me where in the constitution you have a right to marriage at all (though I concede one might able to argue it on the basis of first amendment freedom of association grounds). Also the govt doesn't give you rights your rights are inherent as a human being and are natural rights. You can wear a ring and say your married all you want I can't stop you nor can nor should the govt or anyone else church be able to stop you though again I point out until the last couple hundred years marriage has been a religious thing not a secular one.

[Anachronous Rex]

Llamalandia, would you also allow (in your preferred form of marriage) a divorce or annulment in cases where one partner turns out to be infertile?

See, what I'm thinking is that the other partner had no way of knowing that when they entered the marriage. Yes, maybe they could adopt, or maybe they could arrange to have the woman impregnated by someone else (with or without sex) or if it's the woman who's infertile, arrange some kind of surrogacy. But isn't it reasonable to think that when getting married they considered later having children, and may well NOT have got married if they'd known that a child biologically related to both of them wasn't possible?

Also, what about incest. I presume you oppose marriage for incestuous couples. Would divorce be acceptable if a couple find out AFTER getting married that they are close blood relatives? This does happen.

Or, as in my situation, an annulment because the other part was still married to someone else! There are a whole slew of varying factors as to why marriages dissolve.

Frankly, I still don't see what's wrong with, "we don't want to be with each other anymore."

Denying two people who say that a separation is authoritarian. Which you would think Llamalandia would oppose seeing as he, "hates government."

[AiliailiA]

Did you come from the Middle Ages? Do you know what a mistake it is to leave churches, religion in general, to regulate marriage? Or divorce?

I want people only to be allowed to marry and not to divorce (again abuse exceptions etc) thus I believe churches should do a fair and equitable job of it.

Churches don't all oppose divorce. That's mostly a Catholic thing.

After you've gotten government out of marriage, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can do to stop a church from divorcing people married in their own congregations. Or even divorcing people married by other churches. You can say "oh that's not a real marriage" but no-one cares. You can't stop them calling it a marriage.

I just want an end to all the divorces and broken homes etc it's destroying the fabric of society.

Oh bullsnot.

Of course I admit the churches aren't paragons of virtue but at least their slightly better than the govt.

Right. See the terrible history of judges sexually abusing young children for instance.

[Llamalandia]

Llamalandia, would you also allow (in your preferred form of marriage) a divorce or annulment in cases where one partner turns out to be infertile?

See, what I'm thinking is that the other partner had no way of knowing that when they entered the marriage. Yes, maybe they could adopt, or maybe they could arrange to have the woman impregnated by someone else (with or without sex) or if it's the woman who's infertile, arrange some kind of surrogacy. But isn't it reasonable to think that when getting married they considered later having children, and may well NOT have got married if they'd known that a child biologically related to both of them wasn't possible?

Also, what about incest. I presume you oppose marriage for incestuous couples. Would divorce be acceptable if a couple find out AFTER getting married that they are close blood relatives? This does happen.

Or, as in my situation, an annulment because the other part was still married to someone else! There are a whole slew of varying factors as to why marriages dissolve.

Right I would include that in obvious exceptions the same as allowed under Catholic canon law (just referencing for convenience because I know the most about it vs other religious doctrines). Also I believe one must be able to consummate a marriage for it to really be valid in the eyes of the church, if I'm not mistaken annulment can also be granted on grounds of non-consumation but not on mere failure to produce a male heir like Henry VIII who created the CoE rather than just secularizing marriage so he could get a divorce.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I'm an atheist. I should have the right to get married somewhere that isn't a church. Marriage should remain secular, so that it's equal for everyone, and not just restricted to those who have large amounts of money or who belong to a certain religion.

Not a certain religion any religion and show me where in the constitution you have a right to marriage at all (though I concede one might able to argue it on the basis of first amendment freedom of association grounds). Also the govt doesn't give you rights your rights are inherent as a human being and are natural rights. You can wear a ring and say your married all you want I can't stop you nor can nor should the govt or anyone else church be able to stop you though again I point out until the last couple hundred years marriage has been a religious thing not a secular one.

Oh my gods, rights aren't inherent.

[Llamalandia]

I want people only to be allowed to marry and not to divorce (again abuse exceptions etc) thus I believe churches should do a fair and equitable job of it.

Churches don't all oppose divorce. That's mostly a Catholic thing.

After you've gotten government out of marriage, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can do to stop a church from divorcing people married in their own congregations. Or even divorcing people married by other churches. You can say "oh that's not a real marriage" but no-one cares. You can't stop them calling it a marriage.

I just want an end to all the divorces and broken homes etc it's destroying the fabric of society.

Oh bullsnot.

Of course I admit the churches aren't paragons of virtue but at least their slightly better than the govt.

Right. See the terrible history of judges sexually abusing young children for instance.

Meh that's one religion, unfortunately one I'm nominally associated with but plenty of others are fairly clean. Plus lots of govt school teachers have been embroiled in their own molestation incidents (across both genders and orientations I might add). I still say govt is slightly worse then church though again it's almost splitting hairs at this point.