Gay marriage should never be recognize by the state because...

[Heraclitus]

The state needs to get rid of regular marriages too! What business does the state have in this anyway? Marriage should be a religious or private ceremony and the state shouldn't care either way concerning people's marital status.

Even more the state should let future civil unions be much more customisable than current ones. Example: If you find the laws hostile to men, why not put favourable clauses in the contract concerning custody or alimony?

Civil unions for everyone state approved marriage for no one! Common-law marriages included.


A guy wishing to take care of his elderly aunt. Asexual best friends. A homosexual couple. A Muslim/Mormon man and his two wives. ect.

One might ask why a Christian or traditionalist should support this, well my reasoning is that the heavy hand of the state regulation is one of the factors (besides urbanization, the welfare state and antibiotics) that is killing the traditional notion of marriage.

Other groups should also be pleased with the fact that the arrangement eliminates what they consider a unfair privilege.

[Al B. Sure!]

Should divorces be out of the State's hands as well?

[Heraclitus]

Should divorces be out of the State's hands as well?

Only as much as allowed by the contract signed by the partners. Which is what we have today, all I'm proposing is allowing people to customize the thing and removing some limitations on who may sign it.

I do think certain clauses still need to be mandatory to protect individuals from singing away certain rights.

[OzzyKP]

I'm down, Hera.

[Kuciwalker]

The state needs to get rid of regular marriages too! What business does the state have in this anyway? Marriage should be a religious or private ceremony and the state shouldn't care either way concerning people's marital status.

Did this idea just occur to you?

[Al B. Sure!]

I'm still trying to figure out how this plays into Hera's racial supremacy theories...

[Al B. Sure!]

I think this is a good thread for this. Submitted without comment:

[DriXnaK]

It's really only there for tax reasons. You'd be better off getting rid of the IRS first.

[Heraclitus]

The state needs to get rid of regular marriages too! What business does the state have in this anyway? Marriage should be a religious or private ceremony and the state shouldn't care either way concerning people's marital status.

Did this idea just occur to you?

No, I've held this position ever since leaving my teens, I just wanted to see what people on poly thought about it.

I'm still trying to figure out how this plays into Hera's racial supremacy theories...

It dosen't. And I don't have racial supremacy theories, I just believe in human biological diversity and its extension to group differences.





This is odd, I was expecting people to mostly disagree. Does anyone think this would be a bad idea?

[Elok]

I floated this idea here a couple of years ago. I had a poll attached, and IIRC it was somewhere in the area of 35 for-1 against. The one against was Ming, who said something about religious people needing to accept that they didn't have a monopoly on the word "marriage." Eh. Yeah, I'd certainly be fine ending the farce of the government pretending to care whom we ****.

[Berzerker]

nope

I don't have racial supremacy theories, I just believe in human biological diversity and its extension to group differences

I read something somewhere (internet) about "the seed" of one of the biblical figures (maybe Moses' bro Aaron, cant remember) being linked to Ashkenazi? Jews and the thinking was the guy (and his immediate clan) was partly responsible for their smarts today.

on the other hand, people who cant run fast better think up other ways to get away from danger I could never outrun those damn dogs that plagued me as a kid delivering papers at 5 am

[germanos]

antibiotics is killing the traditional notion of marriage.

In any case I think you got it backwards. It's the church that has no business in marriage. A marriage is a simple contract between two people with additional benefits for children. A religious marriage is null and void (apart from having a nice ceremony if you wish so), at least where I live.

[Ming]

I floated this idea here a couple of years ago. I had a poll attached, and IIRC it was somewhere in the area of 35 for-1 against. The one against was Ming, who said something about religious people needing to accept that they didn't have a monopoly on the word "marriage." Eh. Yeah, I'd certainly be fine ending the farce of the government pretending to care whom we ****.

Yeah... I'd certainly be fine ending the farce that only relgious people can get married. Religions don't have a monopoly on the word marriage. All religions care about is soaking money from their followers, and trying to dictate who they should be allowed to **** and how and when they do it.

germanos has the right idea... if people want to have their union recogonized by a bunch of superstitious people that believe the same crap they do... fine. But only marriages sanctioned by the state should be considered legal, so that the rights of married couples can be looked after by the law of the land and are equal for all couples, and not just couples that some silly church likes because they give them money. Religions vary on their thoughts of acceptable marriages... they discriminate... they are full of crap

[DriXnaK]

Then you're essentially putting the same faith you put in a religion into a governed state. That's really not a good thing. Government should not be involved in marriage at all. The only reason it is is for tax purposes.

[Ming]

Religions can't even agree on a single god... they don't agree on marriages... at least the state can be consistent and fair to all instead of religions only being fair to those that follow their version of religion. Governments should be the final word on marriages, not a whole different bunch of superstitious cults that can't agree on anything except to discriminate against those that don't agree with them.