Should HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGES be banned ?

[Page]

Either the mods should take a pressure hose to the grammatical abortion of this thread's title, or tell us to get back on topic of how to bean heterosexual marriages. Are these beans baked?

[Farnhamia]

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.

All marriages in the US are already civil unions, they just aren't called that. No religious ceremonies are required for a marriage to be legal, just a properly issued marriage license, signed and witnessed. So, we're done, right?

[San-Silvacian]

Beanned? Does that mean the pastor throws a baseball at the couple?

No, it means a group of people get together and have a lottery, then, the winner proceeds to get throw the first ball.

or am i getting bioshock infinate mixed up again

[Condunum]

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.

I see... Have you considered the fact that civil marriages - if they were gender equal - would not be something you're barred from having. In fact, if you want a marriage with your partner the option is there. You aren't compelled into either status, and to object to civil marriage on the grounds that single people are discriminated against is a little unusual, if not absurd.

Considering that the mechanics of a couple change with long-term relationships, Marriage is a useful institution, joining two people economically as well as romantically.

[The Adherents of the Repeated Meme]

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.

Indeed, or by people who assume that anyone interested in eliminating civil marriage altogether must reason like that.

[Llamalandia]

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?

Don't ask me, I didn't bring her up to begin with. That said, she was a highly influential figure who started an entire philosophical movement. I don't really understand all the hate on her though, of course I've also not gotten around to actually reading what she's wrote so I may not be the best judge. I just think it's unfair to call her a cunt bitch etc especially given that she did live under soviet oppression.

[Grenartia]

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.

Except the thing is, its rather impractical to guarantee those rights to single people and those in polyamorous arrangements.

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.

Except, you know, there's no real reason to not call it marriage. Because there's no real problem with calling it marriage (though there are a few problems with not calling it marriage).

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.

So, basically, you want us to eliminate marriage, and then reinstitute it? Seems rather wasteful and redundant to me.

[Aethrys]

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.

All marriages in the US are already civil unions, they just aren't called that. No religious ceremonies are required for a marriage to be legal, just a properly issued marriage license, signed and witnessed. So, we're done, right?

Ah, no. It's still called a marriage license, which results in angry cult bickering over who gets to own the term.

Eliminate that, and there will still be angry cult bickering, it's just that it will no longer be a legal matter and therefore irrelevant. States cannot ban gay marriage if marriage doesn't exist as a legal concept.

[Llamalandia]

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.

Yes, but the more people invested in the system of govt controlled marriage, the more entrenched it becomes. It's bad enough that heterosexuals are "married" by the govt if homosexuals are married to it becomes just that much harder to pry marriage from the icy death grip that is the govt bureaucracy.

[The Adherents of the Repeated Meme]

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.

I see... Have you considered the fact that civil marriages - if they were gender equal - would not be something you're barred from having. In fact, if you want a marriage with your partner the option is there. You aren't compelled into either status, and to object to civil marriage on the grounds that single people are discriminated against is a little unusual, if not absurd.

Considering that the mechanics of a couple change with long-term relationships, Marriage is a useful institution, joining two people economically as well as romantically.

My point is that the government should not be granting benefits and special legal status to people based on their relationship status in the first place. What I find absurd is the fact that those who are in relationships the government approves of may be legally granted a special status and a slew of benefits unavailable to those outside the approved relationship types, single people included.
I agree that civil marriage is a useful institution - otherwise I don't believe it would be as ubiquitous as it is today. I simply maintain it is unjust, and should be altered appropriately.

Yes, but the more people invested in the system of govt controlled marriage, the more entrenched it becomes. It's bad enough that heterosexuals are "married" by the govt if homosexuals are married to it becomes just that much harder to pry marriage from the icy death grip that is the govt bureaucracy.

You are a man (or woman, I don't wish to presume) after my own heart, I agree completely.

[Grenartia]

All marriages in the US are already civil unions, they just aren't called that. No religious ceremonies are required for a marriage to be legal, just a properly issued marriage license, signed and witnessed. So, we're done, right?

Ah, no. It's still called a marriage license, which results in angry cult bickering over who gets to own the term.

Eliminate that, and there will still be angry cult bickering, it's just that it will no longer be a legal matter and therefore irrelevant. States cannot ban gay marriage if marriage doesn't exist as a legal concept.

No thanks. Marriage is a simpler term. That, and it sounds less cold and mechanical. I don't want to civilly unionize somebody. I want to marry them.

[Aethrys]

Ah, no. It's still called a marriage license, which results in angry cult bickering over who gets to own the term.

Eliminate that, and there will still be angry cult bickering, it's just that it will no longer be a legal matter and therefore irrelevant. States cannot ban gay marriage if marriage doesn't exist as a legal concept.

No thanks. Marriage is a simpler term. That, and it sounds less cold and mechanical. I don't want to civilly unionize somebody. I want to marry them.

And you can do that, as part of whatever cult ritual you and your partner decide on.

Why should the government have to, though?

[Verdo-Releignia]

You said beanned, your argument is henceforth forfeited.

[Farnhamia]

No thanks. Marriage is a simpler term. That, and it sounds less cold and mechanical. I don't want to civilly unionize somebody. I want to marry them.

And you can do that, as part of whatever cult ritual you and your partner decide on.

Why should the government have to, though?

The government wants to.

[Keventle]

I support it being beanned, but not banned...but only in the 51st state.

[Aethrys]

And you can do that, as part of whatever cult ritual you and your partner decide on.

Why should the government have to, though?

The government wants to.

The government wants to do anything provided enough of the right people in it are properly incentivized.

[Grenartia]

No thanks. Marriage is a simpler term. That, and it sounds less cold and mechanical. I don't want to civilly unionize somebody. I want to marry them.

And you can do that, as part of whatever cult ritual you and your partner decide on.

Why should the government have to, though?

Because no religion owns the concept of marriage. Marriage has always been a secular concept.

If I want a ceremony, I'll go to a church. I want a guarantee of crucial rights, so I'll go to a courthouse.

[Dyakovo]

All marriages in the US are already civil unions, they just aren't called that. No religious ceremonies are required for a marriage to be legal, just a properly issued marriage license, signed and witnessed. So, we're done, right?

Ah, no. It's still called a marriage license, which results in angry cult bickering over who gets to own the term.

Eliminate that, and there will still be angry cult bickering, it's just that it will no longer be a legal matter and therefore irrelevant. States cannot ban gay marriage if marriage doesn't exist as a legal concept.

It's a battle they're losing anyway, so Why concede anything to them?

[Llamalandia]

And you can do that, as part of whatever cult ritual you and your partner decide on.

Why should the government have to, though?

Because no religion owns the concept of marriage. Marriage has always been a secular concept.

If I want a ceremony, I'll go to a church. I want a guarantee of crucial rights, so I'll go to a courthouse.

Except it hasn't always been a "secular concept", for thousands of years there wasn't even a separation of church of and state concept, so... so yeah.

[Dyakovo]

Because no religion owns the concept of marriage. Marriage has always been a secular concept.

If I want a ceremony, I'll go to a church. I want a guarantee of crucial rights, so I'll go to a courthouse.

Except it hasn't always been a "secular concept",

History disagrees.

[Condunum]

I see... Have you considered the fact that civil marriages - if they were gender equal - would not be something you're barred from having. In fact, if you want a marriage with your partner the option is there. You aren't compelled into either status, and to object to civil marriage on the grounds that single people are discriminated against is a little unusual, if not absurd.

Considering that the mechanics of a couple change with long-term relationships, Marriage is a useful institution, joining two people economically as well as romantically.

My point is that the government should not be granting benefits and special legal status to people based on their relationship status in the first place. What I find absurd is the fact that those who are in relationships the government approves of may be legally granted a special status and a slew of benefits unavailable to those outside the approved relationship types, single people included.
I agree that civil marriage is a useful institution - otherwise I don't believe it would be as ubiquitous as it is today. I simply maintain it is unjust, and should be altered appropriately.

But there is no institutionalized discrimination. Those heterosexuals who choose not to marry do so by their own decision (incebs can go fuck themselves), not by involuntary decree of a moralistic government. The reason a married couple is granted benefits is because they act as a single unit, not two separate people. The extent to which they unify their finances is up to them; marriage is a framework for being able to do so.

[Farnhamia]

Because no religion owns the concept of marriage. Marriage has always been a secular concept.

If I want a ceremony, I'll go to a church. I want a guarantee of crucial rights, so I'll go to a courthouse.

Except it hasn't always been a "secular concept", for thousands of years there wasn't even a separation of church of and state concept, so... so yeah.

Marriage pre-dates new-fangled religions like Christianity and wasn't always religious. So ... yeah.

[Punkvania]

Ah, no. It's still called a marriage license, which results in angry cult bickering over who gets to own the term.

Eliminate that, and there will still be angry cult bickering, it's just that it will no longer be a legal matter and therefore irrelevant. States cannot ban gay marriage if marriage doesn't exist as a legal concept.

No thanks. Marriage is a simpler term. That, and it sounds less cold and mechanical. I don't want to civilly unionize somebody. I want to marry them.

Civil unions remind me of the term "common-law marriage" way too much. My aunt was common-law married to her boyfriend of 25 years because they owned so much together but refused to get married. It is crazy that people are defined in contract a whole different way simply based on sexual orientation when they want a real marriage.

And after reading pages of this thread I really think this debate reflects just how ridiculous things have become in the real world. Banning straight marriages, opening them up to minors and animals, polygamy... this isn't what the majority of LGBT people are fighting for whatsoever. I've heard some people say before that we need to ban straight marriages if gays and lesbians can't wed, and most of those people are straight allies that don't care about getting married in the first place. Discriminating against the majority because the minority are being hurt is never a solution.That's like shuttering a school that refuses to racially integrate instead of making sure minorities can enroll as well.

[Aethrys]

Ah, no. It's still called a marriage license, which results in angry cult bickering over who gets to own the term.

Eliminate that, and there will still be angry cult bickering, it's just that it will no longer be a legal matter and therefore irrelevant. States cannot ban gay marriage if marriage doesn't exist as a legal concept.

It's a battle they're losing anyway, so Why concede anything to them?

Because it's a waste of effort fighting a battle when the source of conflict can be eliminated. Those inclined may continue fighting, but there won't be any victory to be had. Get a clearly secular and inclusive definition of Civil Unions on the books, which grants equal rights across the board. Eliminate marriage terminology from government and laws, and the majority of cultists will back down, there can't be official gay marriages if the government has no official "Marriages". Support for legislation opposing gay rights will wane, as the right won't be able to claim religious persecution anymore.

Socially, anyone will be able to say they are married. This just obviously won't confer any legal benefits unless they also have a civil union. Those inclined will be able to opt for just the civil union.

[Farnhamia]

It's a battle they're losing anyway, so Why concede anything to them?

Because it's a waste of effort fighting a battle when the source of conflict can be eliminated. Those inclined may continue fighting, but there won't be any victory to be had. Get a clearly secular and inclusive definition of Civil Unions on the books, which grants equal rights across the board. Eliminate marriage terminology from government and laws, and the majority of cultists will back down, there can't be official gay marriages if the government has no official "Marriages". Support for legislation opposing gay rights will wane, as the right won't be able to claim religious persecution anymore.

Socially, anyone will be able to say they are married. This just obviously won't confer any legal benefits unless they also have a civil union. Those inclined will be able to opt for just the civil union.

Again, all US marriages are already civil unions. The terminology shouldn't matter and, frankly, the "cultists" should learn to share. They don't own the word "marriage." Your solution tells them they do and that we're deferring to them by changing the laws to reflect that.