*United Nations* launches **worldwide** gay rights campaign

[Communist republic of altorus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDhmoaVflMQ&autoplay=1

MODS, descend from the heavens and tell us about the question of love.

[Liriena]

So people should have to individually sign over 1000 contracts?

And marriage is considered a basic human right because we declare it to be one. Simple as that.

Or one contract if the couple want that. Or maybe a few if they want things split up. There are many ways it could be done, offering more choice than the single marriage contract currently seen as the standard.

Most people are not legally literate, and not everybody can afford a decent lawyer that can provide them with the exact same contract they want.

Marriage simplifies this a great deal.

[Geilinor]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, SCOTUS rulings and their equivalents in other nations and regions.

Why is marriage a human right?

Because most people agree that it is. All UN member nations who have signed human rights treaties do.

[Regnum Dominae]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDhmoaVflMQ&autoplay=1

MODS, descend from the heavens and tell us about the question of love.

How the fuck is this relevant?

[Fartsniffage]

Nice, but that doesn't answer the question. Why is marriage a human right? If you abolished it entirely then the same effects could be completed through a contact or bunch of contacts.

You could even get rid of divorce using contracts with a time limit.

How would you ensure that those contracts are available to even impoverished individuals? Do you ensure that these contracts are not used as tools of lawyers to victimize the unwary?

Marriage is a human right because it is a universal, timeless institution that has often provided couples with a much needed sense of stability and emotional comfort. It has positive effects, both for the physical and mental health of the entire citizenry, and guarantees at least a modicum of dignity and even happiness for healthy couples who wish to join in such a union.

It's also a huge source of concern to those who don't fit into the current social standard. How many countries don't allow homosexual couples access? Are there any countries that allow polygamous groups access?

Removing it as an institution would instantly grant everyone access to the same protections without having to go through the political fight.

[Regnum Dominae]

How would you ensure that those contracts are available to even impoverished individuals? Do you ensure that these contracts are not used as tools of lawyers to victimize the unwary?

Marriage is a human right because it is a universal, timeless institution that has often provided couples with a much needed sense of stability and emotional comfort. It has positive effects, both for the physical and mental health of the entire citizenry, and guarantees at least a modicum of dignity and even happiness for healthy couples who wish to join in such a union.

It's also a huge source of concern to those who don't fit into the current social standard. How many countries don't allow homosexual couples access? Are there any countries that allow polygamous groups access?

Removing it as an institution would instantly grant everyone access to the same protections without having to go through the political fight.

I agree that we should expand marriage to include polygamous groups, but abolishing marriage here and now because of inequity in marriage here and now is just throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Fartsniffage]

Or one contract if the couple want that. Or maybe a few if they want things split up. There are many ways it could be done, offering more choice than the single marriage contract currently seen as the standard.

Most people are not legally literate, and not everybody can afford a decent lawyer that can provide them with the exact same contract they want.

Marriage simplifies this a great deal.

It simplifies things and at the same time causes problems.

The majority of marriages don't last. So wouldn't a time limited replacement make sense? That could be done through a contract.

[Luveria]

Most people are not legally literate, and not everybody can afford a decent lawyer that can provide them with the exact same contract they want.

Marriage simplifies this a great deal.

It simplifies things and at the same time causes problems.

The majority of marriages don't last. So wouldn't a time limited replacement make sense? That could be done through a contract.

No. If people want to divorce, let them get a divorce.

[Liriena]

How would you ensure that those contracts are available to even impoverished individuals? Do you ensure that these contracts are not used as tools of lawyers to victimize the unwary?

Marriage is a human right because it is a universal, timeless institution that has often provided couples with a much needed sense of stability and emotional comfort. It has positive effects, both for the physical and mental health of the entire citizenry, and guarantees at least a modicum of dignity and even happiness for healthy couples who wish to join in such a union.

It's also a huge source of concern to those who don't fit into the current social standard. How many countries don't allow homosexual couples access? Are there any countries that allow polygamous groups access?

Removing it as an institution would instantly grant everyone access to the same protections without having to go through the political fight.

1. Yes, but that doesn't meant that the institution must be eliminated. That would be counter-intuitive and, frankly, quite cowardly.
2. Too many countries do not recognize same-sex marriage, but that trend is changing nowadays.
3. A few countries recognize polygamy to a certain degree. How is this relevant?
4. Removing it as an institution and granting everyone indiscriminate access to all rights, obligations and protections of civil marriage would mean the end of the social benefits of marriage. And, again, it's counter-intuitive and cowardly. Already the tide is turning towards marriage equality, and this false compromise would do LGBT people no good whatsoever.

[Geilinor]

It simplifies things and at the same time causes problems.

The majority of marriages don't last. So wouldn't a time limited replacement make sense? That could be done through a contract.

No. If people want to divorce, let them get a divorce.

And if they don't want to, don't make the marriage expire.

[Dakini]

Removing it as an institution would instantly grant everyone access to the same protections without having to go through the political fight.

By making sure that nobody has the right, sure.


However, as we've seen from a lot of civilized countries, it's not the end of the fucking world to go through that political fight.

[Geilinor]

Most people are not legally literate, and not everybody can afford a decent lawyer that can provide them with the exact same contract they want.

Marriage simplifies this a great deal.

It simplifies things and at the same time causes problems.

The majority of marriages don't last. So wouldn't a time limited replacement make sense? That could be done through a contract.

The choice to get a divorce is mutual. If they want to, they can. Simple. A bad or abusive relationship harms society.

[Liriena]

Most people are not legally literate, and not everybody can afford a decent lawyer that can provide them with the exact same contract they want.

Marriage simplifies this a great deal.

It simplifies things and at the same time causes problems.

The majority of marriages don't last. So wouldn't a time limited replacement make sense? That could be done through a contract.

You can always simplify divorce. Heck, already lots of countries have done that.

[Geilinor]

It's also a huge source of concern to those who don't fit into the current social standard. How many countries don't allow homosexual couples access? Are there any countries that allow polygamous groups access?

Removing it as an institution would instantly grant everyone access to the same protections without having to go through the political fight.

I agree that we should expand marriage to include polygamous groups, but abolishing marriage here and now because of inequity in marriage here and now is just throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Is he going to start saying that anything with inequity should be abolished? Life involves inequity at times. Should we ban life?

[Liriena]

Removing it as an institution would instantly grant everyone access to the same protections without having to go through the political fight.

By making sure that nobody has the right, sure.


However, as we've seen from a lot of civilized countries, it's not the end of the fucking world to go through that political fight.

^ this, for fuck's sake.

[New Zepuha]

So whatever happened to letting people make their own decisions?

[Yankee Empire]

This is so Gay.

[Luveria]

Removing it as an institution would instantly grant everyone access to the same protections without having to go through the political fight.

You're advocating something that isn't going to happen.

Because I actually give a fuck about equality unlike you, I want everyone to have the right to marry, instead of saying "hurr durr if we abolish marriage then we're all equal!" when I know it's impossible to abolish marriage at this point.

[Regnum Dominae]

So whatever happened to letting people make their own decisions?

Human rights are more important than "national sovereignty".

[Liriena]

So whatever happened to letting people make their own decisions?

Human rights.

[Hushabagain]

So whatever happened to letting people make their own decisions?

That's what the initiative is about.

[Dakini]

Most people are not legally literate, and not everybody can afford a decent lawyer that can provide them with the exact same contract they want.

Marriage simplifies this a great deal.

It simplifies things and at the same time causes problems.

The majority of marriages don't last. So wouldn't a time limited replacement make sense? That could be done through a contract.

Why the fuck would that make sense exactly?

Given that more than half of first marriages are successful*, doesn't it make more sense for the minority who want to divorce to have to go through some extra process instead of making the majority of people go through a renewal (which is probably associated with some fees)?


*The 50% marriage failure rate which is often quoted is not necessarily accurate and in many groups it is much lower, it is much higher among people who have married more than once.


edit: Of course I also agree that simplifying the divorce procedure is a good thing.

[Threlizdun]

So whatever happened to letting people make their own decisions?

Freedom, morality, and common sense

[Blasveck]

Removing it as an institution would instantly grant everyone access to the same protections without having to go through the political fight.

You're advocating something that isn't going to happen.

Because I actually give a fuck about equality unlike you, I want everyone to have the right to marry, instead of saying "hurr durr if we abolish marriage then we're all equal!" when I know it's impossible to abolish marriage at this point.

Just imagine the legal shitstorm if we abolished it...

[Valtakuntia]

World wide gay rights campaign????

Meanwhile in Africa....

(Image)

I wish you could give a post a thumbs up on NSG, because if you could, I'd be doing it so hard right now.