Should HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGES be banned ?

[The Adherents of the Repeated Meme]

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.

Government intrusion into private relationships. In the institution of civil marriage, the government grants its approval and a slew of benefits to a very specific sub-set of relationships. I maintain that this is unjust, that the government ought not to be in the business of providing this approval of relationships or the granting of benefits.
I thus propose the elimination of civil marriage altogether. Any special benefits that once came from marriage would either be eliminated where they stem from the government - tax incentives and the like - or replaced with private contracts between two individuals - such as inheritance and the like.
The benefits currently available to married couples would therefore be either legally available to everyone equally as they choose to contract with one another, or unavailable to anyone equally as improper use of government authority and power, and all while simultaneously removing the government from the private sexual relationships of the people.

[Farnhamia]

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.

Perhaps the Adherents is a lawyer. That would make sense.

[The Adherents of the Repeated Meme]

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.

Perhaps the Adherents is a lawyer. That would make sense.

I wish. Lawyers have quite a bit more in the way of funds and job security than I do, unfortunately.

[Farnhamia]

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

Government intrusion into private relationships. In the institution of civil marriage, the government grants its approval and a slew of benefits to a very specific sub-set of relationships. I maintain that this is unjust, that the government ought not to be in the business of providing this approval of relationships or the granting of benefits.
I thus propose the elimination of civil marriage altogether. Any special benefits that once came from marriage would either be eliminated where they stem from the government - tax incentives and the like - or replaced with private contracts between two individuals - such as inheritance and the like.
The benefits currently available to married couples would therefore be either legally available to everyone equally as they choose to contract with one another, or unavailable to anyone equally as improper use of government authority and power, and all while simultaneously removing the government from the private sexual relationships of the people.

Right. Your quarrel isn't with marriage but with the government. Well, I'll tell you, if you can get the government out of the business of sanctioning marriages, fine, but until that happens I don't see why same-sex couples ought not to be able to avail themselves of those rights and benefits. And I would oppose your efforts because I disagree on the oppression and because your "privatization" of marriage would make the situation far worse and much more complicated than it needs to be.

[The Silver Bloods]

I thought the idea of banning heterosexual marriages was bad enough of a thought. But then I just lost all serious when the title is spelled "Should hetrosexual marriages be beanned?" Instead of "Should heterosexual marriages be banned?" And then he said "should it be banned in all 51 states?"... I didn't know we lowered the age limit on the forums

[Galloism]

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

Government intrusion into private relationships. In the institution of civil marriage, the government grants its approval and a slew of benefits to a very specific sub-set of relationships. I maintain that this is unjust, that the government ought not to be in the business of providing this approval of relationships or the granting of benefits.
I thus propose the elimination of civil marriage altogether. Any special benefits that once came from marriage would either be eliminated where they stem from the government - tax incentives and the like - or replaced with private contracts between two individuals - such as inheritance and the like.
The benefits currently available to married couples would therefore be either legally available to everyone equally as they choose to contract with one another, or unavailable to anyone equally as improper use of government authority and power, and all while simultaneously removing the government from the private sexual relationships of the people.

You have no concept of an "economic unit" do you?

[Dyakovo]

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

Government intrusion into private relationships. In the institution of civil marriage, the government grants its approval and a slew of benefits to a very specific sub-set of relationships. I maintain that this is unjust, that the government ought not to be in the business of providing this approval of relationships or the granting of benefits.
I thus propose the elimination of civil marriage altogether. Any special benefits that once came from marriage would either be eliminated where they stem from the government - tax incentives and the like - or replaced with private contracts between two individuals - such as inheritance and the like.
The benefits currently available to married couples would therefore be either legally available to everyone equally as they choose to contract with one another, or unavailable to anyone equally as improper use of government authority and power, and all while simultaneously removing the government from the private sexual relationships of the people.

How is making everything simultaneously less efficient and extremely expensive an improvement?

[Galloism]

Government intrusion into private relationships. In the institution of civil marriage, the government grants its approval and a slew of benefits to a very specific sub-set of relationships. I maintain that this is unjust, that the government ought not to be in the business of providing this approval of relationships or the granting of benefits.
I thus propose the elimination of civil marriage altogether. Any special benefits that once came from marriage would either be eliminated where they stem from the government - tax incentives and the like - or replaced with private contracts between two individuals - such as inheritance and the like.
The benefits currently available to married couples would therefore be either legally available to everyone equally as they choose to contract with one another, or unavailable to anyone equally as improper use of government authority and power, and all while simultaneously removing the government from the private sexual relationships of the people.

How is making everything simultaneously less efficient and extremely expensive an improvement?

The Attorney Reinvestment Satisfaction Edict.

[Farnhamia]

How is making everything simultaneously less efficient and extremely expensive an improvement?

The Attorney Reinvestment Satisfaction Edict.

Does Nanatsu know you're using the computer again?

[Condunum]

How is making everything simultaneously less efficient and extremely expensive an improvement?

The Attorney Reinvestment Satisfaction Edict.

I actually looked that up hoping it was a real thing.

I am sad now.

[Farnhamia]

The Attorney Reinvestment Satisfaction Edict.

I actually looked that up hoping it was a real thing.

I am sad now.

These are the things we have to live with sometimes. Hey, I have an idea, we could talk about the actual topic!

[The Adherents of the Repeated Meme]

Government intrusion into private relationships. In the institution of civil marriage, the government grants its approval and a slew of benefits to a very specific sub-set of relationships. I maintain that this is unjust, that the government ought not to be in the business of providing this approval of relationships or the granting of benefits.
I thus propose the elimination of civil marriage altogether. Any special benefits that once came from marriage would either be eliminated where they stem from the government - tax incentives and the like - or replaced with private contracts between two individuals - such as inheritance and the like.
The benefits currently available to married couples would therefore be either legally available to everyone equally as they choose to contract with one another, or unavailable to anyone equally as improper use of government authority and power, and all while simultaneously removing the government from the private sexual relationships of the people.

Right. Your quarrel isn't with marriage but with the government. Well, I'll tell you, if you can get the government out of the business of sanctioning marriages, fine, but until that happens I don't see why same-sex couples ought not to be able to avail themselves of those rights and benefits. And I would oppose your efforts because I disagree on the oppression and because your "privatization" of marriage would make the situation far worse and much more complicated than it needs to be.

Insofar as it refers to benefits of marriage I agree with, such as inheritance, I have no issue with same-sex couples (or any other number and arrangement of people and genitalia) from procuring them.
My issue with expanding the current marriage scheme to same-sex couples is that it does nothing to address the inherent inequality of the system, it merely shifts the line at which the inequality is drawn, and that it contains a whole slew of benefits I hold the government to be improperly providing, and so should not be allowed to provide to more individuals.
My approach to civil marriage is two-pronged; opposition of all expansion of civil marriage (such as the advance of same-sex marriage) and support for all additional restrictions of marriage until such time as it is freed from any improper government activities and provision of benefits.

[Farnhamia]

Right. Your quarrel isn't with marriage but with the government. Well, I'll tell you, if you can get the government out of the business of sanctioning marriages, fine, but until that happens I don't see why same-sex couples ought not to be able to avail themselves of those rights and benefits. And I would oppose your efforts because I disagree on the oppression and because your "privatization" of marriage would make the situation far worse and much more complicated than it needs to be.

Insofar as it refers to benefits of marriage I agree with, such as inheritance, I have no issue with same-sex couples (or any other number and arrangement of people and genitalia) from procuring them.
My issue with expanding the current marriage scheme to same-sex couples is that it does nothing to address the inherent inequality of the system, it merely shifts the line at which the inequality is drawn, and that it contains a whole slew of benefits I hold the government to be improperly providing, and so should not be allowed to provide to more individuals.
My approach to civil marriage is two-pronged; opposition of all expansion of civil marriage (such as the advance of same-sex marriage) and support for all additional restrictions of marriage until such time as it is freed from any improper government activities and provision of benefits.

As I said, good luck with that.

[Condunum]

I actually looked that up hoping it was a real thing.

I am sad now.

These are the things we have to live with sometimes. Hey, I have an idea, we could talk about the actual topic!

But Farn, topics make me queasy! Ugh, fine...

Right. Your quarrel isn't with marriage but with the government. Well, I'll tell you, if you can get the government out of the business of sanctioning marriages, fine, but until that happens I don't see why same-sex couples ought not to be able to avail themselves of those rights and benefits. And I would oppose your efforts because I disagree on the oppression and because your "privatization" of marriage would make the situation far worse and much more complicated than it needs to be.

Insofar as it refers to benefits of marriage I agree with, such as inheritance, I have no issue with same-sex couples (or any other number and arrangement of people and genitalia) from procuring them.
My issue with expanding the current marriage scheme to same-sex couples is that it does nothing to address the inherent inequality of the system, it merely shifts the line at which the inequality is drawn, and that it contains a whole slew of benefits I hold the government to be improperly providing, and so should not be allowed to provide to more individuals.
My approach to civil marriage is two-pronged; opposition of all expansion of civil marriage (such as the advance of same-sex marriage) and support for all additional restrictions of marriage until such time as it is freed from any improper government activities and provision of benefits.

So your objection is... Marriage itself is unequal?

[The Adherents of the Repeated Meme]

These are the things we have to live with sometimes. Hey, I have an idea, we could talk about the actual topic!

But Farn, topics make me queasy! Ugh, fine...

Insofar as it refers to benefits of marriage I agree with, such as inheritance, I have no issue with same-sex couples (or any other number and arrangement of people and genitalia) from procuring them.
My issue with expanding the current marriage scheme to same-sex couples is that it does nothing to address the inherent inequality of the system, it merely shifts the line at which the inequality is drawn, and that it contains a whole slew of benefits I hold the government to be improperly providing, and so should not be allowed to provide to more individuals.
My approach to civil marriage is two-pronged; opposition of all expansion of civil marriage (such as the advance of same-sex marriage) and support for all additional restrictions of marriage until such time as it is freed from any improper government activities and provision of benefits.

So your objection is... Marriage itself is unequal?

Civil marriage as it is currently constituted is inherently discriminatory, yes. Not my only objection, but it is among them.

[Aethrys]

Let cults keep their superstitious unification rituals, so long as the state doesn't acknowledge them.

[Farnhamia]

Let cults keep their superstitious unification rituals, so long as the state doesn't acknowledge them.

As I told the Adherents of the Repeated Meme, good luck getting the government out of the business of marriage. Until that happens, I'd like to have the same rights as heterosexual citizens, thanks.

[Vettrera]

Oh wow, this thread is still up?

Well.....anywhooo.
I feel as though getting rid of state-recognized marriage altogether is impractical, and kind of gives off the idea that "I'd rather not have legal marriage at all if it means I have to share it with those gays".

[Condunum]

But Farn, topics make me queasy! Ugh, fine...


So your objection is... Marriage itself is unequal?

Civil marriage as it is currently constituted is inherently discriminatory, yes. Not my only objection, but it is among them.

I see. As I have not been participating in this thread for long, I don't know if you detailed how they are discriminatory. Is there a post somewhere here that you have done so?

[Cyprevus]

You spell beanned wrong it's Banned and no it should not be banned.

[Grenartia]

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.

1. Well I oppose those things being dictated by the state, so that's unproblematic for me.
2. 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.

1. Except, they're being guaranteed by the state, not dictated.

2. In English, por favor.

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 1. I want to fix it. 2. I oppose many of the so-called rights and benefits of civil marriage, and 3. 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.

1. Except you'd be making it worse.

2. What can possibly be wrong with guaranteeing everything I just mentioned?

3. On what grounds? Its impossible for individuals alone to exercise those rights, so its meaningless to provide them to individuals. To say nothing of the fact that status quo, again, is cheaper, simpler, more convenient, and doesn't involve hiring lawyers (while your proposed "solution", to a non-existent problem is the exact opposite). The KISS principle applies here in full.

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.

To say nothing of the fact that said 500 page contract STILL inherently involves the government. You've done nothing but increase government AND private spending. From all angles, the idea is patently stupid.

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

1. Government intrusion into private relationships. 2. In the institution of civil marriage, the government grants its approval and 3. a slew of benefits 4. to a very specific sub-set of relationships. 5. I maintain that this is unjust, 6. that the government ought not to be in the business of providing this approval of relationships or the granting of benefits.
I thus propose the elimination of civil marriage altogether. Any special benefits that once came from marriage would either be eliminated where they stem from the government - tax incentives and the like - 7. or replaced with private contracts between two individuals - such as inheritance and the like.
The benefits currently available to married couples would therefore be either 8. legally available to everyone equally as they choose to contract with one another, or unavailable to anyone equally as improper use of government authority and power, and all while simultaneously removing the government from the private sexual relationships of the people.

1. Which still happens with regards to your proposed "solution".

2. No. It recognizes. It doesn't approve (or disapprove).

3. Which are necessary for committed couples.

4. No, more like any two people who are capable of giving informed consent (in the parts of the nation that have begun recognizing SSM).

5. Not really.

6. These rights and benefits are necessary. So who should be in the "business" of guaranteeing them?

7. Still requires government involvement to enforce the terms of the contract. Also requires more time, effort, and money. Civil marriage makes more sense.

8. As they are now, as stated in 4.

Perhaps the Adherents is a lawyer. That would make sense.

I wish. Lawyers have quite a bit more in the way of funds and job security than I do, unfortunately.

Then you'd be the very person most harmed by the ideas you're advocating, should you and a sexual/romantic partner choose to seek legal guarantees of the rights and benefits necessary to fulfill your mutual right to pursue happiness.

Right. Your quarrel isn't with marriage but with the government. Well, I'll tell you, if you can get the government out of the business of sanctioning marriages, fine, but until that happens I don't see why same-sex couples ought not to be able to avail themselves of those rights and benefits. And I would oppose your efforts because I disagree on the oppression and because your "privatization" of marriage would make the situation far worse and much more complicated than it needs to be.

Insofar as it refers to benefits of marriage I agree with, such as inheritance, I have no issue with same-sex couples (or any other number and arrangement of people and genitalia) from procuring them.
My issue with expanding the current marriage scheme to same-sex couples is that it does nothing to address the inherent inequality of the system, it merely shifts the line at which the inequality is drawn, and that it contains a whole slew of benefits I hold the government to be improperly providing, and so should not be allowed to provide to more individuals.
My approach to civil marriage is two-pronged; opposition of all expansion of civil marriage (such as the advance of same-sex marriage) and support for all additional restrictions of marriage until such time as it is freed from any improper government activities and provision of benefits.

None of that made any sense.

[The Adherents of the Repeated Meme]

Civil marriage as it is currently constituted is inherently discriminatory, yes. Not my only objection, but it is among them.

I see. As I have not been participating in this thread for long, I don't know if you detailed how they are discriminatory. Is there a post somewhere here that you have done so?

Being in a civil marriage grants a slew of benefits and a legal status not available to others who are not in civil marriages.
Many people mistakenly think that allowing same-sex couples to engage in civil marriage will rectify this, but this simply moves same-sex couples from the excluded category to the included category. This still leaves out a great deal of people (e.g. multiple partner relationships, single people, etc.) who are excluded from this status and benefits.
This is unjust and should be rectified. If we were to eliminate all illegitimate benefits of civil marriage (those benefits the government ought not to be providing in the first place, like special legal status to people in approved relationships), all benefits of civil marriage can and should be obtained by private contracts between two or more consenting individuals, and the total government involvement would amount to enforcing the terms of the contract. This would resolve the issue.

[Condunum]

Oh wow, this thread is still up?

Well.....anywhooo.
I feel as though getting rid of state-recognized marriage altogether is impractical, and kind of gives off the idea that "I'd rather not have legal marriage at all if it means I have to share it with those gays".

Sadly those who object to marriage itself would be overshadowed by the people who actually think like that.

[Llamalandia]

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.

FIne, then let them continue to do so, but stop calling it marriage, there problem solved.

[Aethrys]

Let cults keep their superstitious unification rituals, so long as the state doesn't acknowledge them.

As I told the Adherents of the Repeated Meme, good luck getting the government out of the business of marriage. Until that happens, I'd like to have the same rights as heterosexual citizens, thanks.

It's quite simple, eliminate marriage as a legal concept and replace it with "Civil Unions" or whatever non-theist term is in favor. There will be no ceremony, as it will only serve as documentation that states to the effect that "I'm screwing this person, and if I'm in a coma they get to pull the plug and take all my stuff when I die."

This will fulfill the purposes for which the concept of marriage exists, to allow the government to keep track of who is screwing who, who has authorization to pull plugs, and who gets stuff when someone dies, and it eliminates whining over who gets to own silly cult terminology. If it's not a legal term, then anyone can say they are "Married" after fulfilling whatever bizarre and backward ritual is required to declare said status, dependent upon the preferred cult/s of the individuals in question.