Legalization of All Consensual Marriage

[Wombocombo]

Family members getting married, eh. Nah. Incest is bad and genetics and science and (-insert something about me not knowing a lot about genetics and just the general knowledge that relatives = bad children).

Anything else: Eh. I don't see why not? People are big boys and girls, they can make their life choices them selves.

[Dukats]

Can't belive that liberals have boundaries.

Fucked up your worldview with that filthy filthy logic and reasoning stuff, hmm?

Yeah call my ideology filthy.We all have a right to our own political view as long as it's liberal.

[Meryuma]

Should the government care how many adults live in a house, share a bedroom, or even occasionally touch butts? Nope. Can it recognize polygamous marriages? I don't think so. The legal rights of marriage are meant to be held by one person, if two people have equal powers it gets messy. I suppose if the marriage document laid out who was the most married to each person or who "wore the pants" it'd work, but that seems to defeat the purpose.

Let them eat cake! (Provided the baker chose to bake it of their own free will.)

Marriage should not grant legal/economic privileges at all.

So what defines male, and women?

I mean there is such a thing as Transgender which I bet you didn't think to include.

Aren't transgenders either MtF or FtM? Correct me if I'm wrong.

"Transgender people", it's not a noun. Also, most but not all - some identify as neither, or both.

It is a sin because it violates natural order.

Whatever you say.

But on a serious note, now that the stability of the family has faltered for generations,

Generations ago, it was legal to beat or rape your wife. Traditional marriage is an ugly thing.

Fucked up your worldview with that filthy filthy logic and reasoning stuff, hmm?

Yeah call my ideology filthy.We all have a right to our own political view as long as it's liberal.

Freedom of speech means freedom to criticize, not freedom from criticism.

[Godular]

Fucked up your worldview with that filthy filthy logic and reasoning stuff, hmm?

Yeah call my ideology filthy.We all have a right to our own political view as long as it's liberal.

The amount of give a shit = zero... so long as ya don't try and dictate which two consenting adults can get marriage bennies. You're the only one yammering about bestiality and pedophilia here.

[Alien Space Bats]

Well, then what about renaming it "contract of co-habitation" and reserving the term "marriage" for purely-religious rites?

It always amazes me that anyone thinks that this would "solve" the issue of gay marriage:

• FACT: There are many, many more religions on Earth than just Christianity (or even the Levantine Trio of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism).
  
  
• FACT: Some of these other faiths actually endorse gay marriage.
  
  
• FACT: Even ignoring the existence of non-Levantine religions, there are Christian churches and ministers who have no problem solemnizing same-sex marriages.
  
  
• FACT: Even if we neglect this last fact (or assume that some great revival of faith were to result in the elimination of all Christian churches and ministers who are willing to conduct same-sex services, a "religious" ceremony can be conducted by ANYONE who can claim to have been "ordained" as a minister (of ANY faith). Since many religions lack "ordination" as a feature (indeed, some [such as Islam] even lack the concept of an organized "clergy"), an since government is forbidden (under the 1st Amendment) from regulated what does or does nor constitute "ordination", there are "ordination mills" (think "diploma mill", only with the title of "Reverend" as the goal, rather than a Baccalaureate, Masters Degree, or Doctorate as the ultimate goal) such as the Universal Life Church (which offers "ordination" certificates for $8.99 over the web) out there that can literally make anyone an "ordained minister". And before you scream foul, think about this from the standpoint of, say, a Wiccan, Satanist, or Native American medicine person: Without someone like the ULC providing an easy path to getting recognized as an "ordained minister", what would these various less-than-organized religions do to maintain equality under the law in comparison with their more organized cousins?

The bottom line is that it's really, REALLY easy to get "married" by a "minister". In the worst case, you merely need to find a friend who has a minister's certificate from the ULC (or, failing that, get the friend you want to officiate at your marriage one of those nifty $8.99 certificates; compared to what you're going to pay the caterer, the florist, the baker, and the photographer for the typical wedding shindig, that $8.99 is absolute chicken feed). My wife and I were married by a friend who considered herself a Strega and who's "ordination" came from the ULC; this was, of course, several months after we had our civil ceremony in Ypsilanti, MI (in the City Council chambers, as a matter of fact; we were married by the Mayor at the time, civil marriage solemnization being one of those powers Judges, Magistrates, Mayors, and Captains at sea have universally been allowed to conduct for centuries). I defy anyone who's not an absolute religious bigot and a total asshole to assert that we're not married just because it wasnt done in a Christian church by a Christian pastor.

Where marriage has traditionally been a religious institution between man and woman, the more traditional folk being opposed to any change in that, a contract of co-habitation is a cold, impersonal legal term that could encompass just about anything, effectively carrying on the function of marriage, but with none of the implications.

See, this is where you're wrong. Or where, were I a mean person, I'd say that you were basically full of shit.

The Romans used to marry people long before they became Christian, and it was a civil ceremony. I defy you to say that what they did wasn't marriage, because that would be an utterly ahistorical load of bullcrap.

In the meantime, the religious and the traditionalists would still get their traditional church marriages in accord with the prescripts of their beliefs, the difference being that it would now be a purely-religious ritual with no legal significance, a married couple still having to enter a contract of co-habitation specifying the matters of their household.

To what end? They'd still be living in a world in which non-Christians went around claiming to be married, as well as a world in which lots of marriages of which they absolutely do not approve routinely solemnized. So what is the fucking point? What do people gain by this?

<pause>

Unless...

<pause>

Unless the idea is for the absence of any legal concept of marriage to pave the way for unrestricted discrimination on religious and/or sexual grounds (i.e., "I don't accept customers/tenants/employees/patients who engage in immoral fornication outside of (what I define as) marriage, so I don't give a damn if you have a legally binding 'cohabitation contract'; I consider Pagan/Muslim/Catholic/interracial/same-sex/multiple relationships to fall outside the bounds of 'legitimate' marriage, so get out of my place of business/you're evicted/you're fired/your 'spouse' can't come see you in my hospital, because I have a legal, God-given, Libertarian right to be an absolute bigot").

In which case my response is, "Fuck no, you don't. Go to Hell."

[Threlizdun]

And what would those concerns be? I have no clue why people are so against it. Well, I do, but I don't see why they'd e so vehemently against it. It isn't for everyone, but it shouldn't be for no one.

Poligyny was a milestone in discrimination against women.
The real notion behind polygyny have historically always been the "ownership" of the wives.
Indeed, even in the main party inspired by Radical Feminism, Swedish "F!", there were some problems about that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_ ... ve_(Sweden)#Founding_of_the_political_party

Really, always? There has never in history been in instance of people practicing polygyny because they actually love each other? Marriage is harmful because of the effects patriarchy has had upon it; it is not inherently harmful.

a new Cohabitation Act (Swedish: sammanlevnadsbalk) which would encompass a new legal status for private relationships between more than two people, irrespective of gender, thereby possibly opening up for polygamy.

It's a very complex issue, basically, the maximum freedom should be allowed when it comes to relationships, but, on the other hand I really think that feminism can't support polygyny: because it's basically faulted and sexist due inherent gender bias. Even the word "poligamy" is mislead: it's always, in reality, only about men "owning" multiple wives, and the opposite, poliandry, was always historically far less common.
It's, again, a clash between a formal equality and a substantive equality.

Of course, because you can love multiple men and that's fine but if you love multiple women you obviously must want to own them. I'll go inform my girlfriend that she is a misogynist.

But I admit that in such case I'm not very sure what is the right position to keep, it's a very complicated issue, because obiouvsly we should never oppose to polyamory, nor even to a regularization of polyamory.

It's a very simply issue. If they consent, then they should be allowed to do it. It really isn't anyone else's business.

Family members getting married, eh. Nah. Incest is bad and genetics and science and (-insert something about me not knowing a lot about genetics and just the general knowledge that relatives = bad children).

Anything else: Eh. I don't see why not? People are big boys and girls, they can make their life choices them selves.

As covered in the OP, a single generation of inbreeding does not carry extensive risks. Also, if you intend to deny people the right to have children based on genetic concerns then those with genetic disorders should not be allowed to reproduce.

[Val Halla]

Poligyny was a milestone in discrimination against women.
The real notion behind polygyny have historically always been the "ownership" of the wives.
Indeed, even in the main party inspired by Radical Feminism, Swedish "F!", there were some problems about that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_ ... ve_(Sweden)#Founding_of_the_political_party

Really, always? There has never in history been in instance of people practicing polygyny because they actually love each other? Marriage is harmful because of the effects patriarchy has had upon it; it is not inherently harmful.

It's a very complex issue, basically, the maximum freedom should be allowed when it comes to relationships, but, on the other hand I really think that feminism can't support polygyny: because it's basically faulted and sexist due inherent gender bias. Even the word "poligamy" is mislead: it's always, in reality, only about men "owning" multiple wives, and the opposite, poliandry, was always historically far less common.
It's, again, a clash between a formal equality and a substantive equality.

Of course, because you can love multiple men and that's fine but if you love multiple women you obviously must want to own them. I'll go inform my girlfriend that she is a misogynist.

But I admit that in such case I'm not very sure what is the right position to keep, it's a very complicated issue, because obiouvsly we should never oppose to polyamory, nor even to a regularization of polyamory.

It's a very simply issue. If they consent, then they should be allowed to do it. It really isn't anyone else's business.

Family members getting married, eh. Nah. Incest is bad and genetics and science and (-insert something about me not knowing a lot about genetics and just the general knowledge that relatives = bad children).

Anything else: Eh. I don't see why not? People are big boys and girls, they can make their life choices them selves.

As covered in the OP, a single generation of inbreeding does not carry extensive risks. Also, if you intend to deny people the right to have children based on genetic concerns then those with genetic disorders should not be allowed to reproduce.

My biology classes confirm of a lack of risk for one generation of inbreeding. Alas, I cannot souce my biology class.

Also, you seem cool. :3

[Greater Mackonia]

The solution to all this is simple, there should no longer be any formal, legal recognition of the institution of marriage. If Christians wish to get joined in some godforsaken eternal union of mutual sacrifice and self-loathing let them, but it won't be recognised, nor should it be, by the government. If some guy wants to marry 5 wives and 2 husbands let him call them thus.

If you truly love somebody you don't need a scrap of paper telling them so, indeed I personally see marriage as the death of all true love as it makes love a duty rather than an action of voluntary, mutual agreement. The law should simply cease to recognise this defunct and in my view abhorrent institution and thus avoid this sort of confusion.

[Chessmistress]

Really, always? There has never in history been in instance of people practicing polygyny because they actually love each other? Marriage is harmful because of the effects patriarchy has had upon it; it is not inherently harmful.

Indeed: it's not inherently harmful, is harmful because of the effects of the patriarchy.
Tell me, please: there's still patriarchy or we have already eliminated it?
I wasn't aware about new developments of the situation

It's a very simply issue. If they consent, then they should be allowed to do it. It really isn't anyone else's business.

"When power is severely unbalanced true consent cannot exist" - see Saudi Arabi in example, then just think about similar communities within the western countries. Think about it for a moment. That's exactly why even "F!" party in Sweden becomed a little dubious about it. And that's why I'm dubious too, but that doesn't means I'm opposed.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Really, always? There has never in history been in instance of people practicing polygyny because they actually love each other? Marriage is harmful because of the effects patriarchy has had upon it; it is not inherently harmful.

Indeed: it's not inherently harmful, is harmful because of the effects of the patriarchy.
Tell me, please: there's still patriarchy or we have already eliminated it?
I wasn't aware about new developments of the situation

It's a very simply issue. If they consent, then they should be allowed to do it. It really isn't anyone else's business.

"When power is severely unbalanced true consent cannot exist" - see Saudi Arabi in example, then just think about similar communities within the western countries. Think about it for a moment. That's exactly why even "F!" party in Sweden becomed a little dubious about it. And that's why I'm dubious too, but that doesn't means I'm opposed.

... So we should abolish marriage until patriarchy has been completely rooted out of any aspect of society?

[Alien Space Bats]

The solution to all this is simple, there should no longer be any formal, legal recognition of the institution of marriage. If Christians wish to get joined in some godforsaken eternal union of mutual sacrifice and self-loathing let them, but it won't be recognised, nor should it be, by the government. If some guy wants to marry 5 wives and 2 husbands let him call them thus.

If you truly love somebody you don't need a scrap of paper telling them so, indeed I personally see marriage as the death of all true love as it makes love a duty rather than an action of voluntary, mutual agreement. The law should simply cease to recognise this defunct and in my view abhorrent institution and thus avoid this sort of confusion.

Why do you want to legalize discrimination on the basis of religion and/or personal sexual preference/behavior?

If marriage has no legal standing, then as an employer I can fire married people (they're a pain in the ass, wanting time off from work for their "personal lives"); as a landlord I can evict people who choose not to marry in MY church or faith; as a businessman, I can throw people out of my business for coming in with a mate of the wrong sex/race/religion; and as hospital or clinic, I can deny patient visitation on the basis of any or all of thes things.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Who wants to live in that kind of crapsack extreme Libertarian Christian fundamentalist dominated Hell-hole of a society?!?

Let's admit that the real issue here is the right to discriminate. Conservatives believe that it's sacred, and want to swing that club around and use it to brain the fuck out of anyone and everyone they don't like. Liberals call that bullshit, and want asshole dickwads to have to confine their bigotry to the privacy of their own homes and churches.

So why don't we just cut to the chase and debate THAT? Should people have the right to wage socio-economic warfare on their neighbors for the purpose of coercing and/or destroying people, religions, ideas, and lifestyles they don't like, or does the concept of civilization demand that we all just put a sock in it and learn to get along?

[Dyakovo]

Fucked up your worldview with that filthy filthy logic and reasoning stuff, hmm?

Yeah call my ideology filthy.We all have a right to our own political view as long as it's liberal.

He never called your ideology filthy. I suggest you take some time to work on your reading comprehension.

[Dyakovo]

Should the government care how many adults live in a house, share a bedroom, or even occasionally touch butts? Nope. Can it recognize polygamous marriages? I don't think so. The legal rights of marriage are meant to be held by one person, if two people have equal powers it gets messy. I suppose if the marriage document laid out who was the most married to each person or who "wore the pants" it'd work, but that seems to defeat the purpose.

Let them eat cake! (Provided the baker chose to bake it of their own free will.)

Marriage should not grant legal/economic privileges at all.

Why not?

[Greater Mackonia]

The solution to all this is simple, there should no longer be any formal, legal recognition of the institution of marriage. If Christians wish to get joined in some godforsaken eternal union of mutual sacrifice and self-loathing let them, but it won't be recognised, nor should it be, by the government. If some guy wants to marry 5 wives and 2 husbands let him call them thus.

If you truly love somebody you don't need a scrap of paper telling them so, indeed I personally see marriage as the death of all true love as it makes love a duty rather than an action of voluntary, mutual agreement. The law should simply cease to recognise this defunct and in my view abhorrent institution and thus avoid this sort of confusion.

Why do you want to legalize discrimination on the basis of religion and/or personal sexual preference/behavior?

If marriage has no legal standing, then as an employer I can fire married people (they're a pain in the ass, wanting time off from work for their "personal lives"); as a landlord I can evict people who choose not to marry in MY church or faith; as a businessman, I can throw people out of my business for coming in with a mate of the wrong sex/race/religion; and as hospital or clinic, I can deny patient visitation on the basis of any or all of thes things.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Who wants to live in that kind of crapsack extreme Libertarian Christian fundamentalist dominated Hell-hole of a society?!?

Let's admit that the real issue here is the right to discriminate. Conservatives believe that it's sacred, and want to swing that club around and use it to brain the fuck out of anyone and everyone they don't like. Liberals call that bullshit, and want asshole dickwads to have to confine their bigotry to the privacy of their own homes and churches.

So why don't we just cut to the chase and debate THAT? Should people have the right to wage socio-economic warfare on their neighbors for the purpose of coercing and/or destroying people, religions, ideas, and lifestyles they don't like, or does the concept of civilization demand that we all just put a sock in it and learn to get along?

Then they would be dealt with on charges of discrimination, this reeks of slippery-slope nonsense to me.

To address your other points, people have no "right" to demand time off work for their "personal lives".

[Chessmistress]

... So we should abolish marriage until patriarchy has been completely rooted out of any aspect of society?

Never said that. I'm not against marriage, I hope same-sex marriage will be a worldwide reality.
I think that in order to allow poligyny we should take these steps:
First: more laws - on a gender basis, otherwise it cannot work - against domestic violence on women.
Like European Convention of Istanbul
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetti ... nglish.pdf
Convention specify that

4   Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender‐based
violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention.

For the first time a clear distinction of victims based on gender will be allowed to enter in a law. And that's a giant step towards substantive equality.
Men accused of domestic violence should be immediatly taked away from the house, and quickly processed.
Then divorce laws should be more fair towards women: women have it worse from a divorce, and I already posted a very clear report from a non-feminist source, in another thread.

At such point even poligyny should be allowed. But just only at such point.
I'm talking about a matter of few years, not decades.

[Conscentia]

No form of marriage should be legal or illegal. Marriage serves no political function anymore. It is a social &/or, for many, religious institution. It therefore does not make sense that it remain a government matter, especially in the case of secular governments. Much as how the government doesn't bother registering who's friends with who or who has been baptised, it shouldn't be wasting bureaucrat time and public paper by registering marriages. If your church doesn't accept homosexual or polygamous marriage, and you feel strongly about allowing it, then either you should reconsider your opinions or your membership of said church.

[Greater Mackonia]

No form of marriage should be legal or illegal. Marriage serves no political function anymore. It is a social &/or, for many, religious institution. It therefore does not make sense that it remain a government matter, especially in the case of secular governments. Much as how the government doesn't bother registering who's friends with who or who has been baptised, it shouldn't be wasting bureaucrat time and public paper by registering marriages. If your church doesn't accept homosexual or polygamous marriage, and you feel strongly about allowing it, then either you should reconsider your opinions or your membership of said church.

Precisely.

[Sanctissima]

No form of marriage should be legal or illegal. Marriage serves no political function anymore. It is a social &/or, for many, religious institution. It therefore does not make sense that it remain a government matter, especially in the case of secular governments. Much as how the government doesn't bother registering who's friends with who or who has been baptised, it shouldn't be wasting bureaucrat time and public paper by registering marriages. If your church doesn't accept homosexual or polygamous marriage, and you feel strongly about allowing it, then either you should reconsider your opinions or your membership of said church.

Depends whether or not a country has the whole "partnership" legal definition.

Because countries do need to keep track of who's living on a full-time basis with who. Legal proceedings, taxes, property deeds and all that. It's pretty important stuff, and if a country defines all partnerships as 'marriage', then they need to keep track of who's married to who.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

For the first time a clear distinction of victims based on gender will be allowed to enter in a law. And that's a giant step towards substantive equality.

Doesn't that sentence seem hypocritical to you?

Men accused of domestic violence should be immediatly taked away from the house, and quickly processed.

Only men? Are women incapable of being a danger to men? Do you imagine that we are invincible?

Then divorce laws should be more fair towards women: women have it worse from a divorce, and I already posted a very clear report from a non-feminist source, in another thread.

How would this be accomplished? Alimony payments?

How much of that data can be accounted for by the simple fact that men on average work more, and that after a divorce the women are returning to their pre-marriage income?

[Conscentia]

No form of marriage should be legal or illegal. Marriage serves no political function anymore. It is a social &/or, for many, religious institution. It therefore does not make sense that it remain a government matter, especially in the case of secular governments. Much as how the government doesn't bother registering who's friends with who or who has been baptised, it shouldn't be wasting bureaucrat time and public paper by registering marriages. If your church doesn't accept homosexual or polygamous marriage, and you feel strongly about allowing it, then either you should reconsider your opinions or your membership of said church.

Depends whether or not a country has the whole "partnership" legal definition.

Because countries do need to keep track of who's living on a full-time basis with who. Legal proceedings, taxes, property deeds and all that. It's pretty important stuff, and if a country defines all partnerships as 'marriage', then they need to keep track of who's married to who.

What?

Government already keeps track of everyone's permanent residence for those exact purposes.

[Sanctissima]

Depends whether or not a country has the whole "partnership" legal definition.

Because countries do need to keep track of who's living on a full-time basis with who. Legal proceedings, taxes, property deeds and all that. It's pretty important stuff, and if a country defines all partnerships as 'marriage', then they need to keep track of who's married to who.

What?

Government already keeps track of everyone's permanent residence for those exact purposes.

Permanent residence isn't quite the same thing.

The reason being that people get divorces every now and then. Which complicates matters when there's money, property and kids that need to be divided. If a country suddenly just stopped keeping track of marriages and partnerships, their courtrooms would be a mess.

[Conscentia]

What?
Government already keeps track of everyone's permanent residence for those exact purposes.

Permanent residence isn't quite the same thing.
The reason being that people get divorces every now and then. Which complicates matters when there's money, property and kids that need to be divided. If a country suddenly just stopped keeping track of marriages and partnerships, their courtrooms would be a mess.

Why would the courtrooms be a mess? Divorce wouldn't be the government's problem either. The government doesn't step in whenever friends fall out, or non-married partners break up. Nor when people leave their religion, or church. If some kid buys a graphic novel with a friend to share since they can only afford it by pooling their change, and they stop being friends due to some argument, it's not the government's job to decide who gets the book.

Child custody laws may have to be amended to depend on whether the legal parents/guardians are separated, if provisions for this don't already exist, but that's really about it.
The government doesn't step in to help people divide their stuff after they've been cohabiting. It simply isn't the government's problem if you decided to share your stuff with someone else - unless you write up a binding contract, that is. If that's an inconvenience, too bad. If you think you should get something that your ex is keeping, then either report it as a theft, or deal with it yourself.

[Sanctissima]

Permanent residence isn't quite the same thing.
The reason being that people get divorces every now and then. Which complicates matters when there's money, property and kids that need to be divided. If a country suddenly just stopped keeping track of marriages and partnerships, their courtrooms would be a mess.

Why would the courtrooms be a mess? Divorce wouldn't be the government's problem either. The government doesn't step in whenever friends fall out, or non-married partners break up. Nor when people leave their religion, or church.

Child custody laws may have to be amended to depend on whether the legal parents/guardians are separated, if provisions for this don't already exist, but that's really about it.
The government doesn't step in to help people divide their stuff after they've been cohabiting. It simply isn't the governments problem if you decided to share your stuff with someone else. If some kid buys a graphic novel with a friend to share since they can only afford it by pooling their change, and they stop being friends due to some argument, it's not the government's job to decide who gets the book. If that's an inconvenience, too bad. If you think you should get something that your ex is keeping, then either report it as a theft, or deal with it yourself.

You're essentially advocating that a formerly working spouse who stopped working after marriage, then got a divorce 20 years later, should be left with nothing because there's no legal definition of marriage or partnership, inherently meaning that they have no right to any of the other spouse's wealth.

Basically, you'd be fucking a lot of innocent people over.

[The Remnants of Kobol]

Well, I'm against incest purely for the medical and scientific reasons. All that leads to is increased mental retardation, physical deformities, negative cognitive functions, and otherwise bad things for the human race. I suppose if consenting family members were willing to submit to sterilization I would support it, but simply on the grounds that it is not fair to any child born of it and to humanity as a whole, I am otherwise against familial marriage.

Heterosexual marriage, same-sex marriage, polygamist marriage, marriage to an inanimate object... I don't care.

[Conscentia]

[...] You're essentially advocating that a formerly working spouse who stopped working after marriage, then got a divorce 20 years later, should be left with nothing because there's no legal definition of marriage or partnership, inherently meaning that they have no right to any of the other spouse's wealth.

Basically, you'd be fucking a lot of innocent people over.

The spouse would have to apply for welfare like everyone else who loses their source of income. They aren't special just because their former source of income was a person willing to share.

They did it to themselves.