This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
How do you define 'marriage'?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Jubilee
I guess I have no idea what your situation is. My best friend's step-dad signed court document when he got married, and got full parental rights.
Adoptions should be available and legal. Government should be able to make child custody law, without making marriage law. The two are not inseparable, and for all intents and purposes, are already separated in practice.
But once every single nuance is worked out, what will be different? Whether implicitly or in writing, contracts will be made regarding children, money, and responsibilities.
Post by
MyTie
But once every single nuance is worked out, what will be different? Whether implicitly or in writing, contracts will be made regarding children, money, and responsibilities.
The difference will be that people will be free to marry whomever they want.
I have a hunch homosexual marriage rates would go way down. If there is no benefit to being married other than religious views, I don't think homosexuals would care that much anymore. I'm sure some still would, but I think there is probably a higher per capita atheistic view with homosexuals than with heterosexuals. I think this is regardless.
My entire problem is that I don't believe there is any authority in my marriage other than God, and government is making itself the law maker on marriage. If government can tell two people they can't get married, what is to stop it from regulating my marriage? I think the constitution should protect me and my marriage, and all of my religious traditions from government, as long as I'm not hurting anyone else.
Post by
Jubilee
Obviously homosexual marriage rates would go down if you define half the current marriages as something else. I don't think that solves anything though. The government would still have to regulate all those contracts fairly. If the point is that the government can't regulate it fairly as it stands now, then they will have the same problems later.
To clarify, it's not that homosexuals want to get married. It's that they want to be treated equally. Re-branding marriage will only re-brand the problem.
Post by
MyTie
Obviously homosexual marriage rates would go down if you define half the current marriages as something else. I don't think that solves anything though. The government would still have to regulate all those contracts fairly. If the point is that the government can't regulate it fairly as it stands now, then they will have the same problems later.
To clarify, it's not that homosexuals want to get married. It's that they want to be treated equally. Re-branding marriage will only re-brand the problem.
I don't propose a redefine or a rebrand. I propose to stop branding and stop defining. There would be no contract. There would be nothing to regulation. If there is some property that is in dispute, take it to property court and show financial interest in it. If kids are involved take the issue to custody court. There is really no item, person, or right that cannot be decided outside of having a marriage contract.
Further, if no one has a marriage contract, how will homosexuals not have equal standing?
Post by
Jubilee
I don't propose a redefine or a rebrand. I propose to stop branding and stop defining. There would be no contract. There would be nothing to regulation. If there is some property that is in dispute, take it to property court and show financial interest in it. If kids are involved take the issue to custody court. There is really no item, person, or right that cannot be decided outside of having a marriage contract.
Further, if no one has a marriage contract, how will homosexuals not have equal standing?
Homosexuals
don't
have universal equal standing for adoption and custody. I agree that every issue under marriage law could be divorced from the term marriage. But each of the individual issues would still be an issue. If you could solve those issues in the first place, there would be no need for what you are proposing.
Post by
gamerunknown
Abolishing the marriage contract entirely solves the problem of inheritance and custody (if custody was an issue), but what about hospital visiting rights and adoption? Do you think the government has the right to intervene in cases where an individual wants their partner to visit them in hospital and the hospital declines since they're not married?
Also, if the child is happy to be adopted by a homosexual couple but the adoption agency isn't happy to allow the child to be adopted by them, would that warrant government intervention?
Post by
Adamsm
I'd still like to know why it's always the Catholic/Christian definition of marriage that get's thrown around all the time, since quite a few other cultures have had the concept for far longer then they've existed.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Homosexuals
don't
have universal equal standing for adoption and custody. I agree that every issue under marriage law could be divorced from the term marriage. But each of the individual issues would still be an issue. If you could solve those issues in the first place, there would be no need for what you are proposing.
But I'm not setting out to solve all those other issues, but just to solve the problem of government intrusion on people's basic freedoms. Care for a game of magic?
Post by
Jubilee
But I'm not setting out to solve all those other issues, but just to solve the problem of government intrusion on people's basic freedoms. Care for a game of magic?
Not letting a lesbian couple adopt a child together is a problem of government intrusion on people's basic freedoms too.
I can't play right now, I'm studying for an exam I have in two hours.
Post by
MyTie
Not letting a lesbian couple adopt a child together is a problem of government intrusion on people's basic freedoms too.So:
Situation A) Lesbians not allowed to get married or adopt a child, and Taiwan is not independant from China.
Situation B) Lesbians allowed to get married, but not adopt a child, and Taiwan is still not independant from China.
Now, I propose to change the part about "not allowed to get married" from A to B. I do not address part B or C. In fact, part A has little to do with part B or C. I want to fix an issue. You bring up other things that have nothing to do with the issue I wish to fix. You think if government decided to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals, all of a sudden there would be no road block to homosexuals adopting children? That is a separate issue, and in a different thread, I'll debate it with you all day long. But on this one issue, I would love to take government's strong arm off of our rights. Can you not agree with that without amending other issues onto this one?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I define it as: "None of my damn business, unless it's my marriage."
EDIT: And by none of my business, I don't mean I don't care. I mean no one should be telling someone who they can and can't marry (unless they're protecting underage participants), because it's none of THEIR business. They can give advice and opinion, but in the end they shouldn't have any power over it.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Rystrave
Marriage to me is an agreement between two people to be there for each other, through thick and thin, regardless of speed bumps and curveballs it might throw at them. It's more than a stupid piece of legal paper - it's a commitment.
Marriage is taken way too lightly nowadays. Monogomy is forgotten; divorce seems to be the cool thing to do.
I grew up with strong morals and that once you truely love someone you are to be true to them, and better your lives TOGETHER.
I know of a girl my age who has had 6 husbands and has children with 5 of them. She is 24, going on 25. I'm 23, going on 24. She left each husband because she got bored with him and got knocked up by someone else. So on, and so forth. She's now on her 6th husband and living off child support, and lives in her mother's basement with her husband.
Talk about a classy individual.
Now, take note I am not religious. I grew up Catholic, but after being gagged on religious views I am now agnostic. Many people have said "You sound like a bible thumping goodie-goodie" because of my opinion.
That being said, I feel like I was raised right: I had loving parents that loved each other since they met; that divorce is an embarrassment (there are circumstances; abuse, family negligence, and rape I feel are all reasons to file for divorce); and that marriage is until death do you part.
Post by
pezz
I know of a girl my age who has had 6 husbands and has children with 5 of them. She is 24, going on 25. I'm 23, going on 24. She left each husband because she got bored with him and got knocked up by someone else. So on, and so forth. She's now on her 6th husband and living off child support, and lives in her mother's basement with her husband.
Talk about a classy individual.
Ah yes, serial monogamy. The last refuge of those who don't like being sexually exclusive but do like climbing up on those moral high-horses.
Post by
gamerunknown
Since Asakawa asked the discussion in the RB to split off into another thread and I figured it wasn't really worth it's own thread...
Because it WAS okay for the congregation until FUTURE leadership declared it null (possibly to gain admittance into the Union, but that's neither here nor there).
So it's perfectly fine to rescind on moral values for political gains? What if gay marriage becomes popular enough, would God himself declare marriage to be between two consenting adults because that's what's trending?
Remember, God is omniscient. What possible reason could He have to give one message to Joseph Smith and a contradictory one to Brigham Young?
Post by
Adamsm
Remember, God is omniscient. What possible reason could He have to give one message to Joseph Smith and a contradictory one to Brigham Young?
While the big 'G' is omniscient..........the people who interpret what he is trying to say are not; remember, that whole little wrinkle about Free Will? Since, while God may know every move we are going to make since He's far above us, we are on the ground in a massive maze with thousands of paths.
Post by
Monday
Since Asakawa asked the discussion in the RB to split off into another thread
You're assuming I want to continue the discussion.
Remember what they say about assumptions?
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
322702
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.