Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-16-2018, 03:39 PM
 
Location: NNJ
15,053 posts, read 10,045,925 times
Reputation: 17223

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
I completely agree. However, I don't view legal marriage as something religious, and thus something which violates the beloved principal of separation of church and state.
I don't think many share your views.

The groups that fight to protect the current legal status of marriage tout arguments around the sanctity of the union between a man and woman. Simply put.. any attempt to removal or allowing same sex marriage is an attack against the sanctity of marriage itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-16-2018, 03:40 PM
 
Location: SoCal
14,530 posts, read 20,056,677 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit View Post
I have no reason to... that's why absent of legal marriage there would need to be a framework of laws to protect the beneficiaries. Separation of church and state... protect the individuals not the religious institution.
Marriage is not a religious relationship if you don't want it to be. You've heard of a civil marriage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2018, 05:32 PM
 
Location: NNJ
15,053 posts, read 10,045,925 times
Reputation: 17223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovehound View Post
Marriage is not a religious relationship if you don't want it to be. You've heard of a civil marriage.
Legal marriage is modeled by the religious marriage (two unmarried people, joined, man and woman). Civil union doesn't afford the same benefits as legal marriage. They are also only recognized at the state level which has implications.

Even with civil unions, I cannot name another person who is already married or a person who is a friend or family member.

I am legally married... I didn't have a religious ceremony. However it still doesn't address the concerns the OP has about marriage nor the concerns I have about beneficiaries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2018, 06:11 PM
 
Location: SoCal
14,530 posts, read 20,056,677 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit View Post
However it still doesn't address the concerns the OP has about marriage nor the concerns I have about beneficiaries.
There isn't any way to address the OP's concerns. That's why we have the mess we have today. It's broken and it can't be fixed.

You can fix only one part at a time, and that causes collateral damage to the rest of the system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2018, 06:13 PM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,612,234 times
Reputation: 12523
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit View Post
I don't think many share your views.

The groups that fight to protect the current legal status of marriage tout arguments around the sanctity of the union between a man and woman. Simply put.. any attempt to removal or allowing same sex marriage is an attack against the sanctity of marriage itself.
Fundamentalist groups? Yes, they do. Nonetheless, marriage pre-dates their religion and thus is hardly their exclusive domain. Government has no religious requirements whatsoever regarding marriage.

Besides, these groups have already lost their war. It matters little to me if they share my views or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2018, 06:18 PM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,612,234 times
Reputation: 12523
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit View Post
Legal marriage is modeled by the religious marriage (two unmarried people, joined, man and woman). Civil union doesn't afford the same benefits as legal marriage. They are also only recognized at the state level which has implications.

Even with civil unions, I cannot name another person who is already married or a person who is a friend or family member.

I am legally married... I didn't have a religious ceremony. However it still doesn't address the concerns the OP has about marriage nor the concerns I have about beneficiaries.
How would OP's concerns be addressed? Prison sentences for those who cheat on their spouse? For those who no longer wish to be married? For those with custody disputes?

There is no legal remedy for OP's concerns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2018, 06:23 PM
 
Location: SoCal
14,530 posts, read 20,056,677 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
Fundamentalist groups? Yes, they do. Nonetheless, marriage pre-dates their religion and thus is hardly their exclusive domain. Government has no religious requirements whatsoever regarding marriage.
Why are plural marriages not allowed under present law then? I'll tell you why. Utah wanted to join the Union as a state, the Union was influenced by religion that plural marriages were sinful, and Utah got handed the edict: You can become a state if you make plural marriages illegal. They cut the deal and Utah became our 45th state.

Yet plural marriage is alive and well today in Colorado City which lies on the border between UT and AZ. They just keep a low profile. I'm sure plural marriage is widely practiced today in some areas, but kept quiet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2018, 06:30 PM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,612,234 times
Reputation: 12523
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit View Post
I am fine with that. I don't think taxation is enough reason to write in religious marriage into law.
I don't think there is ANY valid reason to write in religious marriage into law. <shudder>

Rather, I am arguing there is no need to end legal marriage. People can marry, or not, as they choose.

Legal matters affect all and thus should concern all.

Religious matters affect only those of that particular religion; they can work out those matters however they think best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2018, 06:44 PM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,612,234 times
Reputation: 12523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovehound View Post
Why are plural marriages not allowed under present law then? I'll tell you why. Utah wanted to join the Union as a state, the Union was influenced by religion that plural marriages were sinful, and Utah got handed the edict: You can become a state if you make plural marriages illegal. They cut the deal and Utah became our 45th state.

Yet plural marriage is alive and well today in Colorado City which lies on the border between UT and AZ. They just keep a low profile. I'm sure plural marriage is widely practiced today in some areas, but kept quiet.
Yes, that is true. But Utah was not asked to surrender it's Mormon religion, only it's practice of polygamy. The largest Mormon religion today (the LDS church) does not practice plural marriage and yet is still Mormon.

Plural marriage is practiced today, but the second spouse on are only recognized as such by their religion. These are not legally recognized marriages and as such do not enjoy any of the protections/benefits of legal marriage.

My view on polygamy is similar to the view I have expressed upthread: no, it should not be possible to have more than one legal spouse at a time. Permitting that will result in surrendering the protections/benefits of legal marriage for everyone.

However, I also do not think those who practice plural marriage should be prosecuted, unless they are engaging in the practice of marrying off their underage girls to adult men, or abandoning their teen boys to fend for themselves. Both practices are disgusting, illegal, and should be prosecuted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2018, 06:44 PM
 
Location: SoCal
14,530 posts, read 20,056,677 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
I don't think there is ANY valid reason to write in religious marriage into law. <shudder>

Rather, I am arguing there is no need to end legal marriage. People can marry, or not, as they choose.

Legal matters affect all and thus should concern all.

Religious matters affect only those of that particular religion; they can work out those matters however they think best.
I'll agree to that!

But we still have the fact that marriage is legally intertwined into our legal system. Nothing will change that except human nature, and human nature does not change. (Or at least not other than over periods of millenia. I'm thinking that women are far less chattel than they were 1,000 or 2,000 years ago.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:32 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top