Legalization of All Consensual Marriage

[Sanctissima]

[...] 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.

I thought you were a Communist.

You people are supposed to be "redistribution of wealth" and all that jazz.

[Conscentia]

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.

I thought you were a Communist.

You people are supposed to be "redistribution of wealth" and all that jazz.

When you capitalise that word, it becomes a proper noun. I'm not part of any such proper noun. I am a communist.

The redistribution of wealth is advocated by communists as part of dismantling the class system. Not to ease heartbreak.

[Imsogone]

I protest this poll. "None of the Above" is not an option.

Also marriages between Animals, Aliens, and Inanimate Objects are not listed either.

The title said "Consensual". Animals, children, and inanimate object are unable to give consent. Since alien life forms (I'm assuming that's what you mean and not aliens from another country) haven't yet been found, that's sort of a non-issue and should be addressed when or if it happens.

[Alien Space Bats]

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.

That's what guns are for, amirite?

[Occupied Deutschland]

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.

That's what guns are for, amirite?

"We now return to our coverage of the Orioles game, being played in an empty stadium due to recent troubles here in Baltimore."
"Indeed, Mike, it's truly a shame the fans couldn't come out to watch the game we've got going today. It's an exciting bit of baseba--"
"Bill, I'm sorry to interrupt, but there seems to be a FOOTBALL flying through the air on the grounds!"
"Where do you think it might have come from, Mike?"
"Seems to be from left-field. FARRRR left-field. In fact, it's so high it seems like it might have come from the other side of the stand themselves. I have no idea who threw it but--oh dear, Bill, it seems to have hit the umpire's helmet and he is gazing around in complete confusion. Even HE doesn't seem to know where it came from. Or why it is here, most likely. Why in the world would there be a football dropping in on a baseball game?"
"I tell you, these baseball games are getting stranger every year, Mike! Mystery footballs coming in from far left-field in an empty stadium? I tell ya', that doesn't make any sense to me."
"Much like the restrictive definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman doesn't make any sense to me, Bill!"
"What?"
"And oh--would you look at this, it seems Peter Loughins is up to bat for the Orioles! Let's hope there's no more random balls flying into the stadium from out of nowhere disrupting this wonderful game!"
"Did you say something about marriage?"

[Othelos]

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.

They didn't say that your ideology was filthy. Reread their post.

[The New Sea Territory]

This thread makes me wanna' vote Republican. Seriously.

Some people reject every argument based on values and morals. It wouldn't surprise me if the next thread is about "consensual pedophilia."

Because your morals don't exist and they would spell doom for the human species.

[Excidium Planetis]

I protest this poll. "None of the Above" is not an option.

Also marriages between Animals, Aliens, and Inanimate Objects are not listed either.

The title said "Consensual". Animals, children, and inanimate object are unable to give consent. Since alien life forms (I'm assuming that's what you mean and not aliens from another country) haven't yet been found, that's sort of a non-issue and should be addressed when or if it happens.

I never mentioned children. Wherever did you get that idea?

It is also a matter of debate (not on this thread, of course) as to whether animals should be considered intelligent enough to deserve the same rights as humans. Since humans are legally allowed to marry, if animals have the same rights as humans, they should be allowed to marry.

Also, inanimate objects can't give consent, but why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my computer if I want to? Who does it hurt if I marry my computer?
(Note: I do not intend to marry an inanimate object, this is merely for arguments' sake)

[Godular]

The title said "Consensual". Animals, children, and inanimate object are unable to give consent. Since alien life forms (I'm assuming that's what you mean and not aliens from another country) haven't yet been found, that's sort of a non-issue and should be addressed when or if it happens.

I never mentioned children. Wherever did you get that idea?

It is also a matter of debate (not on this thread, of course) as to whether animals should be considered intelligent enough to deserve the same rights as humans. Since humans are legally allowed to marry, if animals have the same rights as humans, they should be allowed to marry.

Also, inanimate objects can't give consent, but why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my computer if I want to? Who does it hurt if I marry my computer?
(Note: I do not intend to marry an inanimate object, this is merely for arguments' sake)

Animals would not understand the significance of marriage, nor would they much care. Also: this line of thought is particularly inane and fundamentally irrelevant.

[Conserative Morality]

It is also a matter of debate (not on this thread, of course) as to whether animals should be considered intelligent enough to deserve the same rights as humans. Since humans are legally allowed to marry, if animals have the same rights as humans, they should be allowed to marry.

They don't.

Also, inanimate objects can't give consent, but why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my computer if I want to? Who does it hurt if I marry my computer?
(Note: I do not intend to marry an inanimate object, this is merely for arguments' sake)

It delegitimizes a societal institution currently understood as an expression of commitment between two consenting parties. It's like asking why one's senator can't be a plant - technically, it works, but it no longer fulfills or respects the function of the office/tradition.

[Dyakovo]

It is also a matter of debate (not on this thread, of course) as to whether animals should be considered intelligent enough to deserve the same rights as humans. Since humans are legally allowed to marry, if animals have the same rights as humans, they should be allowed to marry.

They don't.

Also, inanimate objects can't give consent, but why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my computer if I want to? Who does it hurt if I marry my computer?
(Note: I do not intend to marry an inanimate object, this is merely for arguments' sake)

It delegitimizes a societal institution currently understood as an expression of commitment between two consenting parties. It's like asking why one's senator can't be a plant - technically, it works, but it no longer fulfills or respects the function of the office/tradition.

Rather like many non-plant senators in that regard.

[The Alma Mater]

It is also a matter of debate (not on this thread, of course) as to whether animals should be considered intelligent enough to deserve the same rights as humans. Since humans are legally allowed to marry, if animals have the same rights as humans, they should be allowed to marry.

Rights are not an all or nothing package. While it is not legal to steal candy from a baby, said baby is not allowed to drive a car or vote. You can grant the rights that are actually meaningful.

Of course, if animals can understand the concept of marriage is an interesting question. Quite a few of them after all do bond for life.

[Sagredo]

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

"Inanimate object"? Oh no.

I'm not going to let Joe the Plumber split his taxable income with his favourite wrench and pay less tax as though he's supporting another human being with material needs. Group marriage maybe, but only a person should be eligible to be a member of any marriage.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Of course, if animals can understand the concept of marriage is an interesting question. Quite a few of them after all do bond for life.

Can they understand the responsibilities of human property ownership, childcare, and medical decisions? Because most marriage rights pertain to those.

[Chessmistress]

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?

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

It seems you haven't checked Convention of Istanbul text
YES: problem are MEN not WOMEN
And this is not my opinion: this is LAW in Europe, so checkmate to every objection
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetti ... nglish.pdf

a   “violence against women” is understood as a violation of human rights and a
form of discrimination against women and shall mean all acts of gender‐based
violence that result in, or are likely to result in, physical, sexual, psychological or
economic harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or
arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life;
b   “domestic violence” shall mean all acts of physical, sexual, psychological or
economic violence that occur within the family or domestic unit or between
former or current spouses or partners, whether or not the perpetrator shares or
has shared the same residence with the victim;
c   “gender” shall mean the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and
attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men;
d   “gender‐based violence against women” shall mean violence that is directed
against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women
disproportionately;

Special measures are against violence of men against women and that's not hypocritical: that's substantive equality

b   contribute to the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and
promote substantive equality between women and men, including by
empowering women;

Even in Spain is already so, since 2004
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_C ... inst_Women

Courts for Violence Against Women (Spanish: Juzgados de Violencia Sobre la Mujer)

See? It's violence against women!
That's substantive equality!

Many users here have been surprised by me and my ideas, but, simply, I think they don't understand how much mainstream are my ideas in Europe!
I don't think that Spain and European Union are trolls, and you?
FACT IS - REALITY - that Radical Feminism is the driving force of new laws in Europe!
Reality check

MEN are the problem, that's why the GREVIO, the group of experts with special powers will be composed just only by WOMEN, ALL feminists, some of them Radical Feminists!
Check the list of candidates and their curriculums:
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetti ... VIO_CV.asp

That's the first international convention totally drived by Radical Feminist thoughts!
18 nations in Europe have signed it!

I already said Radical Feminism is the future!

[Draakonite]

[...] 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.

Besides, whats stopping them from making a "marriage" contract themselves?

[Val Halla]

Kinda weird how more people are in favor of same sex family marriage than between male and female. Not that I care.

[New Frenco Empire]

Kinda weird how more people are in favor of same sex family marriage than between male and female. Not that I care.

I'd imagine the whole "inbred mutant offspring" thing factors into that. Not that I believe that or anything.

[Torisakia]

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

"Inanimate object"? Oh no.

I'm not going to let Joe the Plumber split his taxable income with his favourite wrench and pay less tax as though he's supporting another human being with material needs. Group marriage maybe, but only a person should be eligible to be a member of any marriage.

You will never understand the love between me and my dakimakura.

Kinda weird how more people are in favor of same sex family marriage than between male and female. Not that I care.

I'd imagine the whole "inbred mutant offspring" thing factors into that. Not that I believe that or anything.

I figured more people would want to see mutant children. You know, with scifi and stuff.

[Val Halla]

"Inanimate object"? Oh no.

I'm not going to let Joe the Plumber split his taxable income with his favourite wrench and pay less tax as though he's supporting another human being with material needs. Group marriage maybe, but only a person should be eligible to be a member of any marriage.

You will never understand the love between me and my dakimakura.

I'd imagine the whole "inbred mutant offspring" thing factors into that. Not that I believe that or anything.

I figured more people would want to see mutant children. You know, with scifi and stuff.

I think that'd shut up people who complain about it, if it created super heroes.

[Chessmistress]

Kinda weird how more people are in favor of same sex family marriage than between male and female. Not that I care.

I don't think it's weird.
Probably more and more people are just realising that, maybe, and I said "maybe", same-sex relationships are better - in example women are not exposed to male violence (please don't answer I'm extreme and check my previous posts: Convention of Istanbul is a reality) - and that can be applied almost to everything:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle ... women-gaze
Again: that article is dated April, 21, 2015, and that's the Guardian, a very important English newspaper: you can disagree with it, but please do not say I'm an extremist if I agree with Arwa Mahdawi when she write

it intuitively feels far more equitable than a woman dancing for men.

[Val Halla]

Kinda weird how more people are in favor of same sex family marriage than between male and female. Not that I care.

I don't think it's weird.
Probably more and more people are just realising that, maybe, and I said "maybe", same-sex relationships are better - in example women are not exposed to male violence (please don't answer I'm extreme and check my previous posts: Convention of Istanbul is a reality) - and that can be applied almost to everything:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle ... women-gaze
Again: that article is dated April, 21, 2015, and that's the Guardian, a very important English newspaper: you can disagree with it, but please do not say I'm an extremist if I agree with Arwa Mahdawi when she write

it intuitively feels far more equitable than a woman dancing for men.

I cannot say that it's better than marriages between male and female, but it's certainly no worse.Any consensual marriage is as good as the traditional man-woman marriage. It's just, if I were to get married, I don't want to be bound to just one person.

[Chessmistress]

I cannot say that it's better than marriages between male and female, but it's certainly no worse.Any consensual marriage is as good as the traditional man-woman marriage. It's just, if I were to get married, I don't want to be bound to just one person.

I'm glad we have a common ground of discussion. It's difficult for me, here, because many people seems misunderstanding my thoughts.
There's nothing bad with polyamory and even bounding with multiple persons, I think that's good and that will be the future. I'm just concerned about poligyny and male violence within relationships. I really hope the outcomes, new laws, of Convention of Istanbul will definitively rid out the problem of violence against women, that I really think is the main problem within heterosexual relationships, not just only within marriages, I mean.
Then, when this problem will be definitively solved, all kinds of marriages will be allowed, and I'll be glad about that.
I don't think a family needs a male and a female to work, and I think that, in example, in many situations two mothers can perform even better. I'm not the only one who thinks so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_H ... Family_Way
Harriet Harman, British Labour Party politician and Member of Parliament (MP) for Camberwell and Peckham since 1982. She has been Deputy Leader of the Labour Party since 2007, and is also currently Shadow Deputy Prime Minister and Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

Harman co-authored a 1990 IPPR report "The Family Way" which stated "it cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion".[32][33] In May 2008 an interview she gave to think tank Civitas Harman stated that there was "no ideal type of household in which to bring up children".

[The 93rd Coalition]

Yay, we have one of these. Marriage thread is best thread.

I approve of all marriages between unrelated, consenting human beings - I think that covers it - but I have issues with incest and beastality. Especially the latter, which is the only form I would never push to legalize (animals do not consent.) However, I would push for the legalization of incest, seeing as how it would indeed be between two consenting adults. At least, most likely.

The reason for this is the general argument; inbreeding leads to defects (even serious ones) down the line. But it goes along with my reason for supporting choice; we deal with the humans now, not the ones coming later. As a "side dish" we should look for options that can fix or even wipe out the existence of these defects, at least the pesky ones like blood diseases.

[Val Halla]

I cannot say that it's better than marriages between male and female, but it's certainly no worse.Any consensual marriage is as good as the traditional man-woman marriage. It's just, if I were to get married, I don't want to be bound to just one person.

I'm glad we have a common ground of discussion. It's difficult for me, here, because many people seems misunderstanding my thoughts.
There's nothing bad with polyamory and even bounding with multiple persons, I think that's good and that will be the future. I'm just concerned about poligyny and male violence within relationships. I really hope the outcomes, new laws, of Convention of Istanbul will definitively rid out the problem of violence against women, that I really think is the main problem within heterosexual relationships, not just only within marriages, I mean.
Then, when this problem will be definitively solved, all kinds of marriages will be allowed, and I'll be glad about that.
I don't think a family needs a male and a female to work, and I think that, in example, in many situations two mothers can perform even better. I'm not the only one who thinks so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_H ... Family_Way
Harriet Harman, British Labour Party politician and Member of Parliament (MP) for Camberwell and Peckham since 1982. She has been Deputy Leader of the Labour Party since 2007, and is also currently Shadow Deputy Prime Minister and Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

Harman co-authored a 1990 IPPR report "The Family Way" which stated "it cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion".[32][33] In May 2008 an interview she gave to think tank Civitas Harman stated that there was "no ideal type of household in which to bring up children".

What a child needs, in my mind, is two kinds of parents. One needs to be firm, assertive, dominant, but ultimately fair. One needs to be more benevolent, warm hearted and kind. This is what is most vital to a family. Provided a child has both, it doesn't matter.