What do you all think about privatizing marriage? Should we allow couples and the religious or private institutions of their choosing determine the terms of the marriage contract? Is it immoral and unjust that we need state-granted permission (a license) to form a contractual, voluntary agreement with our partners? Or..... Do marriage laws have their place? Would this create more problems than it solves? I would like to hear your opinions and share mine. The topic pertains to gay AND straight marriages.
Letting the state have any say is ridiculousnot to mention a bit creepy. "Baby, I love you so much. Let's get the government (men with guns and license to kill) involved so that you can't legally get away from me.
Yeah. The way I see it, it's just basic contract law. If you want to form a civil partnership of sorts, be it marriage or whatever else, you draw up a contract. i.e. If I were to marry my girl right now, we would draw up a contract defining the terms of our marriage, property allocations, legal agency in certain situations, etc. Sign it with witnesses, perform whatever ceremony our belief systems permit. Done. We're married. No need for intervention except in cases of breach of contract. I believe it's not a popular concept because married people want the tax and other legal benefits that they are currently allotted, which would naturally cease to exist once individuals get to define their own marriages.
We need regulations to stop people (including those in gov't) from abusing privileges... but beyond that, marriage seems like something that should not be any of the state's business, and should be kept between the two (or more?) persons engaging in the agreement. It's everyone's "right" to choose to call themselves married. it's a privilege to receive benefits from the state, due to being married. The people's agreement should be up to them, and whether the state grants any privileges accordingly, should be up to the state? (which consists of people... who have control over what "the state" does... hmmm...)
I thought I read once that it has only been since the 1800s that the state got involved. At any rate, the idea is laughable that the blessings of politicians will make a living arrangement "moral," vs. "living in sin."
My marriage is already private and it is 100% voluntary. We set the terms of our "contract", as it pertains to the aspects of our relationship that only affect us. But what are you suggesting? That we scribble all of this on a piece of paper, and think that others should or will respect it? Will WE still respect it if our relationship changes over time? Having a legal document doesn't change the terms of how we live or interact together. But it does establish a clear relationship between myself, my partner, our children, my parents and my in-laws. Contracts aren't necessary at all when everyone gets along and is in agreement... it's when they are not, that they become necessary.
It's a necessary evil - for various reasons including but not limited to the production of children. My partner and I have no children, but we married, in a civil ceremony, and it's been financially beneficial. I don't care if other people live together without marriage, depending on the type of relationship and the people involved it might be better for some.
No, it hasn't. It has been relatively recently that we have allowed the state to control this institution. I would love to see the state end all benefits associated with being married, and stop keeping track of who is and who isn't. Leave it up to couples and their religious institutions, if any.
Assuming tax laws and other similar laws are already in place, there needs to be some sort of official union in the eyes of the law. However I don't see why a private organization can't be licensed to marry people. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
That wasn't the ops question. And also. You can't predict the future just sayin Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
I stopped taking this post seriously right there. The rest can be summed up like so many of your other posts. "as long as I am financially benefited then nothing else matters"
It's nice, how you guys take it for granted. Not everyone can marry whom they choose to. Yes the financial benefits are nice but the nicest part is knowing your spouse can be there with you during hospitalization, they can hold your hand when you're dying or vise versa. I'm guessing that the ones who say "financial benefits" have never actually been in love.
Why is it that not everyone can marry who they want to, such as a man and another man? Isn't there some type of group of powerful individuals that prevent it? Seems to me they'd benefit from having the freedom to marry as they choose. Doesn't really make sense that recognizing that financial benefits accompany marriage also means that one has lacked the experience of being in love. I just don't follow that mindset....could you please expand?
Yes, government in many states and countries ban same sex marriage. Religious groups also prevent same sex marriage. If the only thing people can say about marriage is about the financial benefits then in my own opinion they have the wrong idea about marriage, as my aforementioned post stated, yes I think the financial benefits are nice but the benefit of being able to assist your loved one in a hospital, not being forced to testify against them and then having the right to make medical decisions for you if the time arises is better than the financial benefits. Maybe try reading it again
Except that this isn't the only thing being said about marriage, it just happened to be a specific aspect brought to our attention by Runningw235, and it finances are definitely something to be taken into consideration when marrying someone. Hospital visits, testifying, and medical decisions are, in my opinion, already implied when it comes to marriage. I don't really think anyone here has the wrong idea about marriage, I reread the post like you suggested, and I still am not understanding how if one says there's financial benefits to marriage it means they've never been in love.
I SAID that if that's the ONLY thing they mention.... If the only reason someone wants to get married is financial reasons, then in my own personal opinion they aren't in love. Again let me say that if the only thing someone says about marriage is financial reasons then to me that doesn't scream love.
The only price you pay with marriage, is buying into a concept and process which has been used to literally exploit others from being joined in unity since the design of the marriage license. A marriage license wasn't created as a term of proof; it was created as a means of privatizing marriage at a legal level- a level that took perfectly good human beings in the LGBQT community, for example, an unfathomable amount of time to even put a dent in, even in the modern "progressive" world we live in today. If you love anyone period, you shouldn't feel the need to go through this legal process of changing names, and involving the state, when a couple can function autonomously as any married couple would without the sham of "being joined in name". Like Shakespeare said, "What the fuck's in a name?" People minimize their individuality, and romanticize this relatively dark process as essentially one of the largest stepping stones in their lives. People dream of getting married and living happily ever after, but it's really just romanticism laced with mindless consumerism of both the material and fantastical. To them, it's second prom, it's the first date you and your fiance had, it's a pocketful of sunshine and asshole full of ponies. Me personally, I have never truly believed in the institution of marriage. Even as a kid, it didn't make sense to me why an act of "love" costs thousands of dollars for a "yes", and then thousands of dollars for another yes in front of family, and then half of my earnings of those "yes" answers eventually become "no". Still don't. If I love someone I am there, and if I don't, I'm gone. I decided a long time ago, that if I'm going to commit to anything serious, it's going to be a relationship that is more unorthodox than anything. None of this "marriage" bullshit. If we are partners and kindred spirits, then we will be bonded by something more spiritually or existentually deep than a piece of paper validated by a government that fucks me in the ass more than I would to my own girlfriend on any given day of the week.