1. Post #1
    econometrics's Avatar
    June 2012
    114 Posts
    Should the state stay out of marriage completely, and let any mutually consent group of individuals marry by simply declaring each other as 'married'? The same way you consider someone a girlfriend or a boyfriend.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Ukraine Show Events

  2. Post #2
    cqbcat's Avatar
    April 2010
    3,900 Posts
    The state should stay out of marriage. Some of the people getting married (gay, interracial, incest, and polygamy) may make me feel uncomfortable, but those people should still be able to get married. It's all about maximizing people's freedoms instead telling them what they can and can't do.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  3. Post #3
    Loriborn's Avatar
    October 2009
    6,227 Posts
    The reason this wouldn't work is due to the total legal difference between a married couple and a not married couple. The number of tax breaks a married couple receives is so incredible, that it would be ignorant to just let anybody declare themselves married, and receive such benefits. Now, that being said, the state should still legalize gay marriage, polygamy, and so on, but still at least regulate it slightly. Just make sure that if a man has 20 wives, that it doesn't causes him to have 20x less taxes to pay.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events

  4. Post #4
    foxcock
    Bletotum's Avatar
    June 2008
    6,873 Posts
    It is silly to offer tax breaks to the married in the first place.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  5. Post #5
    Loriborn's Avatar
    October 2009
    6,227 Posts
    It is silly to offer tax breaks to the married in the first place.
    Well, kind of. If a couple is raising a kid, you'd be surprised at how much the tax breaks help make the strain of parents much less and usually end up meaning the kids get raised better. Of course, just having the breaks apply to couples with children makes much more sense, but while I think married tax breaks are pointless, they won't be going anywhere.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events

  6. Post #6
    LegndNikko's Avatar
    October 2009
    9,211 Posts
    The states shouldn't decide who can and can't marry, but rather enforce that smaller organizations don't try to enforce their ways.

    IE, if some priest decides he doesn't want to marry people of different races, the state comes in and says "No, that's not for you to decide."
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  7. Post #7
    Loriborn's Avatar
    October 2009
    6,227 Posts
    The states shouldn't decide who can and can't marry, but rather enforce that smaller organizations don't try to enforce their ways.

    IE, if some priest decides he doesn't want to marry people of different races, the state comes in and says "No, that's not for you to decide."
    Um, how would that work? Assuming "The State" implies the state of the United States (using "State" definition of "Nation") how could they enforce laws if there is not law that says who can and cannot marry? For instance, you say that they should tell a priest that he can't prevent two people of different races from marrying, but wouldn't the state need to decide first that two people of different races marrying is legal? You kind of need State input to determine what is and is not legal before you can enforce those laws on organizations.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events

  8. Post #8
    foxcock
    Bletotum's Avatar
    June 2008
    6,873 Posts
    In that scenario, that priest would be meaningless anyway. The couple could definitely find a priest with views compatible with their own, or decide that they do not need one.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  9. Post #9
    Gold Member
    GoDong-DK's Avatar
    November 2009
    14,471 Posts
    The state should stay out of marriage. Some of the people getting married (gay, interracial, incest, and polygamy) may make me feel uncomfortable, but those people should still be able to get married. It's all about maximizing people's freedoms instead telling them what they can and can't do.
    How do you even think of putting gay and interracial relationsships in the same boat as people who practise incest and polygamy? And how would you rule the state out of it? The state is (partly) there to make sure that everyone has equal rights and legal security.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Denmark Show Events

  10. Post #10
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,036 Posts
    I don't understand tax breaks for married couples. If it's anything to do with children, why don't you give tax breaks to couples with children? I can't really think of any conceivable reason for treating couples themselves any differently. I don't even particularly understand the whole significance of marriage in the first place, myself; don't see why society's got such a boner for it. Can't anyone have significant relationships without the need to have the state acknowledge it?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  11. Post #11
    Gold Member
    GoDong-DK's Avatar
    November 2009
    14,471 Posts
    I don't understand tax breaks for married couples. If it's anything to do with children, why don't you give tax breaks to couples with children? I can't really think of any conceivable reason for treating couples themselves any differently. I don't even particularly understand the whole significance of marriage in the first place, myself; don't see why society's got such a boner for it. Can't anyone have significant relationships without the need to have the state acknowledge it?
    It's simply an old tradition. It does however have some practical values - making certain that couples are registered means that the security for children is better in some ways. It also means that they hav e some different rights - who gets the old tv when you go from eachother? It's not always that break-ups go without hiccups, and then it's not a bad idea to have the state taking a look at it.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Denmark Show Events

  12. Post #12
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,036 Posts
    Yeah, I see your point. Some sort of prenup ought to be signed when you have children, imo. It's funny that the only genuine practical value of the state's acknowledgement of your relationship comes into play when you end the relationship, hehe.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  13. Post #13
    Fluttershy Enthusiast
    thelurker1234's Avatar
    June 2011
    5,297 Posts
    The states shouldn't decide who can and can't marry, but rather enforce that smaller organizations don't try to enforce their ways.

    IE, if some priest decides he doesn't want to marry people of different races, the state comes in and says "No, that's not for you to decide."
    Priests shouldn't have to marry people.
    They can just go to a court I think as an alternative.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  14. Post #14
    Absolute tosser, manchild, and belligerent douche-nozzle.
    download's Avatar
    July 2006
    6,639 Posts
    My only requirement is that marriage should only be between consenting adults. Note how I didn't specify how many

    Only reason I want that rule is to stop people from marrying 12 year olds. Other than that, if you want to marry your sister, and you're adults, it's none of my fucking business
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Australia Show Events

  15. Post #15
    Gold Member
    Venezuelan's Avatar
    September 2011
    11,895 Posts
    I think you're all forgetting that the state is the progressive one. without it, marriages will become even more restrictive, and they will be reduced back to an entirely religious tradition.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Brunei Darussalam Show Events

  16. Post #16
    foxcock
    Bletotum's Avatar
    June 2008
    6,873 Posts
    How do you even think of putting gay and interracial relationsships in the same boat as people who practise incest and polygamy? And how would you rule the state out of it? The state is (partly) there to make sure that everyone has equal rights and legal security.
    Are you implying there is something bad about incest and polygamy? The similarity is that all four groups are looked down upon for who their love interest(s) are. The only catch comes with incest in that it would be irresponsible to have biologic children.

    The state is what denies the rights given to typical couples from others in the first place. The state's job is to ensure equality and security, but that doesn't mean it is needed for it in the case of marriage, nor that it does a good job of it.

    The state staying out of marriage is exactly what would result in marriage equality. Some random preacher can't prevent anyone from being married, only from being married by himself.

    Edited:

    I think you're all forgetting that the state is the progressive one. without it, marriages will become even more restrictive, and they will be reduced back to an entirely religious tradition.
    No it would not. You are implying that everyone involved in religions would try to prevent the marriages of others.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  17. Post #17
    DERAILER OF THREADS DESTROYER OF IDIOTS
    Emperor Scorpious II's Avatar
    February 2009
    24,905 Posts
    I don't understand tax breaks for married couples. If it's anything to do with children, why don't you give tax breaks to couples with children? I can't really think of any conceivable reason for treating couples themselves any differently. I don't even particularly understand the whole significance of marriage in the first place, myself; don't see why society's got such a boner for it. Can't anyone have significant relationships without the need to have the state acknowledge it?
    Usually in married couples, one partner worked while the other stayed home. It's only a recent development where both individuals are working these days. Giving them a tax break will help make that easier.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events

  18. Post #18
    Gold Member
    Venezuelan's Avatar
    September 2011
    11,895 Posts
    No it would not. You are implying that everyone involved in religions would try to prevent the marriages of others.
    No not really but if it's purely a religious ceremony with no secular purpose than a large number of churches are going to use their freedom to restrict marriages like they did before government got involved.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Brunei Darussalam Show Events

  19. Post #19
    Gold Member
    GoDong-DK's Avatar
    November 2009
    14,471 Posts
    Are you implying there is something bad about incest and polygamy? The similarity is that all four groups are looked down upon for who their love interest(s) are. The only catch comes with incest in that it would be irresponsible to have biologic children.

    The state is what denies the rights given to typical couples from others in the first place. The state's job is to ensure equality and security, but that doesn't mean it is needed for it in the case of marriage, nor that it does a good job of it.

    The state staying out of marriage is exactly what would result in marriage equality. Some random preacher can't prevent anyone from being married, only from being married by himself.

    Edited:



    No it would not. You are implying that everyone involved in religions would try to prevent the marriages of others.
    Polygamy, I'll let slide. The reason that I'm against it is simply that it would be misused to no end if it was legal. Incest on the other hand - that's just wrong. You could say it's morally wrong, but that's not really where I'm going. Generally incest is cases in which a child is abused. Legalizing incest would open up for so much abuse that there's no reason to write it out. There's also the fact that the father or mother would have so much opportunity to shape this child. This means that even if the child would later say "But I love my father and I want to have sex with him", it could very much stem from the way he or she was raised. The childhood is the time where you're most easily influenced - letting someone with a sexual motivation shape that childhood would be wrong.

    Now, if the father and the daughter had never met each other before (and they didn't know they were in familiy before they fell in love), if they were both at a mature age, and both consented, I wouldn't condemn it. I would think it was very wierd, but I'm not the one to judge such. Any law like that wouldn't work though, and the example is absurd in itself.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Denmark Show Events

  20. Post #20
    Loriborn's Avatar
    October 2009
    6,227 Posts
    When dealing with incest marriage, even if the child was raised to want to be sexually attracted to her brother or father, then what can we do to prevent that? Not allowing them to marry won't help either of the people. Even if the daughter was raised to want it, that stills means she wants it, whether it because of her parents' influence or not. When they are of age, and you don't allow the two to marry, the two will both be unhappy, and will continue to treat their relationship the same way regardless.

    Honestly, if people are happy getting married, it's fine. If the daughter was raised to find happiness in that, we can't go back and prevent that from happening, because she actually wants it, and who are we to prevent it? I say, regardless of moral standpoints, we allow people to marry as long as all parties consent.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events

  21. Post #21
    Gold Member
    GoDong-DK's Avatar
    November 2009
    14,471 Posts
    When dealing with incest marriage, even if the child was raised to want to be sexually attracted to her brother or father, then what can we do to prevent that? Not allowing them to marry won't help either of the people. Even if the daughter was raised to want it, that stills means she wants it, whether it because of her parents' influence or not. When they are of age, and you don't allow the two to marry, the two will both be unhappy, and will continue to treat their relationship the same way regardless.

    Honestly, if people are happy getting married, it's fine. If the daughter was raised to find happiness in that, we can't go back and prevent that from happening, because she actually wants it, and who are we to prevent it? I say, regardless of moral standpoints, we allow people to marry as long as all parties consent.
    Have you heard of Stockholm syndrome? Would it be sad for the kidnapper and the kidnapped if they couldn't get each other in the end? No, not really.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Denmark Show Events

  22. Post #22
    foxcock
    Bletotum's Avatar
    June 2008
    6,873 Posts
    Why are you implying that the legalization of incest would result in pedophilia?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  23. Post #23
    Gold Member
    GoDong-DK's Avatar
    November 2009
    14,471 Posts
    Why are you implying that the legalization of incest would result in pedophilia?
    I'm saying it would make it easier to get away with, and we don't need that.

    My orginal point was however that it deosn't in any way compare to gay marriage.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Denmark Show Events

  24. Post #24
    Antdawg's Avatar
    July 2010
    5,033 Posts
    I reckon the state should stay out of "traditional marriage" (ie as performed at a church), however some form of legal union should at least be recognised by the government. I'm guessing that this would keep churches happy while still giving couples such as gay couples the same legal recognition as heterosexual ones. With this system I'd stand by churches regardless of how they interpret their texts and for what they will allow as marriage.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Australia Show Events

  25. Post #25
    foxcock
    Bletotum's Avatar
    June 2008
    6,873 Posts
    I'm saying it would make it easier to get away with, and we don't need that.

    My orginal point was however that it deosn't in any way compare to gay marriage.
    How would legalization of polygamy make pedophilia any more likely?

    edit

    wrong word, meant incest
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  26. Post #26
    Gold Member
    wraithcat's Avatar
    December 2007
    12,787 Posts
    I'd like to point out, that the problems with polygamy are generally not moral but legal on how the thing works if for instance one person inside of the relationship dies.

    It makes for a pretty rough clusterfuck of laws. In that case it's fairly simple to have a marriage|civil union|whatever else you name it between two people. Doesn't matter who those two people are as long they can make their own decision and or don't have preexisting blocks to getting this union (like a preexisting marriage)
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Czech Republic Show Events

  27. Post #27
    Gold Member
    GoDong-DK's Avatar
    November 2009
    14,471 Posts
    How would legalization of polygamy make pedophilia any more likely?
    I don't think you're even reading my posts, because I never wrote that. The law would most probably be misused, but I never said anything about polygamy and pedophilia having a connection.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Denmark Show Events

  28. Post #28
    foxcock
    Bletotum's Avatar
    June 2008
    6,873 Posts
    My bad, wrong word. I meant to ask, and am now asking, How would the legalization of incest make pedophilia any more likely?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events