Should HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGES be banned ?

[Neutraligon]

Depends on what we are using to bean them, and their options available. I think we have advanced past the days of barbarism and we should be nice to everyone, so we should let the couples decide what hits them in the face, and when in the wedding it hits them as well. I think it's only fair we do this and give them the most options to be happy, loving couples.

And if they refuse, we should throw hundreds of bags of pinto beans at them at the most unexpected time for giggles.

What no rice?

[The 93rd Coalition]

Beaned? No. Banned? No.

Beaning results in unwanted flatulence, and banning heterosexual marriage would provoke international outrage from the catholic, christian, and almost all other religious or semi-religious communities.

[Dvarin]

Depends on what we are using to bean them, and their options available. I think we have advanced past the days of barbarism and we should be nice to everyone, so we should let the couples decide what hits them in the face, and when in the wedding it hits them as well. I think it's only fair we do this and give them the most options to be happy, loving couples.

And if they refuse, we should throw hundreds of bags of pinto beans at them at the most unexpected time for giggles.

What no rice?

I Suppose you could throw rice if you want, it's you choice, but I shall throw my never ending supply of pinto beans at them.

[Llamalandia]

Ok the. Why did marriage exist and why does it continue to exist then? Please enlighten me if its not to recognize the love of two people for each other.

Usually for the parents, a way to keep their family lineage alive. For those being married, the same reason as well as because they were simply expected to and believed they should follow the wishes of their parents.

I mean, a lot of times, the women were given to the family of the husband in exchange for gifts. The idea of marriage being about romantic love only came very recently.

So how are those reasons especially relevant to today's society? Moreover what rational basis is there for govt to be involved in "preserving family lineages", and even if there is some reason that the govt can cite, why/how would that apply to gay marriages? I mean two gay people can't bio reproduce together (at least not yet) so it's either adoption or in vitro/donor sperm use. Either way why should govt remain involved in the institution of marriage. Moreover why should we even recognize marriage as a basic right?

[Mavorpen]

So how are those reasons especially relevant to today's society?

They aren't. The reason why it exists today is different.

Moreover what rational basis is there for govt to be involved in "preserving family lineages", and even if there is some reason that the govt can cite, why/how would that apply to gay marriages? I mean two gay people can't bio reproduce together (at least not yet) so it's either adoption or in vitro/donor sperm use. Either way why should govt remain involved in the institution of marriage.

See above.

Moreover why should we even recognize marriage as a basic right?

Because it serves as one of the many support pillars for civilization in general.

[Grave_n_idle]

So how are those reasons especially relevant to today's society? Moreover what rational basis is there for govt to be involved in "preserving family lineages",

Government has a legitimate and essential purpose to serve in the recognition and regulation of legal institutions.

and even if there is some reason that the govt can cite, why/how would that apply to gay marriages? I mean two gay people can't bio reproduce together (at least not yet) so it's either adoption or in vitro/donor sperm use.

...there is a still a family unit, whether or not the children are biologically 'yours', and there are still legal issues such as inheritance. None of that goes away just because John has two mommies.

Either way why should govt remain involved in the institution of marriage. Moreover why should we even recognize marriage as a basic right?

Because it's good for our society. Social stability, financial stability of financial units, legal stability - the basic 'marriage' premise is a good one. It's in our collective interest to maintain it.

[Genivaria]

Now, I know this is going to confuse some of you, but let me explain. As a hetrosexual Christian male, I support gay marriage. Although I feel it is a sin, from a secular point of view, I can't understand why gay men and lesbians can't get married.

Therefore, I propose that straight marriages be banned. In that way, they would they would stand on an equal ground as gays and lesbians. Of corse, all the privledges of hetrosexual marriage would be erased and you're marriage would be dissolved, but what harm would it do ?

So, NSers, how would you feel not being married to your husband or wife ? What would you do if in all 51 states ALL straight marriages were banned ?

So instead of everyone being equally free your solution is to make everyone equally UNfree?
Excuse me sir but that's fucking retarded.

[Galloism]

So how are those reasons especially relevant to today's society? Moreover what rational basis is there for govt to be involved in "preserving family lineages",

Government has a legitimate and essential purpose to serve in the recognition and regulation of legal institutions.

and even if there is some reason that the govt can cite, why/how would that apply to gay marriages? I mean two gay people can't bio reproduce together (at least not yet) so it's either adoption or in vitro/donor sperm use.

...there is a still a family unit, whether or not the children are biologically 'yours', and there are still legal issues such as inheritance. None of that goes away just because John has two mommies.

Either way why should govt remain involved in the institution of marriage. Moreover why should we even recognize marriage as a basic right?

Because it's good for our society. Social stability, financial stability of financial units, legal stability - the basic 'marriage' premise is a good one. It's in our collective interest to maintain it.

Incidentally, marriage is not that different from a corporation from a fiscal standpoint.

It is a union of two (or more) individuals into a single economic unit. They should be treated as such.

Bean all corporations!

[Llamalandia]

So how are those reasons especially relevant to today's society?

They aren't. The reason why it exists today is different.

Moreover what rational basis is there for govt to be involved in "preserving family lineages", and even if there is some reason that the govt can cite, why/how would that apply to gay marriages? I mean two gay people can't bio reproduce together (at least not yet) so it's either adoption or in vitro/donor sperm use. Either way why should govt remain involved in the institution of marriage.

See above.

Moreover why should we even recognize marriage as a basic right?

Because it serves as one of the many support pillars for civilization in general.

Ok and how does marriage do that exactly? I mean I don't see how civilization collapses or is even all that weakened if all of a sudden every decides to stop getting married.

[Genivaria]

They aren't. The reason why it exists today is different.

See above.

Because it serves as one of the many support pillars for civilization in general.

Ok and how does marriage do that exactly? I mean I don't see how civilization collapses or is even all that weakened if all of a sudden every decides to stop getting married.

Because it's a tried and true social structure to raise a family in for one.

[Llamalandia]

Government has a legitimate and essential purpose to serve in the recognition and regulation of legal institutions.



...there is a still a family unit, whether or not the children are biologically 'yours', and there are still legal issues such as inheritance. None of that goes away just because John has two mommies.



Because it's good for our society. Social stability, financial stability of financial units, legal stability - the basic 'marriage' premise is a good one. It's in our collective interest to maintain it.

Incidentally, marriage is not that different from a corporation from a fiscal standpoint.

It is a union of two (or more) individuals into a single economic unit. They should be treated as such.

Bean all corporations!

Ok the. Just have all couples incorporate and merge there assets. It's not that hard to apply for incorporation after all. Why have a special marriage license instead?

[Mavorpen]

They aren't. The reason why it exists today is different.

See above.

Because it serves as one of the many support pillars for civilization in general.

Ok and how does marriage do that exactly? I mean I don't see how civilization collapses or is even all that weakened if all of a sudden every decides to stop getting married.

Really? You don't see how civilization becomes weakened when people aren't granted immediate financial and social stability as well as a legal foundation that makes their relationship a lot simpler?

[Mavorpen]

Incidentally, marriage is not that different from a corporation from a fiscal standpoint.

It is a union of two (or more) individuals into a single economic unit. They should be treated as such.

Bean all corporations!

Ok the. Just have all couples incorporate and merge there assets. It's not that hard to apply for incorporation after all. Why have a special marriage license instead?

Because people don't want to be forced to do everything piecemeal because you want to be edgy.

[Llamalandia]

Ok and how does marriage do that exactly? I mean I don't see how civilization collapses or is even all that weakened if all of a sudden every decides to stop getting married.

Because it's a tried and true social structure to raise a family in for one.

Oh ok so what of people who raise a family out of wedlock? They seem to do just fine in plenty of cases (though by no means in all). It sounds like you promoting marriage what to keep families together? Ok fine then why is divorce so easy, why does no fault divorce exist at all. I mean we're talking about an institution in which half of all joining a end in divorces. I don't think marriage means what it once to did to family and society at least in the usa

[Llamalandia]

Ok the. Just have all couples incorporate and merge there assets. It's not that hard to apply for incorporation after all. Why have a special marriage license instead?

Because people don't want to be forced to do everything piecemeal because you want to be edgy.

I'm not really asking them to. I mean sure dies it take a couple extra steps, of course but its not that onerous.

[Mavorpen]

Because it's a tried and true social structure to raise a family in for one.

Oh ok so what of people who raise a family out of wedlock? They seem to do just fine in plenty of cases (though by no means in all). It sounds like you promoting marriage what to keep families together? Ok fine then why is divorce so easy, why does no fault divorce exist at all. I mean we're talking about an institution in which half of all joining a end in divorces. I don't think marriage means what it once to did to family and society at least in the usa

And you want to screw over half of the country because...why?

[Mavorpen]

Because people don't want to be forced to do everything piecemeal because you want to be edgy.

I'm not really asking them to. I mean sure dies it take a couple extra steps, of course but its not that onerous.

A couple? No. Fuck making the system significantly more complex because of edginess.

[Llamalandia]

Ok and how does marriage do that exactly? I mean I don't see how civilization collapses or is even all that weakened if all of a sudden every decides to stop getting married.

Really? You don't see how civilization becomes weakened when people aren't granted immediate financial and social stability as well as a legal foundation that makes their relationship a lot simpler?

No especially not considering how easily marriage can be dissolved. I actually like what gay marriage people out in California were saying about "strength marriage by banning divorce" meant to be a joke but actually (with some tweaks) makes a lot of sense to me.

[Othelos]

No, that would be pretty dumb and annoying.

[Mavorpen]

Really? You don't see how civilization becomes weakened when people aren't granted immediate financial and social stability as well as a legal foundation that makes their relationship a lot simpler?

No especially not considering how easily marriage can be dissolved.

Ah. I see the problem. You literally want to make things intentionally complicated. Why?

[Llamalandia]

I'm not really asking them to. I mean sure dies it take a couple extra steps, of course but its not that onerous.

A couple? No. Fuck making the system significantly more complex because of edginess.

Again not that hard. Especially when everything is should be online these days anyway.

[Shie]

No, that would be pretty dumb and annoying.

Agreed, I agree the most.

[Mavorpen]

A couple? No. Fuck making the system significantly more complex because of edginess.

Again not that hard. Especially when everything is should be online these days anyway.

Yeah, I don't know that, and quite frankly un less you can literally see the future a=you can't know that either.

So tell me, can you see the future and assure me with reasonable certainty that this won't immensely complicate things?

[Armed Union]

Now, I know this is going to confuse some of you, but let me explain. As a hetrosexual Christian male, I support gay marriage. Although I feel it is a sin, from a secular point of view, I can't understand why gay men and lesbians can't get married.

Therefore, I propose that straight marriages be banned. In that way, they would they would stand on an equal ground as gays and lesbians. Of corse, all the privledges of hetrosexual marriage would be erased and you're marriage would be dissolved, but what harm would it do ?

So, NSers, how would you feel not being married to your husband or wife ? What would you do if in all 51 states ALL straight marriages were banned ?

Who the hell would ask such a question!?

[Llamalandia]

No especially not considering how easily marriage can be dissolved.

Ah. I see the problem. You literally want to make things intentionally complicated. Why?

I don't want to complicate things, if I can avoid and still stand on principle. Namely reducing govt and govt intrusion. I do however refuse to abandon principle merely for the same of convenience.