NationStates Jolt Archive

Being an atheist I can not see the point of marriage, so I do not understand all the fuss over gay marriage. Isnt it enough to just love someone? you need a piece of paper to tell you?

If the government stopped recognising marriage im sure no one would even care

Good point. It shouldn't matter at all.

Good point. It shouldn't matter at all.
thank you, this is my first thread, I want it to go well

Mostly, it's for the entitlement of all benefits marriage brings - tax breaks, inheritence rights etc.

Mostly, it's for the entitlement of all benefits marriage brings - tax breaks, inheritence rights etc.
that is what I was referring to when I said if the government stopped recognising it

It's a legal entity that both shares property, others.

I guess, for atheist could just scrap the idea, and live how you want. And for in terms of property, and others, create some sort of legal entity. (Thats what I recommend for homosexuals to not piss of religious ppl).


---------------------------

But for religions, it's a pact between man & women in front of God. Flesh and Flesh Etc.

that is what I was referring to when I said if the government stopped recognising it

Why do you want that?

Why do you want that?
well just because someone is married why should they get extra benifits? just because I am not married does that make me less worthy?

It's a legal entity that both shares property, others.

I guess, for atheist could just scrap the idea, and live how you want. And for in terms of property, and others, create some sort of legal entity. (Thats what I recommend for homosexuals to not piss of religious ppl).


---------------------------

But for religions, it's a pact between man & women in front of God. Flesh and Flesh Etc.
yes, that would be acceptable, why do you have to get married to get these benefits and rights?


Remove religion and state completely, everyone should have a form of legal entity but why should it be through marrige?

it should stay as a pact between a man and woman infront of their god, and have nothing to do with benefits

Who says that you even need love to get married? What about arranged marriages where the spouses to be have never even met each other until the wedding day? Marriage is more about political, economic, and legal issues, as well as sexual privilege, than it is about love. In fact love can be a very controversial thing. It has the ability to break down the barriers of social stratification. Which can be very threatening to those who are viewed as being of a higher stature.

yes, that would be acceptable, why do you have to get married to get these benefits and rights?
Remove religion and state completely, everyone should have a form of legal entity but why should it be through marrige?
it should stay as a pact between a man and woman infront of their god, and have nothing to do with benefits


HUH? What Benefits? What Rights do Marriage has that a single person doesn't? I seem to be missing your point here. Do married couples get more?

Because your A person. And a Marriage is TWO. Who else do you want to share it with?

Marriage can be considered a legal entity. However it's deemed the word "marriage" because of traditions and religion.

If you want to share your own property with someone (like a friend or a family member), you can create your own sort of legal entity. Like a company for example.

Who says that you even need love to get married? What about arranged marriages where the spouses to be have never even met each other until the wedding day? Marriage is more about political, economic, and legal issues, as well as sexual privilege, than it is about love. In fact love can be a very controversial thing. It has the ability to break down the barriers of social stratification. Which can be very threatening to those who are viewed as being of a higher stature.
good points, personally I dont see an arranged marriage as a marriage at all so I believe they should be disregarded.
I agree that marriage is more about politics economics and legal issues, what I am saying is it shouldnt be marriage should be a completly religious thing. People should be able to get the same political, economical and legal rights, whether they are married or not

HUH? What Benefits? What Rights do Marriage has that a single person doesn't? I seem to be missing your point here. Do married couples get more?

Because your A person. And a Marriage is TWO. Who else do you want to share it with?

Marriage can be considered a legal entity. However it's deemed the word "marriage" because of traditions and religion.

If you want to share your own property with someone (like a friend or a family member), you can create your own sort of legal entity. Like a company for example.

all im saying is marriage shouldnt imply these things there should be separate legal entities. Why should marriage have any legal standing, to hell with tradition and religion
.
.
.
.
maybe I should go to bed, ill be able to give a better debate in the morning/afternoon :)

Being an atheist I can not see the point of marriage, so I do not understand all the fuss over gay marriage. Isnt it enough to just love someone? you need a piece of paper to tell you?

If the government stopped recognising marriage im sure no one would even care

From an individual personal point of view marriage may, or may not, matter. From a sociological perspective marriage, including the little piece of paper, is very important. The most dangerous element in any society are young men. Young men exhibit the greatest violent and anarchistic tendencies of any group in society. It is essential for a society that the aggressive energy of those young studs be directed into socially responsible avenues.

Through marriage young men are tied into the greater society and slowly begin to channel their energies toward protecting and providing for their families. They develop a vested interest in the safety and well being of their community. Young dads participate in social activities for their kids, becoming coaches, little league umpires, boy scout leaders, and the watch dogs that prevent crime in a neighborhood.

The piece of paper and the ceremony in which society and the community recognizes the union (and the responsibilities that go with it) reinforces the commitment. Simply living together is an easy arrangement to dissolve.

Certainly gay men can perform these functions as well as heterosexual men. However, a neighborhood, community, or society without men tied into stable families is a neighborhood, community, or society of crime, gang activity, and economic deterioration.

Marriage should be at its most basic a exclusive, monogomus, loving, hetrosexual relationship within which an enviroment is created for the bringing up of children. The leagal side is all a little superfluous.

HUH? What Benefits? What Rights do Marriage has that a single person doesn't? I seem to be missing your point here. Do married couples get more?

Because your A person. And a Marriage is TWO. Who else do you want to share it with?

Marriage can be considered a legal entity. However it's deemed the word "marriage" because of traditions and religion.

If you want to share your own property with someone (like a friend or a family member), you can create your own sort of legal entity. Like a company for example.

marriage is a legal contract with legally defined (but not spelled out in the ceremony) parameters. one doesnt enter into any contract blindly

yes there are MANY legal rights that a married couple gets that an unmarried couple either DONT get or have make a seperate legal contract/contracts to get.

as a married woman in a community property state EVERYTHING my husband makes is mine as much as it is his. if we were not married NOTHING he makes is mine until he gives it to me (and vice versa). as a downside, every DEBT he makes, even those i beg him not to make or dont even know he does make, is as much mine as his (and vice versa). i can TRY to legally distance myself from his debts but its problematic.

as a married woman, i have legal inheritance rights to my husbands property that he CANNOT will away from me. if we were not married, his property is his to will to whomever he pleases regardless of how long we lived together or how many children we have in common. (and vice versa)

as a married woman, i make all medical decisions for my husband if he is unable to do so. (i leave all the implications of that to you to think about). if i am not married to him his family of birth or perhaps his children will decide if i can even VISIT him in the hospital if he is unable to make his own decisions.

as a married couple we are a legal FAMILY. all our income taxes are filed jointly and we dont have to divide up tax deductions/ credits in order to fill out the forms. (im told there are people in certain situations who end up paying more taxes than if they were single)

as a married couple. all children born to us while we are married are legally assumed to be OURS and we dont have to do anything to prove it or to claim our legal rights to those children.

in the event of divorce both parties have well defined legal rights to property accumulated during the marriage that can only be changed by a pre-nuptual agreement or by BOTH parties agreeing to any agreement at the time of divorce that would deviate from those legal rights.

i could go on but surely you get the point.

yes marriage is relevant because of the legal implications of it. there are upsides and downsides to it that one should consider before getting married. legal, social, personal, all have to be considered.

in theory it should make no difference in ones personal relationship if one is married or just living together. however i have known several people who after living together for a considerable length of time and being happy with each other, got married then divorced after a short amount of time. to THEM it made a big difference.

Being an atheist I can not see the point of marriage, so I do not understand all the fuss over gay marriage. Isnt it enough to just love someone? you need a piece of paper to tell you?

If the government stopped recognising marriage im sure no one would even care

I agree that it is enough just to love someone, however marriage provides a way for some people to show that they love each other. I don't think that it matters whether you get married or not and as atheist you may choice not to, but I think that it should exist because it is important to a lot of people, and as I have said it provides a way to show that you love someone, and maybe if you believe in God to do so in front of Him.

I also don't see the fuss over Gay marriage, why shouldn't it exist??

Good luck with your first thread!!

I don't think that the governments of the world should stop recognizing married couples, but they should not recognize marriage, since as it was pointed out earlier, marriage is a religious/cultural thing. What needs to happen is every reference to marriage in the laws should be changed to civil union. That way whoever wants to live together can, and as long as they can prove residence at the same address for longer than, say, eleven months, they can get the benefits previously given to married couples.

As far as gay marriage, that's up to the participants and their religion. Mine doesn't premit it, but mine also says not to judge others.

Being an atheist I can not see the point of marriage, so I do not understand all the fuss over gay marriage. Isnt it enough to just love someone? you need a piece of paper to tell you?

If the government stopped recognising marriage im sure no one would even care


Also being an atheist, and also being married, I can tell you that the diference between just living together and making a formal, legal commitment to another person is hugely different - on many different levels.

Being an atheist I can not see the point of marriage, so I do not understand all the fuss over gay marriage. Isnt it enough to just love someone? you need a piece of paper to tell you?

If the government stopped recognising marriage im sure no one would even care

Yeah, if people wanted to lose their homes/children when a partner died, they wouldn't care at all. And much, much more...

Love and committment is enough reason to marry. Marriage *protections* are provided for exactly that - to protect those who are in a unique situation in which they choose to live as a single entity. Anyone who wishes to commit their lives to another and isn't a completely hopeless romantic with no pragmatism whatsoever *would* care.

Being an atheist I can not see the point of marriage, so I do not understand all the fuss over gay marriage. Isnt it enough to just love someone? you need a piece of paper to tell you?

If the government stopped recognising marriage im sure no one would even care
the only reason i care about government-recognized marriage is because it would take many hours and thousands of dollars to secure each of the rights that come with a marital contract, and i think those rights are important and useful...things like next-of-kin status, survivor benefits, etc. are things i want to have set up for my partner. beyond that, i really don't care much. i would have a ceremony to anounce my marriage/union, but it would mostly be for my family and my partner's family rather than for myself; they would want to be able to celebrate our union, and i wouldn't mind throwing a party to let them do that :).

well just because someone is married why should they get extra benifits? just because I am not married does that make me less worthy?

Just because someone is a doctor, why should they get extra benefits? Just because I don't have an M.D. does that make me less worthy?

Just because someone knows how to drive, why should they get extra benefits? Just because I can't get my driver's license, does that make me less worthy?

Married couples are in a situation which necessitates different (not extra) protections.

The idea of the 'legality' side of marriage, from the Governments point of view, is that it helps to create the next generation and ensures the continuation of the society. That's why the 'benefits' of marriage (for example, tax breaks) increase with the amount of children the couple has. The idea is that this offsets the cost of raising children (who are non-productive and a fiscal drain on a household) and encourages people to reproduce. That part of marriage still holds true, and isn't really applicable to homosexual unions unless they adopt. If any homosexual couple wants to 'declare' themselves married, they ought to feel free - it's just that the benefits gained from producing children naturally wouldn't apply.

The idea of the 'legality' side of marriage, from the Governments point of view, is that it helps to create the next generation and ensures the continuation of the society. That's why the 'benefits' of marriage (for example, tax breaks) increase with the amount of children the couple has. The idea is that this offsets the cost of raising children (who are non-productive and a fiscal drain on a household) and encourages people to reproduce. That part of marriage still holds true, and isn't really applicable to homosexual unions unless they adopt. If any homosexual couple wants to 'declare' themselves married, they ought to feel free - it's just that the benefits gained from producing children naturally wouldn't apply.

This argument would make sense, if it were true.

In the US, marriage does not bring a tax break, in fact, federally, it generally involves a tax *increase*.

*Anyone,* married or nonmarried, gets a tax break for dependent children,

And almost *none* of the protections provided by marriage have anything to do with children. Those that do are related to custody and health benefits, not tax breaks or "please reproduce now" privileges.

Is marriage relevant

If your married its relevant.

This argument would make sense, if it were true.

In the US, marriage does not bring a tax break, in fact, federally, it generally involves a tax *increase*.

*Anyone,* married or nonmarried, gets a tax break for dependent children,

And almost *none* of the protections provided by marriage have anything to do with children. Those that do are related to custody and health benefits, not tax breaks or "please reproduce now" privileges.

That may be very true - I'm not an American so I can't speak to that. I would argue that most of those 'unrelated' protections have evolved from a 'please reproduce now' mentality though. That was what I was trying to point out though, it 'evolved' from that mentality. While this may have been the origin of the governments involvement in marriage, it now encompases something far beyond that and must be re-evaluated. (Some governments have even limited the number of children permisable in a family - which is almost diametrically opposite the original intention.)

That may be very true - I'm not an American so I can't speak to that. I would argue that most of those 'unrelated' protections have evolved from a 'please reproduce now' mentality though. That was what I was trying to point out though, it 'evolved' from that mentality. While this may have been the origin of the governments involvement in marriage, it now encompases something far beyond that and must be re-evaluated. (Some governments have even limited the number of children permisable in a family - which is almost diametrically opposite the original intention.)

I have seen nothing historical to back up the idea that the original intent of marriage was reproduction.

One way or another, the current legal definition helps all (straight) couples who wish to live as a single entity. That is as it should be, except that it should simply be *all couples*. The protections are needed by both groups, for exactly the same reasons.

This argument would make sense, if it were true.

In the US, marriage does not bring a tax break, in fact, federally, it generally involves a tax *increase*.

*Anyone,* married or nonmarried, gets a tax break for dependent children,

And almost *none* of the protections provided by marriage have anything to do with children. Those that do are related to custody and health benefits, not tax breaks or "please reproduce now" privileges.
Federal yes ... state ... depends on the state

Fairly sure MN has a deduction on state taxes

But I Digress

Always been a fan of a seperation of the legal and religious meanings of marrige. it is such a farce anyways

I hate people argueing about things they know nothing about.

Listen up peeps, I bet I'm the only one who actaully knows what they're talking about.

I co-habitated with my wife for 14 years before we married 7 years ago.

Re-read that last sentence morons before you argue with what I have to say.

I do better on my taxes as a married person than as head of household. I do better in most financial matters. In fact the main reason we married is because it was a financially sound move. It also made life so much easier in reguards to healthcare and other benifits.

That's the reason Gays want to marry. They'd probably rather not have anything to do with the traditional model of the 'sactified marraige', it's just that they want the benifits and perks that our society gives to married people.

I hate people argueing about things they know nothing about.

Me too. So why are you doing it?

Listen up peeps, I bet I'm the only one who actaully knows what they're talking about.

I see...

I co-habitated with my wife for 14 years before we married 7 years ago.

Re-read that last sentence morons before you argue with what I have to say.

And that has what exactly to do with appointing yourself expert of what homosexuals want out of marriage?

I do better on my taxes as a married person than as head of household.

You are lucky. This is rather unusual.

I do better in most financial matters. In fact the main reason we married is because it was a financially sound move. It also made life so much easier in reguards to healthcare and other benifits.

This I agree with. It demonstrates examples of some of the reasons my boyfriend and I (currently cohabitating) are thinking of obtaining a legal marriage license.

That's the reason Gays want to marry.

Partially. This is absolutely why homosexuals want legal marriage. They want equal protection under the law. Because you have chosen to make a committment to someone, probably for the rest of your life, you and your spouse need certain protections under the law. There are downfalls that come along with those protections, sure, but for many - like you and your spouse - they are worth the gains. It is the same with *any* couple that is considering obtaining a *legal* marriage.

They'd probably rather not have anything to do with the traditional model of the 'sactified marraige', it's just that they want the benifits and perks that our society gives to married people.

And this is where you begin talking out of your ass and demonstrate that you also seem to enjoy talking about something you know nothing about.

If you are not a homosexual, you cannot tell us what homosexuals wish to "have to do with." In fact, even if you were a homosexual, you couldn't speak for all homosexuals. Most of the homosexual couples I know want both aspects. *Many* already have the "traditional, sanctified" marriage. What they don't have is the legal protections that go along with it when heterosexuals decide to get married.

Listen up peeps, I bet I'm the only one who actaully knows what they're talking about.


As much as I'd like to believe that, your use of the word 'peeps' seems to cast a shadow of doubt over the rest of the statement.

Re-read that last sentence morons before you argue with what I have to say.

See, by calling everyone 'morons' you sort of ensure that they'll argue with you no matter what else you have to say.

That's the reason Gays want to marry. They'd probably rather not have anything to do with the traditional model of the 'sactified marraige', it's just that they want the benifits and perks that our society gives to married people.

I'd argue with you about the validity of anyone trying to generalize what a large group of people 'wants', but Dempublicents has pretty much summed it up. I think marriage is one of those things that has taken on so many various connotations (legal, religious, societal, cultural, etc.) that it'd be pretty hard to whitewash over the situation with any simplistic generalizations of what it 'is' and what people 'get out of it'.

that is what I was referring to when I said if the government stopped recognising it

It's kind of important to have the right to make medical desisions for your loved ones when they're life is on the line.

In New Zealand, through various Acts passed by the Labour Government in its last few terms, de facto relationships are pretty much on the same legal footing as marriages.

For example, property rights are the same, so that if I were in a de facto relationship that broke up, I would be entitled to a half share of the relationship property, just as though I had been married.

Though, because you don't have to go through the separation/divorce process, you're pretty much 'divorced' as soon as the de facto relationship ends. This does affect rights in other areas such as on death. For example, if you were married and only get separated though never got divorced, you still have rights to the dead spouse's property. Whereas as soon as a de facto couple splits, all such rights on death end right there and then.

Being an atheist I can not see the point of marriage, so I do not understand all the fuss over gay marriage. Isnt it enough to just love someone? you need a piece of paper to tell you?

If the government stopped recognising marriage im sure no one would even care

i'm an agnostic, and i want to get married someday.

it won't be a religious ceremony. and no, i don't need a piece of paper to say that i love someone. it would be nice to have a piece of paper that says that we're covered under each other's insurance plans though... and to have hospital visitation rights... that kind of stuff.

yes, that would be acceptable, why do you have to get married to get these benefits and rights?

because they share their property? not to mention that while not blood relatives, they become family after marriage, thus should have the same status as other family members when it comes to being able to see their spouse in the hosptial and make important health decisions and the like.

Remove religion and state completely, everyone should have a form of legal entity but why should it be through marrige?

it should stay as a pact between a man and woman infront of their god, and have nothing to do with benefits
marriage started as a social thing before the church came around with it...

maybe churches should find a new word for binding people in front of their god if they don't want to go along with something that allows equal rights?

What needs to happen is every reference to marriage in the laws should be changed to civil union
does anyone have any disagreement with this? As it would make me happier

I see the points of what everyone is saying, but let me add my little bit, and then I'll go to bed for the night (umm, morning). I'm currently teaching high school in a town of 700 people that is being washed into the ocean. Please feel free to look us up in September's National Geographic, and Time Magazine's Oct 12th issue.
This island has pretty much given up on the concept of marriage. They use the word "Honey" interchangably for Wife, Intended, Live in partner, Boyfriend, Sex Buddy, or any other relationship that exists between a man and a woman. Sorry about not having anything to say about the gay issue, as we have none on the island, and I have no evedence right now.
When there are only 49 students in the high school, and the next town is a $100 plane flight away, dating choices are slim. However, since marriage has been done away with, so have the morals that usually accompany marriage, like monogomy, and waiting to have children.
Because these morals have gone to the wayside, we have had some very disturbing problems here lately.*I have a set of cousins who were dating here for three months (and everything that goes with it) not knowing they were first cousins, because their mothers had both had them out of wedlock and didn't know that their childs' father was siblings with their childs' honey's father. These kids figgured it out eventually, but it is still a sore spot for them, and they continue to get teased for it. For a more disturbing example: It's also happened that half siblings have hoooked up, with their mothers not knowing that they shared the same father and then these half siblings produced children. The kids are all special ed. now.
I am aware that in larger area's this is not nearly the problem that it has become here, but I'd like to see this problem end. And if society would require the morals that are supposed to go along with marriage, ie remaining faithful to one partner for an extended period of time, we might save ourselves some more problems farther down the line.
Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now.

And that has what exactly to do with appointing yourself expert of what homosexuals want out of marriage?Excuse me. I thought this topic was about the relevence of marraige in general.

You are lucky. This is rather unusual.
No, it's not. For the major reason that you can't count your significant other as a dependant unless you are married.


This I agree with. It demonstrates examples of some of the reasons my boyfriend and I (currently cohabitating) are thinking of obtaining a legal marriage license. Congratulations. I think. Are there children involved? No slam intended, we had 5 before we married.

And this is where you begin talking out of your ass and demonstrate that you also seem to enjoy talking about something you know nothing about.

If you are not a homosexual, you cannot tell us what homosexuals wish to "have to do with." In fact, even if you were a homosexual, you couldn't speak for all homosexuals. Most of the homosexual couples I know want both aspects. *Many* already have the "traditional, sanctified" marriage. What they don't have is the legal protections that go along with it when heterosexuals decide to get married.Maybe you should have noticed that modifier "probably" that I threw in that sentence. I don't claim to be any expert, but I'm no cave dweller either. I can surmise that most of the gay couples I know don't want to be Ozzie and Harriet, even if I'm not gay.

As much as I'd like to believe that, your use of the word 'peeps' seems to cast a shadow of doubt over the rest of the statement.Guilty. Not one of my better lines, but I was in a rush. Had an appointment and was trying to get off the post quickly.



See, by calling everyone 'morons' you sort of ensure that they'll argue with you no matter what else you have to say.That line wasn't intended for everyone. Try it on, if it doesn't fit, it's not yours.

If it does, well....

No, it's not. For the major reason that you can't count your significant other as a dependant unless you are married.

Is only one member of the couple bringing in an income? In that case, I wouldn't be surprised at all that you are in a better state on taxes. However, the vast majority of couples have two incomes, and thus pay *more* overall federal taxes once they marry.

Congratulations. I think. Are there children involved? No slam intended, we had 5 before we married.

No, no children yet - not until after I finish grad school. But we have recently bought a house together - and we would likely be in a somewhat better financial situation if we could claim that together. I could also add him to my health insurance (he's currently uninsured) and so on...

Maybe you should have noticed that modifier "probably" that I threw in that sentence. I don't claim to be any expert, but I'm no cave dweller either. I can surmise that most of the gay couples I know don't want to be Ozzie and Harriet, even if I'm not gay.

Funny, most gay couples I know put more stock in the "traditional" parts of marriage than in the legal ones.

But for religions, it's a pact between man & women in front of God. Flesh and Flesh Etc.

For SOME religions that's what it is. Religions that don't believe in God, certainly religions that don't even believe in a god as in a single omnipotent entity, don't feel that way.