How marriage and government SHOULD work

Marriage is a civil union and a contract like any other. There is no reaosn to give it some special place within society - some place of exclusivity or special standing. If you want to have a heterosexual marriage, fine. If you want to have a homosexual marriage, fine. If you want to have a polygamous marriage, that's also fine. Any and every arrangement is fine simply because it is a private contract. However because it is a contract, this means it has no religious significance by way of the law. As a traditionally contrived ideal, or as interpreted with a modern perception, or a religious one, the government should have no opinion what marriage is. All the government and the law should recognize is a civil union - another contract by certain parties.

For this reason, 'marriage' should not be recognized by the state, rather simply the civil union. Those involved may call it marriage or whatever they like - it should be of no concern to the state. Consequently all arrangements between consenting individuals should be recognized. Furthermore, no private organization, such as a religious group, can be forced to recognize all or any civil unions they do not wish to ordain. This is how any secular, managerial government should operate by way of marriage.

 

I agree with you.

It's sad that people with different opinions on what marriage is are so content to have the majority speak for them. As long as those who want marriage to be determined by government - they must then accept the opinion of the majority.

It'd be better if there were no civil unions or marriage licenses by the government - if you wanted to setup a will, inheritance, or hospital visit rights etc - simply sign a contract and be done with it

 

Thanks for the comment - for a while I thought I wouldnt get one. And yes I agree with you also.

 

I agree with the OP.

It should be civil unions for all or marriage for all. Reducing it to civil unions is an excellent idea.

 

Wouldn't that be nice?
Think of all the hostility and legal wrangling that would go away over night.

Our politicians might start getting nervous if we quit bickering so much amongst ourselves and started paying more attention to them.

 

Uncle Ferd says dat's a good idea - if dey get too sassy on ya, just trade `em in an' get a new one like dem rich folks do cars every other year...

Mexico City Considers Two-Year Marriages
October 03, 2011 | Couples could choose the term of their marriage, with a minimum length of two years

 

What about negative externalities that come from private arrangements? Like exploitation of daughters and wives in polygamist sects?

It is pretty hillarious when the Police raided those mormons out west of the Warren Jeffs sect/cult.

They are standing in a room full of pregnant teenage girls but not a single teenage boy in the entire community is to be found?

You don't find anything sick about that? That's freedom to you? Exploitation of young women by much older men through religious and social force? That is why there are anti-polygamy laws, to protect women from exploitation.

 

Is ti the numbers you are objecting to or the concept in general? Either way it is illegal even when a single young girl is forced into any relationship with a man.

 

Only a woman can agree to bear a mans child and only a man can agree to father a child with a woman.

 

What's your point?

 

Define "exploitation"? If anything is not consented to, then its usually illegally, ie if a daughter or wife is abused, raped etc.

If the girls consented, no, not at all. That being said, a good education is key to a healthy society. Then again if people are idiots, that cant be helped.

If the girls have the freedom to leave, then yes.

That makes no sense. Your problem here is not polygamy. What if the police raided a house that had one pregnant teen and one old guy? The problem you are describing is potential abuse of young girls which has as much to do with any current and legal form of sexual relations than the illegal ones we discuss here..

 

Only a man and a woman can make that agreement. A contract wont transform a lesbian lover into a parent of her lovers child.

 

Why?

Why not?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parent
par·ent (pârnt, pr-)
n.
1. One who begets, gives birth to, or nurtures and raises a child; a father or mother.
2. An ancestor; a progenitor.
3. An organism that produces or generates offspring.
4. A guardian; a protector.

 

???? Because only a man can father a child with a woman, marriage only creates parental rights for man married to that woman. Its the biological requirements of procreation.

 

That's total bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Parent has nothing to do with biological connection, let alone marriage. You can have a single parent, for example. Furthermore you can have a guardian or adoption. You clearly dont know what you are talking about.

Why should the state have anything to do with what is and what is not marriage? It has no place to dictate religious values, which marriage is. Its only place is to manage contracts. In this sense any marriage can be recognized as a contract.

 

No, quite clearly it is you who doesnt have a clue. Marriage doesnt transform a gay lover into a parent, guardian OR adoptive parent. It does transform the husband of the wife into the father of the child.

 

Correct. It is the individuals own application of the word parent that makes them such.

The word 'parent' doesn't transform anything. It merely means guardian of a child. I have given the definition. Anything deviations are individual opinion which the law should not recognize. As I say it only need recognize contracts.

 

No, their application of the word has no effect in the law whatsoever. neither marriage nor "application of the word parent" creates ANY parental rights or obligations.

 

Like I said, you cant become a parent with a contract with one of the biological parents.

 

Those should be so and in a manner such that it is this way because the government cares not to determine what is or is not marriage.

LOL Sure. I didnt think we were talking about 'obligations' I thought we were talking about ethical representations in law.

 

What do you mean? A parent is a parent is a parent. Biology is irrelevant.

 

Not according to the law. The law will compel the father of a child to pay child support for 18 years. The law will not compel the gay lover of a parent to do anything. They simply have no rights or obligations regarding the child.

 

The law also will not compel the husband of the mother to pay child support for 18 years if he is not the biological father. HE has no rights or obligations regarding the child. Only the biological father has obligations even if the mother and he never married.

Now if the husband of the mother was able to adopt the child (and the biological father gave up his rights), then the husband would be obligated to take care of the child even if the couple divorced.

You see, marriage laws are quite different from child custody laws. They are two different things! That is why your argument that marriage is all about procreation falls flat on its face.

 

The law will unless he presents genetic proof that he is not the father within 2 years of the birth in most states. Most children, the genetic father is never determined by genetics and is instead presumed by the law when the man is married to the woman who gives birth. In no circumstances will the law compel a gay lover to do so, married or not. Gays want all the benefits the law provides to heterosexuals, even though they wont ever be compelled by the law to assume the obligations imposed on a husband, regarding children.

Like I said, most children, paternity is never verified by genetics, and it would be foolish to think there arent 100s of 1000s of children out there who are not biologically related to the father they are presumed to be so related. There are 1000s of cases of mens failed attempts to disestablish paternity, with the genetic proof in hand. The presumption becomes irrefutable after 2 years in many states.

Noooo, adoption laws and marriage laws are different. If a married gay lover adopts a child, the adoption creates the obligation, not the marriage. Marriage creates the obligation on the husband in the case of children born to married, heterosexual couples. A voluntary listing by a man on a birth certificate of a child can always be refuted, decades later. Paternity established by being married to the mother of the child becomes irrefutable after 2 years in many states.

 

That's a bad law that should be repealled.

Only because the law says so (according to you) not because that is the moral or correct code of rule.