NationStates Jolt Archive

IMHO, and ISYDGAD (I'm Sure You Don't...), marriage should not be a state or civil institution. It should have purely a religious meaning, and therefore be left up to the individual religions to oversee within each individual religion.

So, if you want polygamy, or polygyny, or homosexual marriage, or heterosexual marriage, or a three-way split, find the religion that gives you that kind of marriage, and stick with it.

Meanwhile, leave the rest of us out of your religious beliefs, and we'll leave ourselves out of your lives.

Oh, and depending on my religion, I should never have to respect your marriage institution (and you don't have to respect mine, either).

This also includes marrying humans to other species, if your religion is that far out...

can you marry a pug to a goldfish?

No, I think there has to be one consenting adult somewhere in the mix...

No, I think there has to be one consenting adult somewhere in the mix...
Lol I proposed this awhile ago and sure I am not the first
But it is still a good idea and glad to see people thinking clearly

We should try to get this through the UN at some point.

We should try to get this through the UN at some point.
Thought there was one or recently was one up

Sounds good. However, should the government recognize civil or legal bondings? For tax purposes?

No, there shouldn't be any tax benefit for being "married". If that were true, we wouldn't be fair to single people, and people in those "poly" marriages will either get over (each person gets the tax benefit) or feel cheated (each "family" gets the tax benefit).

Leave the state out of marriage (and divorce) altogether.

Property settlement and child custody/support have nothing to do with marriage. People can already jointly own property and have children without a license - so we don't need to have the state recognize divorce, either.

IMHO, and ISYDGAD (I'm Sure You Don't...), marriage should not be a state or civil institution. It should have purely a religious meaning, and therefore be left up to the individual religions to oversee within each individual religion.

So, if you want polygamy, or polygyny, or homosexual marriage, or heterosexual marriage, or a three-way split, find the religion that gives you that kind of marriage, and stick with it.

Meanwhile, leave the rest of us out of your religious beliefs, and we'll leave ourselves out of your lives.

Oh, and depending on my religion, I should never have to respect your marriage institution (and you don't have to respect mine, either).

It's funny, I'm right with you except insofar as I think marriage should be purely a 'state or civil institution'. That way you can do an end-run around the stated peculiairties of ANY religion's marriage practices. There's only the state or civil laws to deal with at that point, and those can be amended democratically to allow all possible permutations.

Well, under my idea, if you want to be allowed to marry sheep, you can form your own religion, and hand out marriage certificates. No state involved.

That is a very intelligent arguement. Most sense I've heard on the subject in a while.

Another question (it's a bit odd but...), what if you are an athiest and want to get married. Should you have to stoop to following some random religion just to get married?

edit:
Oh so I can create a religion anytime I want? Is there any rules to be a "recognized" religion? Do religions get tax benifits under your system? If so I'm making one up today.

Well, under the law, atheism could be considered a "religion" as it is a belief system unto itself. As such, there might be a private organization (or many such) that cater to atheists, and will gladly publish a "social contract" between consenting adults, regardless of how many or what type they are.

Well, under my idea, if you want to be allowed to marry sheep, you can form your own religion, and hand out marriage certificates. No state involved.

Ah-ha, now I see clearly. Good one, Gun.

Personally I say let consenting adults form whatever sort of marriage arrangement they want. Animals and people unable to give informed consent (mentally handicaped, children, etc.) would be a different matter of course.

Too bad George Bush would never even look at a suggestion like this.

Personally I say let consenting adults form whatever sort of marriage arrangement they want. Animals and people unable to give informed consent (mentally handicaped, children, etc.) would be a different matter of course.


I agree with you there should be two consenting partys at least in order to form the bond of marriage regardless of the religion. I also semi agree MGNY. It should be a seperate instance from the other two.

Well then, Nurcia, we're close. Under my system, any number of consenting adults of any type can form any kind of union they want - and the state will never be involved. They just have to either form or join an organization that will issue a symbolic certificate that will only have meaning within that organization - not anywhere else.

I included the animals because I don't want to leave anyone out, but I draw the line on making it at least one consenting adult (I suppose you could even marry yourself under this concept).

Something to note here - I'm a "small government" conservative. I don't believe that the government should be involved in any marriage.

It should never tell consenting adults who can and cannot be married, or which arrangements constitute "valid" configurations.

It should never tell any religious institution that it must accept an outsider's view of "marriage".

It should never restrict the formation of any religious institution.

Something tells me the US Founding Fathers would have a hard time arguing with this.

No, there shouldn't be any tax benefit for being "married". If that were true, we wouldn't be fair to single people, and people in those "poly" marriages will either get over (each person gets the tax benefit) or feel cheated (each "family" gets the tax benefit).

Leave the state out of marriage (and divorce) altogether.

Property settlement and child custody/support have nothing to do with marriage. People can already jointly own property and have children without a license - so we don't need to have the state recognize divorce, either.

-right on-
Marriage should have diddly-squat to do with tax status-

I say leave the rest of society to decay due to lack of family strength- and then all of America will decline into a cesspool of non-absolute morality-

........

on the plus side, land values in Switzerland have never been cheaper! Skiiing anyone?

If "families" in the traditional sense make a country strong, then people interested in making the country strong over their own personal needs will form them.

You can't enforce morality. They passed a lot of civil rights morality enforcement here in the US in the 1960s, and all it did was convince a lot of white people that everything was now OK.

Governments that try to enforce morality will usually fail. Does not having gay marriage now prevent gay men from being gay? Or lesbians from being lesbians? Or bisexuals from having twice the chance for a date on Friday night? Did it really stop abortions, or did rich kids just fly to Europe with dad's money and get it done? Does it stop teenagers from having sex in their cars? Does it stop crackheads from smoking crack? And has it prevented polygamists from hiding in the Utah mountains and forming little colonies?

Laws that enforce morality do not hold the family together. It's you that holds your family together. Your community, and your local group. Not the central government. If the central government could truly hold things together and be the moral compass, then communism would have always worked.