Should HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGES be banned ?

[Llamalandia]

I explained it, but I'll explain it again. As you surely know, not every 50 states in America allow gay marriage

Yes, they will.

They might (probably will) but they don't yet.

[Kelinfort]

Why has Holy Roman United Christiandom not corrected his mistakes in the OP?

What mistake ? I suppose I misspelled it because I had a stroke 2 years ago. Please excuse me for my disability. It takes a lot longer then 2 years for your brain to heal.

You can revise the errors by editing the title in your original post.

[Demporia]

Yes, because there's a horse in my pocket and I need a reverse mortgage.

The question isn't serious, so neither is my answer.

Oh man it would be awesome if some spammer posted reverse mortage ads right now.

Endorsing spam are we? *Glares and shakes head*

[Holy Roman United Christiandom]

I explained it, but I'll explain it again. As you surely know, not every 50 states in America allow gay marriage. So I think in the states that don't allow or permit gay marriage, they should not allow or permit HETROSEXUAL marriages.

Well, that woldn't really solve much, it would just force gay and straight couples alike to go to pro marriage states to get married. Even then the feds still have to recognize the merits, state reciprocity, would likely force them to recognize the marriages it's largely a pointless exercise.

Really ? As I understand it, a state does not recognize gay marriages will not recognize a state that allows a gay marriage. Thank you very much and could cite a post that will answer the question if a state doesn't recognize gay marriages, do they still have to recognize a gay couple that is married as being married ? Thank you.

[Neutraligon]

And again, how would you ensure that the poor would have equal access to said contracts given that they are the ones who have to pay for all those contracts. Let's not forget the fact that when you move, all those contracts would need to be redone, so people's who's jobs required them to move (hello military) would be at a severe disadvantage. You are also assuming that all third parties would agree, so what if there is a hospital that is completely unwilling to accept gay couples, and that is the only hospital near where that couple lives? And again, how would you deal with joint tax returns, child custody and other parental rights, inheritance, etc?

There is already stuff like divorce insurance. For a couple willing to pool their money together, it would Also, for longer lasting marriages, marriage firms could lower rates if they avoid a divorcement, incentivizing people to only form marriages if it would be both financial and emotionally viable (there would definitely be that overlap). As for movement, I do not understand why this would be a hinderance. A multinational marriage corporation would extend further than governments could, and the process for moving while regaining benefits from another country would all but evaporate, saving both the state and individual money. In order to maximize profit, a marriage firm would have no reason to deny a fairly large portion of people (homosexuals) their services. I could potentially see, if this was implemented today, gays rushing to these firms in order to do something they could not under the state, raking in a fairly large portion of money for these firms. Then those firms would be incentivized to stick to their customers since it would most likely not be paid straight up. Like I said for children, these details would be defined by the clients beforehand and tailored individually depending on their needs. Courts would enforce them. Same with taxes.

And again, people would have to pay for this, a lot more then they currently have to because there would need to be many contracts. It would be a problem because a lot of new contracts would need to be made, since there would be different institutions needed. For instance a contract with a new hospital would be needed. You are assuming that the firm would be able to get the local population to agree to such contracts, something you cannot assume.

[Keyboard Warriors]

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 ?

2/10, need new material.

[Grave_n_idle]

Horseshit.

I am confused. Can you give me an example of a religion that considers slavery a sacrament ?

How would that be relevant?

[Fabulous Rainicorns]

I honestly don't care whether heterosexual marriage is banned or not, as long as both homosexual and heterosexual couples get the same marriage rights.

[Farnhamia]

Horseshit.

I am confused. Can you give me an example of a religion that considers slavery a sacrament ? Also, in listing such a religion, please provide a link so we can confirm what you are saying ? Thank you so much for providing us with a link in your next message posted here.

However, that is a dissuasion. The question remains this : Why, since gays are not allowed to marry the person they love, should hetrosexuals be allowed to marry ? Why shouldn't the government be allowed to ban Straight and gay marriages, and thus treat them EQUALLY in the law ?

G&I didn't say any religion held slavery as a sacrament, the question was, if a religion did, would slavery then be allowed because it was a sacrament?

As for your argument to ban heterosexual (note spelling) marriage, I'm not buying it. The government isn't going to get out of the business of recognizing and legitimizing marriages. People just need to share, my being married to the woman I love has no effect whatsoever on anyone else's marriage to the person they love.

[Dyakovo]

I am confused. Can you give me an example of a religion that considers slavery a sacrament ? Also, in listing such a religion, please provide a link so we can confirm what you are saying ? Thank you so much for providing us with a link in your next message posted here.

However, that is a dissuasion. The question remains this : Why, since gays are not allowed to marry the person they love, should hetrosexuals be allowed to marry ? Why shouldn't the government be allowed to ban Straight and gay marriages, and thus treat them EQUALLY in the law ?

G&I didn't say any religion held slavery as a sacrament, the question was, if a religion did, would slavery then be allowed because it was a sacrament?
As for your argument to ban heterosexual (note spelling) marriage, I'm not buying it. The government isn't going to get out of the business of recognizing and legitimizing marriages. People just need to share, my being married to the woman I love has no effect whatsoever on anyone else's marriage to the person they love.

Unless she's a bigamist...

[Farnhamia]

G&I didn't say any religion held slavery as a sacrament, the question was, if a religion did, would slavery then be allowed because it was a sacrament?
As for your argument to ban heterosexual (note spelling) marriage, I'm not buying it. The government isn't going to get out of the business of recognizing and legitimizing marriages. People just need to share, my being married to the woman I love has no effect whatsoever on anyone else's marriage to the person they love.

Unless she's a bigamist...

Was that supposed to be a jest?

[Scholmeria]

Pour vous.

Ok so same thing basically got it now thanx. Still don't entirely get the joke though, was Ayn Rand especially antigay or something?

What makes Ayn Rand so special that she is often discussed?

[Lalaki]

Why has Holy Roman United Christiandom not corrected his mistakes in the OP?

What mistake ? I suppose I misspelled it because I had a stroke 2 years ago. Please excuse me for my disability. It takes a lot longer then 2 years for your brain to heal.

Oh my gosh, I am so sorry. A few pages back I said "I don't think this thread is serious" because of grammar. That was not right of me, and I apologize.

[Grenartia]

Ok so same thing basically got it now thanx. Still don't entirely get the joke though, was Ayn Rand especially antigay or something?

What makes Ayn Rand so special that she is often discussed?

Because she was objectively a shitty person. A cunt of the highest degree, who shouldn't be admired or emulated.

[Dyakovo]

Unless she's a bigamist...

Was that supposed to be a jest?

You've known me for what, almost 8 years now?
Do you really need to ask?

[Farnhamia]

Was that supposed to be a jest?

You've known me for what, almost 8 years now?
Do you really need to ask?

No, I suppose I don't. I plead Monday.

[The Adherents of the Repeated Meme]

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 ?

Presuming you are talking about the elimination of all civil marriage (as opposed to simply religious ceremonies) I agree fully. Privatize marriage completely has long been my rallying cry.

[Grenartia]

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 ?

Presuming you are talking about the elimination of all civil marriage (as opposed to simply religious ceremonies) I agree fully. Privatize marriage completely has long been my rallying cry.

Except, that is an objectively shitty position to hold, as it prevents all but the rich from being guaranteed the crucial rights associated with state recognition of committed relationships (things like hospital visitation, medical decision making, funeral planning, estate inheritance, etc.). Because the only way to obtain those things would be long, complicated legal contracts that require lawyers (and still wouldn't actually guarantee those rights), thus costing those involved thousands of dollars (as opposed to less than $100 in most cases for marriage licenses), multiple dozens of hours (as opposed to less than one much of the time for marriage), and undue increased effort (reading pages and pages of legalese, and multiple signatures, as opposed to one single signature for each person for a marriage license). Only people with lots of time, and lots of money would be able to benefit.

So, lets say you manage to successfully get this pulled off. What exactly, have you accomplished? Well, aside from making crucial rights for couples impossible for the poor to have access to, along with needlessly complicating the process for accessing those rights for those who can afford its prohibitive costs, nothing. No thanks. I'm not gonna buy your load of bullshit.

[Allentyr]

Why would you bean heterosexual marriages?

Anyway, no, instead of banning hetero marriages, how about legalizing gay marriages? Hm?

[The Adherents of the Repeated Meme]

Presuming you are talking about the elimination of all civil marriage (as opposed to simply religious ceremonies) I agree fully. Privatize marriage completely has long been my rallying cry.

Except, that is an objectively shitty position to hold, as it prevents all but the rich from being guaranteed the crucial rights associated with state recognition of committed relationships (things like hospital visitation, medical decision making, funeral planning, estate inheritance, etc.). Because the only way to obtain those things would be long, complicated legal contracts that require lawyers (and still wouldn't actually guarantee those rights), thus costing those involved thousands of dollars (as opposed to less than $100 in most cases for marriage licenses), multiple dozens of hours (as opposed to less than one much of the time for marriage), and undue increased effort (reading pages and pages of legalese, and multiple signatures, as opposed to one single signature for each person for a marriage license). Only people with lots of time, and lots of money would be able to benefit.

So, lets say you manage to successfully get this pulled off. What exactly, have you accomplished? Well, aside from making crucial rights for couples impossible for the poor to have access to, along with needlessly complicating the process for accessing those rights for those who can afford its prohibitive costs, nothing. No thanks. I'm not gonna buy your load of bullshit.

Well I oppose those things being dictated by the state, so that's unproblematic for me.
What I would have accomplished is the effectual removal of government from the private business of individual relationships, with specific legal contracts for specific legal relationships, done entirely in piecemeal, and legally available to any mutually consenting parties who wish to enter into it.

[Farnhamia]

Except, that is an objectively shitty position to hold, as it prevents all but the rich from being guaranteed the crucial rights associated with state recognition of committed relationships (things like hospital visitation, medical decision making, funeral planning, estate inheritance, etc.). Because the only way to obtain those things would be long, complicated legal contracts that require lawyers (and still wouldn't actually guarantee those rights), thus costing those involved thousands of dollars (as opposed to less than $100 in most cases for marriage licenses), multiple dozens of hours (as opposed to less than one much of the time for marriage), and undue increased effort (reading pages and pages of legalese, and multiple signatures, as opposed to one single signature for each person for a marriage license). Only people with lots of time, and lots of money would be able to benefit.

So, lets say you manage to successfully get this pulled off. What exactly, have you accomplished? Well, aside from making crucial rights for couples impossible for the poor to have access to, along with needlessly complicating the process for accessing those rights for those who can afford its prohibitive costs, nothing. No thanks. I'm not gonna buy your load of bullshit.

Well I oppose those things being dictated by the state, so that's unproblematic for me.
What I would have accomplished is the effectual removal of government from the private business of individual relationships, with specific legal contracts for specific legal relationships, done entirely in piecemeal, and legally available to any mutually consenting parties who wish to enter into it.

And costing a hell of a lot more money for everyone, not to mention introducing the element of errors and misinterpretations. A simple marriage license, for not a whole lot of money, and you get all the over 1000 rights and benefits of marriage. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

[The Adherents of the Repeated Meme]

Well I oppose those things being dictated by the state, so that's unproblematic for me.
What I would have accomplished is the effectual removal of government from the private business of individual relationships, with specific legal contracts for specific legal relationships, done entirely in piecemeal, and legally available to any mutually consenting parties who wish to enter into it.

And costing a hell of a lot more money for everyone, not to mention introducing the element of errors and misinterpretations. A simple marriage license, for not a whole lot of money, and you get all the over 1000 rights and benefits of marriage. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

I disagree that it's not broken, that's why I want to fix it. I oppose many of the so-called rights and benefits of civil marriage, and find the entire practice inherently discriminatory and oppressive. I would not restrict any individuals from private agreement between themselves, they should simply draw such up via private contract.

[Farnhamia]

And costing a hell of a lot more money for everyone, not to mention introducing the element of errors and misinterpretations. A simple marriage license, for not a whole lot of money, and you get all the over 1000 rights and benefits of marriage. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

I disagree that it's not broken, that's why I want to fix it. I oppose many of the so-called rights and benefits of civil marriage, and find the entire practice inherently discriminatory and oppressive. I would not restrict any individuals from private agreement between themselves, they should simply draw such up via private contract.

Do elaborate on what you think is broken, discriminatory and oppressive.

[Galloism]

I disagree that it's not broken, that's why I want to fix it. I oppose many of the so-called rights and benefits of civil marriage, and find the entire practice inherently discriminatory and oppressive. I would not restrict any individuals from private agreement between themselves, they should simply draw such up via private contract.

Do elaborate on what you think is broken, discriminatory and oppressive.

The government is providing a cheap publically available contract between consenting individuals, instead of them having to spend thousands on an attorney to draw up the relevant 500 page contract.

[Dyakovo]

Why would you bean heterosexual marriages?

Anyway, no, instead of banning hetero marriages, how about legalizing gay marriages? Hm?

According to the OP, that will never happen...