NationStates Jolt Archive

There's often discussion of legalising or prohibiting certain types of marriage.

Why does the government regulate marriage at all? How is your relationship any of the government's business?

The concept of legal marriage marriage just doesn't make any sense to me. Why does the government need to know about your living arrangements? Since they don't have to approve of them (you can engage in whatever sort of relationship you'd like without them interfering), why do specific types of relationships draw their attention and warrant special treatment with regard to taxation and joint ownership?

I don't get it. Why should the government regulate marriage?

there are legal ramifications of being married (being heir to the fortune, making medical decisions for your spouse when they can't, tax benifits) all of those are the reasons that the government tries to keep tabs on who is married to whom, mostly to avoid fraud.

there are legal ramifications of being married (being heir to the fortune, making medical decisions for your spouse when they can't, tax benifits) all of those are the reasons that the government tries to keep tabs on who is married to whom, mostly to avoid fraud.


Which could be handled with a will and other legal documents. It doesn't explain why the Government has their hands in what is usually a religious affair.

there are legal ramifications of being married (being heir to the fortune, making medical decisions for your spouse when they can't, tax benifits) all of those are the reasons that the government tries to keep tabs on who is married to whom, mostly to avoid fraud.

yeah, pretty much, that and since it is at the very least, regulated, then citizens get the vote on what should be legal, and illegal, that is why almost all legal definitons in america, of marriage, are one man, one woman, because that is how a majority of voters vote, and what they want, that is why

Which could be handled with a will and other legal documents. It doesn't explain why the Government has their hands in what is usually a religious affair.
Ideally it would be handled purly under contract law.

yeah, pretty much, that and since it is at the very least, regulated, then citizens get the vote on what should be legal, and illegal, that is why almost all legal definitons in america, of marriage, are one man, one woman, because that is how a majority of voters vote, and what they want, that is whyInterestingly enough, the state has an obligation to serve ALL ITS CITIZENS, and not just the majority. ;)

There's often discussion of legalising or prohibiting certain types of marriage.

Why does the government regulate marriage at all? How is your relationship any of the government's business?

The concept of legal marriage marriage just doesn't make any sense to me. Why does the government need to know about your living arrangements? Since they don't have to approve of them (you can engage in whatever sort of relationship you'd like without them interfering), why do specific types of relationships draw their attention and warrant special treatment with regard to taxation and joint ownership?

I don't get it. Why should the government regulate marriage?

You mention it in your post - taxation and joint ownership. Add to that: child custody, debt management, and next-of-kinship. The government enforces contracts and protects property. It is also charged with protection of the best interests of children. Most human relationships don't really have an impact on this. If I have a few one-night stands, it isn't going to change any of this (except, perhaps, in the cihld custody area). I'm not going to share property or debt with a random person, nor will I want them to be my next-of-kin.

In most marriages, on the other hand, assets are pooled between both people. As far as they are concerned, they are a single legal entity for the purposes of ownership, debt responsibility, etc. Each generally wants the other to be next-of-kin for all legal purposes. If they have children, they generally wish to equally share custody of said children - being equally responsible for them and having equal rights to take care of them. For this reason, the government needs a way to deal with the issues that get brought up. Legal marriage is what they have devised.

Which could be handled with a will and other legal documents. It doesn't explain why the Government has their hands in what is usually a religious affair.
not the tax thing (under current law)

I didn't say I agree with it, just that's why it is the way it is.

However, if everything is as simple as a will, then why do gay people want to get married so bad? if it's purely a religious thing and most religions shun them, you would think they wouldn't want to get married.

Even if they did, why would they care about government recognition? couldn't they just perform their own ceremony? (yes, I am being facitious, and yes, I do realize that homosexuals do perform their own non-government sanctioned ceremonies now)

yeah, pretty much, that and since it is at the very least, regulated, then citizens get the vote on what should be legal, and illegal, that is why almost all legal definitons in america, of marriage, are one man, one woman, because that is how a majority of voters vote, and what they want, that is why
Equality, Freedoms, Nor rights should be up for a popularity contest

That's a view i've expressed in the past as well. I agree.


Which could be handled with a will and other legal documents. It doesn't explain why the Government has their hands in what is usually a religious affair.

Yep.

One valid point I see in regulating marriage is to prevent forced marriages. In France, in order to make forced marriages harder, they recently raised the legal age for marriage from 15 to 18 (it was the only law voted with unanimity, from the far right to the communists in the Parliament since years ;) ), and I approve that.

Else, well, the are also laws against marriage within the family are to prevent genetic disease, that I understand.

But except for those specific issues, two consenting adults should be able to marry if they want to.

Which could be handled with a will and other legal documents. It doesn't explain why the Government has their hands in what is usually a religious affair.

ok, so someone dies suddenly, no family but a 'commited' relaitonship (since no legal marriage existed) who gets the moeny? nothing legally binding the partner to recieve anything...

There's often discussion of legalising or prohibiting certain types of marriage.

Why does the government regulate marriage at all? How is your relationship any of the government's business?

The concept of legal marriage marriage just doesn't make any sense to me. Why does the government need to know about your living arrangements? Since they don't have to approve of them (you can engage in whatever sort of relationship you'd like without them interfering), why do specific types of relationships draw their attention and warrant special treatment with regard to taxation and joint ownership?

I don't get it. Why should the government regulate marriage?
Because if we don't, then the PERVERTS COULD GET MARRIED!!!!!!

GASP!!!!!

If we let THEM get married, then our holy tradition of selling female humans into sexual and domestic slavery will be demeened! If we allow our traditional gender roles to be undermined, then it is possible that men and women will forge relationships out of love and respect rather than societally-imposed mutual helplessness!

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

Equality, Freedoms, Nor rights should be up for a popularity contest

Definitely. Just because the majority of society wants and expects you to conform to what they think is the "correct" way to live, that doesn't mean you should.

Which could be handled with a will and other legal documents. It doesn't explain why the Government has their hands in what is usually a religious affair.

Marriage is not a religious affair. It can be, but it's not limited to that at all. Union between two people wanting to share their lives is something that existed far before any of the current religions. Therefore, it's normal for me that there is a legal procedure for it; which has both consequences on other laws and is a way to tell to the society: "we are together now".

Interestingly enough, the state has an obligation to serve ALL ITS CITIZENS, and not just the majority. ;)

interestingly enough you cannot make everyone happy, if more people would be unhappy with increased marital... hmmm flexibility? not a good word, but it works, than the government has an obligaiton to the greatest number when two sides are directly opposed

Which could be handled with a will and other legal documents. It doesn't explain why the Government has their hands in what is usually a religious affair.

Legal marriage is not and never has been a religious affair.

Meanwhile, it would take hundreds of legal documents and an insane amount of money paid to lawyers to accomplish the legal recognition gained by two people signing one piece of paper. Some of the aspects of marriage cannot be gained in any other legal way, as they are meant to apply only to a situation in which two people are living as one. Getting rid of this would mean that most married couples wouldn't have the resources or time to get the protections they need for their situation.

You mention it in your post - taxation and joint ownership.

Why should it carry tax ramifications? Why can't each person be treated as an individual? And joint ownership cold be handled through contract law (and thus be totally voluntary, as opposed to this package deal into which people are forced).

Add to that: child custody, debt management, and next-of-kinship.

Those last two can again fall under contract law, and the first one already gets handled for single parents. The marriage laws are extraneous.

In most marriages, on the other hand, assets are pooled between both people. As far as they are concerned, they are a single legal entity for the purposes of ownership, debt responsibility, etc. Each generally wants the other to be next-of-kin for all legal purposes.

Most, sure, but not all. I don't pool resources with my partner. We don't own anything jointly. We're not responsible for each other's debts. There's no reason for the government to assume that we want to be treated as if we're a family from the 1950s.

These generalisations are entirely unnecessary, and detrimental to those who don't want their relationships to exist as the government prefers them.

Every aspect of legal marriage can already be handled by other laws, and none of those force people to take them all as a group.

Which could be handled with a will and other legal documents. It doesn't explain why the Government has their hands in what is usually a religious affair.Since when is marriage a religious thing? Oh, yeah, since the Middle Ages. At least in Europe.

ok, so someone dies suddenly, no family but a 'commited' relaitonship (since no legal marriage existed) who gets the moeny? nothing legally binding the partner to recieve anything...

What about their will?

interestingly enough you cannot make everyone happy, if more people would be unhappy with increased marital... hmmm flexibility? not a good word, but it works, than the government has an obligaiton to the greatest number when two sides are directly opposedSo because a majority might have been unhappy with freeing slaves, it would have been the wrong thing to do? After all, slaves were a minority overall.

Which could be handled with a will and other legal documents. It doesn't explain why the Government has their hands in what is usually a religious affair.

Or, we could do what we do know, and have all those things in one simple contract.

It's not a religious affair in the eyes of government at all, by the by.

...is a way to tell to the society: "we are together now".

Why does society need to know?

What about their will?

the idea was if they died suddenly and left no will... that was why I said suddenly, I really didnt think it was that hard to figure out... how many thirty year olds have living wills? exactly

Most, sure, but not all. I don't pool resources with my partner. We don't own anything jointly. We're not responsible for each other's debts. There's no reason for the government to assume that we want to be treated as if we're a family from the 1950s.

These generalisations are entirely unnecessary, and detrimental to those who don't want their relationships to exist as the government prefers them.

Every aspect of legal marriage can already be handled by other laws, and none of those force people to take them all as a group.

It always interests me when I meet couples like that, seperate checking accounts, husband pays rent to the wife for use of her house, books completely seperate, neither is the beneficiary on the other's insurance policy.... I really don't get it. It confuses me. You love them enough to get married but you don't trust them enough to share finances?

Why does society need to know?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10889958&postcount=2

Or, we could do what we do know, and have all those things in one simple contract.

But it's a package deal. It's not like we can edit the contract to suit our specific tastes.

interestingly enough you cannot make everyone happy, if more people would be unhappy with increased marital... hmmm flexibility? not a good word, but it works, than the government has an obligaiton to the greatest number when two sides are directly opposed
But if the government decides one way it limits the freedom of the minority

If they decide the other way (alowing homosexual marriges) no freedom is impacted

There should be no way that a popularity contest should be allowed to limit one freedom of any group including minorities

So because a majority might have been unhappy with freeing slaves, it would have been the wrong thing to do? After all, slaves were a minority overall.

ok, do you people not realise what democracy is? it is people voting, with the high vote winning, end of story, we of course, throw in a republican twist that uses representatives that we elect, but still very similar, the point is that most people were for abolition as I understand a few people in teh south weren't, how does that effect this issue (especially since there were fewer votes to reatin slaves, and we conquered the confederacy and annexed them back into the U.S. so that settels that, and our laws were imposed on them)

What about their will?

Many people do not have will. Especially those who die suddenly of accidents/...

That aside, I do support strong taxes on inheritance, and having a lower amount of taxes (or a higher cap) between married people seems all natural to me: since they live together, they are both owning and using the goods in reality, and the surviving shouldn't lose control of it just because one of the two die.

This begins to touch to very wide subjects, and the actual effects will depend a lot of how the society is towards "property", "taxes", "inheritance" and so on. But if the details are highly dependant, having different rules for people living together and people who don't make sense - and marriage is that: an official affirmation that two people who to live together and share their lives for a long time.

But if the government decides one way it limits the freedom of the minority

If they decide the other way (alowing homosexual marriges) no freedom is impacted

There should be no way that a popularity contest should be allowed to limit one freedom of any group including minorities

so we should dissolve the Patriot Act, and the Police Force, and the military and Homeland security because they might restrict some of our freedoms? Order is far more important than freedom

Ugh, marriage.

Do away with it, and have everyone live common law. The divorce rate is so high (in my area, at least) that it is clogging up the administration of the government, and is preventing them from dealing with more important matters, such as free education! :)

And, no, I am not considering getting married at any point in my life.

ok, do you people not realise what democracy is? it is people voting, with the high vote winning, end of story, we of course, throw in a republican twist that uses representatives that we elect, but still very similar, the point is that most people were for abolition as I understand a few people in teh south weren't, how does that effect this issue (especially since there were fewer votes to reatin slaves, and we conquered the confederacy and annexed them back into the U.S. so that settels that, and our laws were imposed on them)Yeah, I seem to remember the founding fathers trying to stop mob rule for some reason. The state has an obligation to all its citizens. In some cases the rights of some need to be sacrificed for the many, such as with criminals. In other cases, minorities need to be protected from the majority.

Legal marriage is not and never has been a religious affair.

Meanwhile, it would take hundreds of legal documents and an insane amount of money paid to lawyers to accomplish the legal recognition gained by two people signing one piece of paper. Some of the aspects of marriage cannot be gained in any other legal way, as they are meant to apply only to a situation in which two people are living as one. Getting rid of this would mean that most married couples wouldn't have the resources or time to get the protections they need for their situation.


Kindly tell that to the Religious right. I'm getting rather tired of saying it to them.

ok, do you people not realise what democracy is? it is people voting, with the high vote winning, end of story

Ah, but it's not only that; such a society can easily be a tyranny of the majority and a very undemocratic place for the minority involved.

the idea was if they died suddenly and left no will... that was why I said suddenly, I really didnt think it was that hard to figure out... how many thirty year olds have living wills? exactly
I don't know, maybe quite a few do. I frankly have no idea. I know I intend to by that age.

Since when is marriage a religious thing? Oh, yeah, since the Middle Ages. At least in Europe.

As this person implies, marriages was originally a non-religious matter. The religious links of marriage is a later development. It has normally been a legal/political/social thing about who is responsible for what, where property goes etc. The church only get involved later on, and was still pretty much for the same reasons, just glossed up with religious language and morality.

think about it... marriage existed in Europe before Christianity existed.

And another reason the state is interested is to encourage people to have children. It is less of an issue now, but it eas explicitly encouraged for this partiular reason.

Ah... other people have said this.

But it's a package deal. It's not like we can edit the contract to suit our specific tastes.

Someone's never heard of prenuptial agreements, it seems.

Why should it carry tax ramifications? Why can't each person be treated as an individual?

Because their finances are no longer individual. Both contribute to household finances. Thus, shouldn't both get credit for such things as interest rate deductions, etc? But not on a doubled-up basis - it must be done at the same time.

And joint ownership cold be handled through contract law (and thus be totally voluntary, as opposed to this package deal into which people are forced).

No one is forced into marriage. They choose to do it. I can tell you that I'd much rather sign a single piece of paper than go through lawyer fees every single time I want to buy something. Even then, it isn't really true joint ownership. My fiance and I own a house together, but if he were to die, it wouldn't mean that I owned a house. It would mean that I and his next-of-kin (his mother) owned the house together.

Those last two can again fall under contract law, and the first one already gets handled for single parents. The marriage laws are extraneous.

Marriage is contract law. So of course they are handled under contract law. And yes, single parents can have custody of their children. If a single parent wants to make his/her partner an equal guardian of their child, they cannot do it unless they are married. If I had a child, there is no way I could give my fiance custody without marrying him. Hell, I can't even jointly own a dog with my fiance.

Most, sure, but not all. I don't pool resources with my partner. We don't own anything jointly. We're not responsible for each other's debts. There's no reason for the government to assume that we want to be treated as if we're a family from the 1950s.

Then don't get married. Easy as pie.

Meanwhile, I doubt very seriously that you live with a partner and don't pool your resources or rely on each other's debts.

These generalisations are entirely unnecessary, and detrimental to those who don't want their relationships to exist as the government prefers them.

Those who don't want them that way won't enter into marriage. They can pick and choose from among the various legal ramifications that can be acheived separately. You make it sound as if someone forces you to get married.

Every aspect of legal marriage can already be handled by other laws, and none of those force people to take them all as a group.

Wrong. There are quite a few aspects of marriage that are not handled by other laws. And no one is forced to get married. If you want to cherry-pick which aspects you want out of those available outside of marriage - go for it. Me, on the other hand, I'd rather go for the package deal.

It always interests me when I meet couples like that, seperate checking accounts, husband pays rent to the wife for use of her house, books completely seperate, neither is the beneficiary on the other's insurance policy.... I really don't get it. It confuses me. You love them enough to get married but you don't trust them enough to share finances?

It's a constant financial reminder of how much value you get from the relationship.

Plus, it means we never fight about money.

Why does society need to know?

There are two reasons for that.

First, a will of the two persons to make the society know. Deciding to share your life (or part of it) with someone is a strong commitement, one that affects many aspect of your life, and one that most people want to claim. It's a time of happiness, and something you are "proud" to do. Many people want it to be official, formal, and known, and they should be encouraged to, IMHO (but not forced, of course, if they don't want to, well, it's their choice).

Second, because the society, to behave as fairly as possible, has to know facts about the persons. Be it in trials, or for some ways to apply laws, an important fact like sharing your life with someone else needs to be taken into account, because what's more fair in one case may not be in the other.

so we should dissolve the Patriot Act, and the Police Force, and the military and Homeland security because they might restrict some of our freedoms? Order is far more important than freedom
ABsolutly yes to the Patriot Act

No to the Police and millitary

And Yes to the Homeland security


We should not be able to limit a persons freedom unless they infringe on the rights (including freedom) of others

so we should dissolve the Patriot Act,

Yeah, we should


Order is far more important than freedom

There is a point where attempts to produce order go to far. All it should go as far as is to prevent chaos. Order in itself is not a good, it is just that a certain degree of order is required for people to have a decent standard of living.

It always interests me when I meet couples like that, seperate checking accounts, husband pays rent to the wife for use of her house, books completely seperate, neither is the beneficiary on the other's insurance policy.... I really don't get it. It confuses me. You love them enough to get married but you don't trust them enough to share finances?

I did that. Had nothing to do with trust, in fact both of our names were on each other's accounts, but I never once looked at "his", and to the best of my knowledge, he was never in "mine". We had differing ways of handling money, and preferred to maintain our own accounts and investments. We had each been doing our own finances for our adult lives prior to being married, why change it simply because we were married?

It's a constant financial reminder of how much value you get from the relationship.

Plus, it means we never fight about money.

huh, my husband and I pool all our possesions, we never fight about money either. We do fight about what type of pizza to get. LOL but it doesn't last long when we realize we could just get two.

No one is forced into marriage. They choose to do it.

I live in a common law jurisdiction. If the government figures out that we live together, we're legally married. Nothing we can do about it.

As such, we're forced to use separate addresses for tax purposes, but we don't live at the one I use. The government thinks I live with my mother. I'm required to lie to them to avoid legal marriage.

Marriage is contract law. So of course they are handled under contract law. And yes, single parents can have custody of their children. If a single parent wants to make his/her partner an equal guardian of their child, they cannot do it unless they are married. If I had a child, there is no way I could give my fiance custody without marrying him.

And that's a stupid restriction too, and one that only exists because of existing marriage laws.

Meanwhile, I doubt very seriously that you live with a partner and don't pool your resources or rely on each other's debts.

You can doubt that all you want. Our debts are separate, and we each finance our own debt individually.

I did that. Had nothing to do with trust, in fact both of our names were on each other's accounts, but I never once looked at "his", and to the best of my knowledge, he was never in "mine". We had differing ways of handling money, and preferred to maintain our own accounts and investments. We had each been doing our own finances for our adult lives prior to being married, why change it simply because we were married?
why make any compromises because you are married? why live in the same house? why sleep in the same room? why share the housework?

heck, why even get married at all? you could live your single lives in seperate houses make no commitment whatsoever, not have to worry about the government and hey, have lots of sex.

:p

so we should dissolve the Patriot Act, and the Police Force, and the military and Homeland security because they might restrict some of our freedoms? Order is far more important than freedom
Now you're just being silly.

We're not talking about permitting anything that would actually hurt others; we're talking about why something should be legalised because it's legal for a majority, but not for a minority. AKA - the double standard.

I agree with the point in theory, but not in practice. Of all the "rights" for a person to get their drawers in a wad over, marriage is not one of them. Marriage just simplifies things that, as others have said, can be accomplished in a variety of ways. There are any number of ways to alter even a standard marriage (I.E. prenuptual agreements) license. All you have is a way to make things easier for most couples, and a few added protections.

Byt the way, can you imagine the 1040 for a polygamist? (Married and filing jointly-jointly-jointly-jointly-jointly-jointly-jointly-jointly...):D

On a separate note, I think that lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt. Gay couples I'm not so sure about, not because I don't trust gays, but because I'm afraid that some sickos will get "married" to each other, and then "adopt" a child, so they can abuse it. Maybe that's sexist, but I am a man, so there you are.

why make any compromises because you are married? why live in the same house? why sleep in the same room? why share the housework?

heck, why even get married at all? you could live your single lives in seperate houses make no commitment whatsoever, not have to worry about the government and hey, have lots of sex.

:p

why get married at all? i dunno. love?

really, i'm not suggesting it's the perfect arrangement for everyone, i'm just saying that for us, it made sense. i just don't equate money with commitment.

I agree with the point in theory, but not in practice. Of all the "rights" for a person to get their drawers in a wad over, marriage is not one of them. Marriage just simplifies things that, as others have said, can be accomplished in a variety of ways. There are any number of ways to alter even a standard marriage (I.E. prenuptual agreements) license. All you have is a way to make things easier for most couples, and a few added protections.

Byt the way, can you imagine the 1040 for a polygamist? (Married and filing jointly-jointly-jointly-jointly-jointly-jointly-jointly-jointly...):D

On a separate note, I think that lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt. Gay couples I'm not so sure about, not because I don't trust gays, but because I'm afraid that some sickos will get "married" to each other, and then "adopt" a child, so they can abuse it. Maybe that's sexist, but I am a man, so there you are.


You realize of course women can be child molestors too. Don't be a sexist ass. Women are no less capable of horrible things than men.

On a separate note, I think that lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt. Gay couples I'm not so sure about, not because I don't trust gays, but because I'm afraid that some sickos will get "married" to each other, and then "adopt" a child, so they can abuse it. Maybe that's sexist, but I am a man, so there you are.
Stangely, I can see your point of view, especially since there is an inherant maternal instinct in all women, whether they are hetero, bi or lesbian. There is the biological need to nuture and care for a child (or children). I don't agree that gaus would be worse, I just see from a similar POV why female couples are better suited...

On a separate note, I think that lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt. Gay couples I'm not so sure about, not because I don't trust gays, but because I'm afraid that some sickos will get "married" to each other, and then "adopt" a child, so they can abuse it. Maybe that's sexist, but I am a man, so there you are.

riiigghhtt....because of course heterosexual couples are not capable of abuse. :rolleyes:

that statement isn't sexist, as much as it is ignorant.

ok, do you people not realise what democracy is? it is people voting, with the high vote winning, end of story, we of course, throw in a republican twist that uses representatives that we elect, but still very similar, the point is that most people were for abolition as I understand a few people in teh south weren't, how does that effect this issue (especially since there were fewer votes to reatin slaves, and we conquered the confederacy and annexed them back into the U.S. so that settels that, and our laws were imposed on them)

Luckily, in addition to the republic, we have this crazy thing called a Constitution, which limits the actions the majority can take against the minority....

I live in a common law jurisdiction. If the government figures out that we live together, we're legally married. Nothing we can do about it.

Then rant and rave against common-law marriage, not against marriage in general. There is a reason that most jurisdictions have dropped common-law marriage.

And that's a stupid restriction too, and one that only exists because of existing marriage laws.

Not really. It certainly wouldn't be in the best interest of my child if often changed the person I was dating, but always gave the person I was dating legal custody of my child. It would end up being a legal nightmare. Thus, instead, the government expects to see a solid committment to a person before changing the situation of the children.

You can doubt that all you want. Our debts are separate, and we each finance our own debt individually.

You live in a home together, do you not? Is it all paid off? Do you both separately own cars and never ever drive the car owned by the other? Does nobody give you joint gifts? Do you buy your own food? Do you each have your own separate sets of dishes, linens, washer and dryer, etc. etc.?

I agree with the point in theory, but not in practice. Of all the "rights" for a person to get their drawers in a wad over, marriage is not one of them. Marriage just simplifies things that, as others have said, can be accomplished in a variety of ways. There are any number of ways to alter even a standard marriage (I.E. prenuptual agreements) license. All you have is a way to make things easier for most couples, and a few added protections.

Byt the way, can you imagine the 1040 for a polygamist? (Married and filing jointly-jointly-jointly-jointly-jointly-jointly-jointly-jointly...):D

On a separate note, I think that lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt. Gay couples I'm not so sure about, not because I don't trust gays, but because I'm afraid that some sickos will get "married" to each other, and then "adopt" a child, so they can abuse it. Maybe that's sexist, but I am a man, so there you are.

Unless you can show a higher abuse rate in male couples over abuse rate of lets say strait couples it is nothing but using un supported inuendo to justify inequality

Stangely, I can see your point of view, especially since there is an inherant maternal instinct in all women, whether they are hetero, bi or lesbian. There is the biological need to nuture and care for a child (or children). I don't agree that gaus would be worse, I just see from a similar POV why female couples are better suited...
So if it turns out female couples are better suted averagly then lets say strait couples (in this aspect) maybe we should not allow strait couples to addopt as female couples have more maternal insinct

riiigghhtt....because of course heterosexual couples are not capable of abuse. :rolleyes:

that statement isn't sexist, as much as it is ignorant.

Look at it this way. If 3 out of 10 gay adoptions end up with abuse, compared with 2 out of 10 for other adoptions, would you still be in favor of it? My gut tells me that the numbers will be wider than that because of what I suggested. It's not fair, but honestly, what can you do? Also, I could be dead wrong, and I am not against a trial period.

So if it turns out female couples are better suted averagly then lets say strait couples (in this aspect) maybe we should not allow strait couples to addopt as female couples have more maternal insinct

My point is, gay couples will always get more scrutiny than straight couples. If the averages pan out badly for gays, that could pose enormous problems for the gay community.

My point is, gay couples will always get more scrutiny than straight couples. If the averages pan out badly for gays, that could pose enormous problems for the gay community.
That I agree with ... I doubt they will turn out that way(stats that is)

BUT even if they turn out good for the gay community ... biggots still feel they have the right to restrict it even without any substance to their arguements

If you read the Weekend Web on SomethingAwful two weeks ago, you know why marriage has to be regulated...

IncestTaboo.com

It's a site built around the idea that sexual circles between a mother, her 13-year-old son, and her husband, are completely ok, just like letting teenaged siblings have sex is completely ok, and just like jerking off wildly in the middle of the room while your mother-in-law is looking for a book on your bookshelf...is completely ok.

Please, please, please tell me I'm not the only one that sees why this shouldn't be allowed...

There's often discussion of legalising or prohibiting certain types of marriage.

Why does the government regulate marriage at all? How is your relationship any of the government's business?

The concept of legal marriage marriage just doesn't make any sense to me. Why does the government need to know about your living arrangements? Since they don't have to approve of them (you can engage in whatever sort of relationship you'd like without them interfering), why do specific types of relationships draw their attention and warrant special treatment with regard to taxation and joint ownership?

I don't get it. Why should the government regulate marriage?

Hurray!!
Exactly my point of view, oh and how does your relationship gain in value by signing a piece of paper saying you will be true to each other forever? Wouldn't that have much more value if it were an intimate happening?

Look at it this way. If 3 out of 10 gay adoptions end up with abuse, compared with 2 out of 10 for other adoptions, would you still be in favor of it? My gut tells me that the numbers will be wider than that because of what I suggested. It's not fair, but honestly, what can you do? Also, I could be dead wrong, and I am not against a trial period.

with statistics like those, i would be highly suspect of whatever criteria used to place children in adoptive families.

and, knowing both gay and lesbian couples who have adopted children, as well as numerous people who work with child protective services who actively place children in foster care with single people, heterosexual couples, and gay and lesbian couples, i am glad that not everyone is as driven by their "gut."

If you read the Weekend Web on SomethingAwful two weeks ago, you know why marriage has to be regulated...

IncestTaboo.com

It's a site built around the idea that sexual circles between a mother, her 13-year-old son, and her husband, are completely ok, just like letting teenaged siblings have sex is completely ok, and just like jerking off wildly in the middle of the room while your mother-in-law is looking for a book on your bookshelf...is completely ok.

Please, please, please tell me I'm not the only one that sees why this shouldn't be allowed...

As long as all parties involved agree: no problem (of course with small children you have the problem that they don't know what they wnat yet)

If you read the Weekend Web on SomethingAwful two weeks ago, you know why marriage has to be regulated...

IncestTaboo.com

It's a site built around the idea that sexual circles between a mother, her 13-year-old son, and her husband, are completely ok, just like letting teenaged siblings have sex is completely ok, and just like jerking off wildly in the middle of the room while your mother-in-law is looking for a book on your bookshelf...is completely ok.

Please, please, please tell me I'm not the only one that sees why this shouldn't be allowed...

What do the sexual practices like these have to do with why marrage between concenting adults should be restricted

Look at it this way. If 3 out of 10 gay adoptions end up with abuse, compared with 2 out of 10 for other adoptions, would you still be in favor of it? My gut tells me that the numbers will be wider than that because of what I suggested. It's not fair, but honestly, what can you do? Also, I could be dead wrong, and I am not against a trial period.
If even 2 out of 10 are abused we should be looking at our adoption pollicies first because WAY too many unqualified people are ending up with kids

Hurray!!
Exactly my point of view, oh and how does your relationship gain in value by signing a piece of paper saying you will be true to each other forever? Wouldn't that have much more value if it were an intimate happening?

The relationship doesn't gain value by getting a legal marriage license. The married couple gains certain legal protections by doing so. The committment is not made by signing the paper.

The relationship doesn't gain value by getting a legal marriage license. The married couple gains certain legal protections by doing so. The committment is not made by signing the paper.
Exactly

Also with over a thousand rights associated with marrage ... there is just no practical way to have seperate forms or processes to get there.

Stangely, I can see your point of view, especially since there is an inherant maternal instinct in all women, whether they are hetero, bi or lesbian. There is the biological need to nuture and care for a child (or children). I don't agree that gaus would be worse, I just see from a similar POV why female couples are better suited...
actually I have known many men with a "maternal instinct" like women have, although out of the about 15 I have known 14 of them were gay, so..... anyway, yeah, it shouldn't matter anyway. My husband is a great father, no "maternal instinct" but he cares about my kids, and wouldn't ever hurt them, if I died I would be fine with him raising them, it doesn't take maternal instinct to raise kids, it takes love and devotion, something that doesn't discriminate with regards to gender or sexual orientation.

Which could be handled with a will and other legal documents. It doesn't explain why the Government has their hands in what is usually a religious affair.

Marriage is not actually a religious affair, it's a legal contract. (Some people choose to involve religion. Whatever!) Whenever there's a contract, there can be problems with a breach of contract, which can be taken to the court system to be settled, which is a part of the government.

The only real reason to regulate marriage is to keep it meaningful. Without any kind of regulation - legally or socially - people would keep getting married for the tax breaks and whatnot. not that that doesnt happen, but if it became commonplace for 2 guys sharing a flat to get married just to save money, then that would devalue the whole thing. although social taboos more than anything are what prevent that from happening now. not that id have a problem with it. But straight religious couples who are in love might get pissed off if their union is seen as no different than that of 2 people who just did it for a laugh.

Marriage is about property and legal authority, not relationships. Until relatively recently, historically speaking, legal marriages were very often arranged, regardless of whether the couple had any feelings for each other or not. For the rich and powerful, families were the power structure/unit, and business/government -- even the ending of wars -- could be done by the joining of families through marriages, which were seen as cementing the contract between the two family groups. Whole families became at least nominally pledged to each other, not just the married couple. Such marriages needed to be acknowledged publicly in order to announce and cement the contract.

For the poor, legal marriage was a luxury, but if they had any property or status, they would also want their marriages publicly noted in their communities. The message was: "It's not just us Smiths you're dealing with anymore. Now it's the Smiths AND the Joneses." One of the good things about common law was that it extended recognition of marriage contracts to people who could not afford formal weddings or chose to skip them but had children together.

From ancient times to this day, marriage often involved the paying of a bride-price or dowry, sometimes paid by the groom's family to the bride's and other times vice versa. In some societies, this amounted to buying the woman, but in most cases, it was pretty much paying for the privilege of joining the family. The more prestigious the family, the higher the price to get in.

Interestingly, marriage was almost always a contract matter and included what we might now think of as pre-nuptial agreements for the couple, since they were going to be in a sexual relationship whether they liked it or not. The terms of the marriage were usually worked out in advance. I don't know when that stopped being the norm in western societies, but we are just rediscovering it now.

Personally, since the US separates church and state, I would rather see the state treat all marriages as "civil unions" and let the individual couples/families work out their own religious or other ceremonies to bless the marriage with.

On a separate note, I think that lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt. Gay couples I'm not so sure about, not because I don't trust gays, but because I'm afraid that some sickos will get "married" to each other, and then "adopt" a child, so they can abuse it. Maybe that's sexist, but I am a man, so there you are.
How can anyone be this stupid?

Gay does not equal child molester.

Or are you implying that a pair of pedophiles will exploit marriage laws, marry eachother, and then adopt a child?

I don't know which to be more offended by.

As long as all parties involved agree: no problem (of course with small children you have the problem that they don't know what they wnat yet)
Are you somehow implying that the 13 year-old mentioned in the example is (or shoudl be) authorised to "agree" to a sexual relationship?

I've seen a lot of the points I would've raised have been mentioned already but I'll throw in my two cents like a tourist at any still body of water who thinks it'll be lucky.

As a Christian, I personally choose to not be involved in homosexuality, beastiality, poligamy, prostitution, child mosestation, devorce or any marraige that would allow any of those things. That is a faith choice. I can say that I believe that these things are wrong but if you don't come from the same starting point of faith that I do then you may not share my views. I can't make anybody believe what I do but on the chance that they decided that they want to get out of their sinful lifestyle I would hate the laws of the country to forbid them from leaving their legally bound life partner because they are the wrong sex/species.

All in all, there are a few important points on which it would be appropriate for government to regulate marriage - consent being most important, but overall there ought to be significantly less regulation of the institution.

If you read the Weekend Web on SomethingAwful two weeks ago, you know why marriage has to be regulated...

Don't follow SA, so no idea.

(removed)

Just FYI, that's skirting close to linking to obscene site, and the mods tend to frown on it.

It's a site built around the idea that sexual circles between a mother, her 13-year-old son, and her husband, are completely ok,

That's an argument for regulating sexual contact between a consenting adult and a person unable to (legally) consent.

just like letting teenaged siblings have sex is completely ok,

And that's an argument for regulating sexual contact between two individuals who may or may not be able to consent.

and just like jerking off wildly in the middle of the room while your mother-in-law is looking for a book on your bookshelf...is completely ok.

And that's an argument for regulating sexual contact between (presumably) consenting adults.

Please, please, please tell me I'm not the only one that sees why this shouldn't be allowed...

Sexual contact between an adult and a child - agreed.
Sexual contact between teenagers (sibling or otherwise) - depends on the degree to which you consider a person to be able to consent at various ages. For early teens - agreed, middle teens - questionable, late teens - allowable.
Sexual contact between consenting adults - not allowable if it intrudes on others, otherwise anything goes.

not the tax thing (under current law)

I didn't say I agree with it, just that's why it is the way it is.

However, if everything is as simple as a will, then why do gay people want to get married so bad? if it's purely a religious thing and most religions shun them, you would think they wouldn't want to get married.

Even if they did, why would they care about government recognition? couldn't they just perform their own ceremony? (yes, I am being facitious, and yes, I do realize that homosexuals do perform their own non-government sanctioned ceremonies now)

Marraige is not a religious thing(as much as christians want it to be) it is a leagal thing. I feel it is unconstitutional to deny homosexual couples to marry. They should get to see their partner if one is injured. Plus it is a public sign of they are now as one.
Plus that cockimaimy BS about homos recking the sanctaty of maraige... It is actuall heterosexuals that are reacking marraige today...remember 50% devorce rate???
That last bit it to the christians that try to use that crap argument.

If the government stepped out of marriage, there would be scores of law firms ready to tie you to your partner legally through contracts and wills and such at the drop of the hat.

The only reason government still involves itself is a puritan value system.

The only real reason to regulate marriage is to keep it meaningful.

You cannot regulate meaning. Whatever meaning is attributed to the union will only come from the couple entering it.

But straight religious couples who are in love might get pissed off if their union is seen as no different than that of 2 people who just did it for a laugh.

Who cares how other people see a union? I would be upset if people thought that my upcoming marriage was anything like Britney Spears and her 48 hour "laugh", but luckily, most people are smarter than that. They realize that the committment in marriage has nothing to do with the contractual side of things, and is different for each couple.

If the government stepped out of marriage, there would be scores of law firms ready to tie you to your partner legally through contracts and wills and such at the drop of the hat.

Considering that enforcing contracts is a part of the government's responsibility, that wouldn't be the government "stepping out" of it. It would simply make it much, much, much more difficult to get the protections generally afforded to married couples, if only because the expense would go through the roof and people who didn't know the legalities behind it all could easily get screwed.