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.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
Advertisements
I agree with this and I would do the same for straights. The government should not be handing out a "marriage license" to anybody. All the government should do is give them a "civil union agreement" to sign and notarize. That, in effect, makes a LEGAL agreement between the 2 parties that is registered with the government.
Marriage is a religious thing and should be left to the church. If 2 people- whether gay or straight- get a legal Civil Union Contract and then choose to go through a religious or non religious marriage ceremony, that is up to them. The government should no longer be involved past the signing of the Civil Union Contract.
Conversely, if 2 people feel the need for religious reasons to be married "in the eyes of God" but for financial or other reasons choose not to be in a Civil Union, they could be married in a church without being legally united in a Civil Union. Of course, even though they are married, they would not be afforded the legal rights and protections of those with a Civil Union nor would they be allowed to file as a married couple on tax returns.
This would solve 2 problems- it would put gays and straights on an equal footing and it would get the government out of what is largely a religious domain.
I agree with this and I would do the same for straights. The government should not be handing out a "marriage license" to anybody. All the government should do is give them a "civil union agreement" to sign and notarize. That, in effect, makes a LEGAL agreement between the 2 parties that is registered with the government.
Marriage is a religious thing and should be left to the church. If 2 people- whether gay or straight- get a legal Civil Union Contract and then choose to go through a religious or non religious marriage ceremony, that is up to them. The government should no longer be involved past the signing of the Civil Union Contract.
Conversely, if 2 people feel the need for religious reasons to be married "in the eyes of God" but for financial or other reasons choose not to be in a Civil Union, they could be married in a church without being legally united in a Civil Union. Of course, even though they are married, they would not be afforded the legal rights and protections of those with a Civil Union nor would they be allowed to file as a married couple on tax returns.
This would solve 2 problems- it would put gays and straights on an equal footing and it would get the government out of what is largely a religious domain.
Well said. It is what I have been trying to figure out how to say and it addresses the problem from both sides.
I agree. I've held this position for a coupla years now. If any two adult persons wish to form a legal commitment to one another, with all the rights and benefits recognized in what we today call a 'marraige' then the county should be able to authorize a 'civil union'... 'sign here, swear or affirm, I now pronounce you legally bound...'
If any two adult persons wish to form a 'marraige' then they should call their respective pope.
The 'marraige' thing done today is just some preacher doing the same 'I swear' thing done in a county office. It's just made to look prettier. And the real benefit gays seek is to have a legal position with his/her mate, ie, in the event of illness, death, kids, insurance, etc.
Europe does it and many younger couples, straight and gay are utilizing the Civil Union vice Marriage. Things don't work out, you go on your way, just stop where you had your union performed and dissolve it.
I agree! Waaayy back when, marriages were the contract between a woman's father or other responsible male relative and her husband. It was a means of handling over responsibility. It established property rights and inheritance. Now, it also includes things like next-of-kin issues, who gets covered on health insurance and a host of other things.
Changing certain laws and establishing civil contracts could do the same. Then, if the couple wanted the union blessed by a church so that it would be a religious union too, then it would be up to the couple.
I have never quite understood the Insurance Industry's stand on health insurance. It seems to me that if I want to pay the premium for coverage for anyone, neighbor, lover, cousin, uncle or what not, then I should be able to arrange coverage for them. I would think they could set the premium high enough to make it a money maker.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padgett2
I agree! Waaayy back when, marriages were the contract between a woman's father or other responsible male relative and her husband. It was a means of handling over responsibility. It established property rights and inheritance. Now, it also includes things like next-of-kin issues, who gets covered on health insurance and a host of other things.
Changing certain laws and establishing civil contracts could do the same. Then, if the couple wanted the union blessed by a church so that it would be a religious union too, then it would be up to the couple.
I have never quite understood the Insurance Industry's stand on health insurance. It seems to me that if I want to pay the premium for coverage for anyone, neighbor, lover, cousin, uncle or what not, then I should be able to arrange coverage for them. I would think they could set the premium high enough to make it a money maker.
Hopefully when we get National Health care that issue will be moot as it is in canada and the UK
There needs to be an element involved that makes it enduring. Marriage can be dissolved only by a divorce, and you cannot have two of them going at the same time. That's fine. You can't have people willy nilly having "one night stands" of civil unions every time it suits their convenience. It would not be useful if a person who had no insurance and needed an operation to simply enter into a civil union with somebody who had insurance. Thst's the whole purpose of not having universal health care---to deny coverage to people like that. Remember, denying health care to Americans is more important to the fabric of our society than preserving marriage, Think of Green Card civil unions. There would be people living in the USA who do not deserve to live here, just by getting a green-card civil union with an anointed American. Keeping "the wrong kind of people" out of the US is more important than preserving marriage.
There needs to be an element involved that makes it enduring. Marriage can be dissolved only by a divorce, and you cannot have two of them going at the same time. That's fine. You can't have people willy nilly having "one night stands" of civil unions every time it suits their convenience. It would not be useful if a person who had no insurance and needed an operation to simply enter into a civil union with somebody who had insurance. Thst's the whole purpose of not having universal health care---to deny coverage to people like that. Remember, denying health care to Americans is more important to the fabric of our society than preserving marriage, Think of Green Card civil unions. There would be people living in the USA who do not deserve to live here, just by getting a green-card civil union with an anointed American. Keeping "the wrong kind of people" out of the US is more important than preserving marriage.
There are already a lot of green-card weddings. Many many sham marriages for the purpose of getting one here who will then start bringing in the rest of the family.
Maybe they should get away from the whole idea of government marriage. Prenuptial agreements are one way for a couple to decide how they will handle the split of of assets.
Custody of children and child support should be done for the children. Most states have done away with alimony and anything that gives the wife anything.
This would solve 2 problems- it would put gays and straights on an equal footing and it would get the government out of what is largely a religious domain.
Is it possible to agree... that 'marriage' is a 'straight' institution? By straights, for straights so to speak. Why then, by all that is Holy would or rather, should, straight people want to have Gay people on 'equal footing with them in matters of pairing, reproduction and family life??!!
Furthermore, it could be argued that marriage is not even natural to homo sapiens! Marriage is a social construct invented by control types to determine the flow of wealth or maybe to increase the flow into church coffers. "Be fruitful and multiply". The success of marriage as an institution was soon likely to be tested as its failure rate is incredible. It is true testament to the powers of social engineering that a construct that fails to entrance many straight people has such attraction for so many gay people. I wonder how many gay people actually consider what they are signing on for, just as so many straight people simply march or get marched into the situation.
I am amazed that jtur88 needed to point out the non-starter of the no strings marriage. Sure, its what we'd like to have when we screw up big time and want an 'out'. but that's the idea. Homo sapiens or at least a very high percentage of homo sapiens need suffering and rigor in their lives. This is why so many religions put restrictions on sexuality. Sex is possibly the only vice that many people have. I have no problem with any of the definitions of 'sin' as exemplified by most doctrines and neither would most people. So where would your hold on them be if you were a control type trying to make them feel worthless and in need of salvation? Make the most basic expression of the human organism a 'sin' and all of a sudeen you make nearly everyone who is within the sound of your radio voice 'sinners' in need of your particular brand of salvation.
So, it's all a sham but I don't agree that we should replace one sham with another. If we are going to remove the artificial restrictions and repressions of marriage, fine. Modifying them to include gay people so they can feel 'normal' is not personally of any use. The hippies used to say 'let your freak flag fly' and I agree. I don't come down on anyone's right to shag whomever they wish if the shagee is above the age of consent (another entire post, let's not go there today) then have at it. But, by the numbers at least, the majority of people do their shagging with at least one member of the opposite sex present. If you do otherwise, to want representation in the exact same religious and legal manner that governs the majority of the shagging public is misguidied IMO and will no doubt be resisted by that same majority. Kind of like what is happening in the real world outside as you read this.
I agree with this and I would do the same for straights. The government should not be handing out a "marriage license" to anybody. All the government should do is give them a "civil union agreement" to sign and notarize. That, in effect, makes a LEGAL agreement between the 2 parties that is registered with the government.
Marriage is a religious thing and should be left to the church. If 2 people- whether gay or straight- get a legal Civil Union Contract and then choose to go through a religious or non religious marriage ceremony, that is up to them. The government should no longer be involved past the signing of the Civil Union Contract.
Conversely, if 2 people feel the need for religious reasons to be married "in the eyes of God" but for financial or other reasons choose not to be in a Civil Union, they could be married in a church without being legally united in a Civil Union. Of course, even though they are married, they would not be afforded the legal rights and protections of those with a Civil Union nor would they be allowed to file as a married couple on tax returns.
This would solve 2 problems- it would put gays and straights on an equal footing and it would get the government out of what is largely a religious domain.
Leave marriage alone the way it is, and civil unions for homosexuals, bisexuals, trisexuals, etc.
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.
