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.
I think that legal marriage should be gotten rid of altogether (for heterosexuals, homosexuals, and any other kind of sexuals) and marriage should be left up to religious institutions to define. Then the other major purpose of marriage, which is to create a legal safety network for raising children, should be dealt with in a new manner.
I think that legal safety networks that help support children and the like should be a matter of showing up and signing up because I don't think that biology is enough to claim the ability to parent for a child. So it will matter little who gave birth to the child--instead, parents should instead be asked to prove their commitment to a child by showing up at the hospital and signing the birth certificate, and a child should be able to have at many parents as adults decide they are responsible for the child. The parents may be in a religious marriage (satisfies traditional folks) or they may be two people are who aren't married but agree to be partners in raising a child, or it may even be three people or four people who all agree to raise a child (step-parents, for example).
As for who has contract to children, that should be agreed upon by one or several consenting adults. Any disagreements could be held in a special family court. This system would also make the adoption process easier for those who want to adopt, but would require a biological parent to prove their desire for parenting which would help eliminate negligent parents whose only tie to the child is through blood. In other words, parents would be held to a higher standard than they are now, and irresponsible teens wouldn't be able to just go out and get pregnant. Minors 16-18 who had a child could sign onto a contract under the condition they are financially eligible (either by themselves or through supportive family) and attend parenting classes.
I think that there should be no legal contract that gives certain people rights over others in relation to their loved ones. We should all be granted visitation rights, medical rights, and inheritances based on the will of the person in question. In other words, people should be encouraged to write their will early on and include in the will who will have rights to making medical decisions if the person is not able to themselves anymore and so on. This will should regularly be updated as new people come into the person's life and old people die out.
Then what's left of marriage, which is the whole social aspect of being seen as a couple, can be left to churches and other religious institutions. Some churches may only grant male-female marriages. Some may grant male-male/female-female ones. Some may even grant polyamorous ones.
The only law that should define these contracts IMO is that they include all consenting parties. In other words, all the parties must be of age and of mind to consent to the marriage. That rules out children, animals, and objects, but other than that, there need be no limits defined by anyone other than the organization granting the marriage. People that are against same-sex marriage can be married by an organization that doesn't grant those kinds of marriages and people who want to marry the same sex can be married by an organization that does. And other than that, legal contracts can be treated just like any other legal contract. Any two or three or four people that can sign a lease should be able to get a legal binding to raise a child together or to get hospital visitation rights, etc., and any parties that can't sign a lease (ducks, lamps, 5-year-olds) shouldn't be able to sign such a contract either.
That to me seems like a solution that would make everyone happy. I'd love to hear from other people if there are any flaws or other aspects worth considering. Obviously a lot of the details would still need to be worked out, but I think as a general idea, it would help revamp the way family, from a strictly legal sense, is defined. The way family is defined emotionally is obviously up to the people in the family, and the way it's defined religiously is up to the organizations who operate according to a set of religious values.
Last edited by nimchimpsky; 11-28-2011 at 05:25 AM..
Anytime you have to put a modifier in front of the word "marriage" to accurately describe what you mean, you ain't talkin' about "marriage" any longer.
oh you mean like "Catholic" marriage, or "Korean" marriage or "senior" marriage. Being specific isn't bad in describing what one is talking about..... Like "stupid" conservative, or "ignorant" redneck, or "sheet toting" racist ...... see how it further defines or do you think there is no reason to being specific?
The definition of marriage was changed when the racial component changed. The definition of marriage changed when the woman was no longer considered property of her husband or legally beatable. Just because the definition of marriage in your mind hasn't changed on the issue of sex doesn't mean the definition of marriage hasn't already changed multiple times.
Yes, but what about marriage has remained constant?? Will you be honest enough to say?
I personally haven't called you (or anyone else) hurtful names, but you're right in that it does nothing to help the argument. Regardless, your debates are simply weak and based on nothing but religious beliefs - poorly interpreted and misunderstood beliefs, nonetheless. And I think MOST people are in agreement that religion doesn't belong in government, thus it has no place in defining marriage. While you can get married in a church/temple/etc, it's not required or legally binding without governmental laws.
And not to be rude, but I don't think anyone cares what YOU think is the definition of marriage. You have the right to think these things, but again it shouldn't have any bearing on the laws. Everyone has their personal beliefs and definitions, but it's up to the government/courts to determine what is legally just... and these decisions are constantly changing, so the argument "that's how it's always been" really doesn't fly. Minorities and women used to be denied equal rights by the government, and marriage used to be about human ownership & property, but our society evolved and overturned these regulations - as we eventually will in terms of gay marriage. Sorry, but that's how things go in a civilized nation.
This thread is titled "How do you feel about same-sex marriage". Why am I being lambasted for stating my view?
I've already agreed that religion should not be the deciding factor in the matter. I do, however, object to redefining marriage. All of the previous examples (interracial marriage, ownership, etc) does nothing to disprove the fact that marriage has always been about a union between a man and a woman. That's the bottom line and I greatly oppose changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage. Seriously...if you're allowed all of the rights of married couples, by way of civil unions, why is that an insult?
1. No, marriage has not always been defined as a union between one man and one woman. I think you are unaware and uneducated about the history of marriage in human societies and the definition of marriage from an ethnological, religious, or cultural point of view. Historians, anthropologists, and sociologists could easily refute your assertion.
Can you provide proof instead of just generic information?
2. On the surface it appears that granting gay people the right to form "civil unions" is a solution to the same sex marriage debate ... but civil unions are NOT equal to marriage. It's like saying "you can ride on the bus, but you have to sit on the back seat." Courts here in the US have already noted that "civil unions" and "marriages" are not equal or the same.
Here we go again with the Civil Rights comparison. No, it's not the same, because that's not *equal* access to rights. It imposes a restriction (if no seats are in the back of the bus, then what?).
If courts don't recognize that civil unions and marriage are equitable, then that's where the fight should be...make those two things equal.
There's sexual fidelity requirements on marriage??? I'll concede it's the norm, but I assure you there are millions of married couples who are consensually non-monagamous, and they are not violating any laws. Traditions, perhaps, but not laws.
Interesting point. My soon to be ex- and I tried this and it didn't work out too well. Oops! Live and learn. But more to the point, at one time I dug out and examined our wedding vows and found to my surprise that there was no reference to monogamy in them in the first place!
The same went for women's rights and civil rights for African Americans.
Your point?
Might want to review your postings before you make additional comments like the ones in your first paragraph.
Seems like those who were oppressed love to oppress others.
Interesting how most use religion as a basis for hatred.
OMG...why are you guys harping on the Civil Rights movement with me? Is it because I'm the obvious black person in this thread? Who am I oppressing? I haven't voted for/against anything, so how are my personal beliefs actively oppressing anybody?
Where have I stated that I don't want gays to have access to the full rights granted to married couples? I'll tell you...nowhere. In fact, I've stated just the opposite.
And I've taken religion out of my argument. Why are you reintroducing it?
Twenty-four states have criminal statutes prohibiting adultery, and you can be sure provable adultery will be addressed in any civil divorce proceeding regardless of criminal law.
Those statutes are probably unenforceable in light of the reasoning in Lawrence v. Texas. It is proper for adultery to be addressed as a civil offense as any other breach of contract would be, provided that monogamy was part of the contract (I discovered that it was not mentioned in my wedding vows.)
There have been quite a few links posted that deal with the fact that marriages have neither always been religious nor between only heterosexual couples. Guess you chose to ignore them.
Did you even read my post before your outrage kicked in? I said that even absent the religious component, marriage has been a man/woman union. Can you provide reputable evidence to the contrary?
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.
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.
No, it's not the same, because that's not *equal* access to rights. It imposes a restriction (if no seats are in the back of the bus, then what?). 
