Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Abolish ALL civil marriages

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Marriage is a religious institution. There should, ideally, be a wall of separation between religion and government. Why should my tax dollars go into supporting an institution I don't even believe in? Why should the government discriminate for or against certain people based on their marital status?

The only reason I would enter a marriage is for all the legal benefits, but if the law didn't care, I wouldn't even bother, unless my girlfriend decides she wants to go through some sort of secularized ceremony (I'm actually single, but I say that to make a point), not that I would understand the point of such a ceremony, but whatever floats her boat is fine with me. It's not right or fair that the government bars other people from entering into the same arrangement simple because they don't want a heterosexual and/or monogamous arrangement.

It doesn't even make sense that marriage is licensed in the first place--not these days anyway. Marriage licenses, in the US anyway, were created originally to prevent interracial marriages. This is most apparent in the case Loving v. Virginia (search for "license" to get to the point). Some Christians even agree with me on getting rid of state marriage licenses. They're weary of the idea that the state has purview into marriages, and the possible consequences resulting in that.

I say it should be up to individual institutions--namely churches--to decide upon the marital status of people, not the state. If people want some sort of legal recognition of their marriage for things like hospital visitation, then create some sort of institution of legal relationships wherein two biologically unrelated and consenting adults can have their relationship legally recognized--ala civil union. Does this mean that some people might enter into polygamous relationships? Quite possible, but again, that shouldn't be within the purview of the state. For example, there's no reason the state should interfere with the religious practices of the FLDS, but it does, quite consistently.

PS I support organizations like GLAAD partially to be a pain in the ass to social conservatives, and partially because I figure that if I can't abolish civil marriage, I may as well fight for equality before the law. I consider my idealism to be a compass for my pragmatism. I'm pretty sure someone would bring it up if I didn't mention it, but I really don't want this thread to be about gay marriage. I just don't want anyone to think I'm pushing for some hidden agenda.




posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   
you can protest, file suits, do whatever you like within the law. that is your right under freedom of speech. however, whether you like it or not, this is a democracy. so i have two words for you that encompass a philosophy that alot of the people in this country dont seem to be able to grasp:

MAJORITY RULES.

and the majority initially voted for and approved the bill of rights which lay out your freedom to express your opinion....and i'd die for your right to express it. but i'm still going to disagree, as is my right. obviously, the majority of people in this country agree with me.

oh, and as a side note: how can you honestly make the statement that marriage is a religious process when you can be married by a justice of the peace? it's a legal description that makes you and your spouse one entity in the eyes of the law and financial institutions, which is the main reason why homosexuals want to be able to legally do it: because alot of benifits like certain government death benifits can only be paid out to a spouse.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
you can protest, file suits, do whatever you like within the law. that is your right under freedom of speech. however, whether you like it or not, this is a democracy. so i have two words for you that encompass a philosophy that alot of the people in this country dont seem to be able to grasp:

MAJORITY RULES.

and the majority initially voted for and approved the bill of rights which lay out your freedom to express your opinion....and i'd die for your right to express it. but i'm still going to disagree, as is my right. obviously, the majority of people in this country agree with me.

Sure, but you've not put forward any rational for keeping the status quo other than because that's what people want. A not-so-long time ago, a majority people wanted to prevent interracial marriages and they were quite successful at it for three centuries; that didn't make them right to do so.


oh, and as a side note: how can you honestly make the statement that marriage is a religious process when you can be married by a justice of the peace? it's a legal description that makes you and your spouse one entity in the eyes of the law and financial institutions, which is the main reason why homosexuals want to be able to legally do it: because alot of benifits like certain government death benifits can only be paid out to a spouse.

That's just a legal provision to allow non-religious folk like me to enter into matrimony, and obtain said legal benefits. It'd be rather unfair for the state to tell me I have to find a priest that'd be willing to marry me and my hypothetical girlfriend.

I also understand those legal benefits are the reason homosexuals want that right--I did mention it. As I said, since I can't have my way, I'll fight for equality before the law until I can have a small amount of hope of abolishing all civil marriage.

[edit on 12/17/2006 by supercheetah]



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   
so what your saying is, and correct me if i'm wrong:

your right to live with your significant other outside of marriage with the legal rights and privelages of marriage (which is obviously a minority opinion), should supercede my right to live in a state of marriage (the obvious majority opinion). you honestly believe that is fair and rational?



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
so what your saying is, and correct me if i'm wrong:

your right to live with your significant other outside of marriage with the legal rights and privelages of marriage (which is obviously a minority opinion), should supercede my right to live in a state of marriage (the obvious majority opinion). you honestly believe that is fair and rational?
No, not at all. What I'm saying is that marriage should a purely religious matter, and so therefore the state shouldn't even have a say in the matter.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Society sanctions marriage because stable homes create better citizens for the future, but the institution of marriage is in such a sorry state that government really should get out of the picture.

No marriage, no tax exemptions for children, no inheritance laws, nothing.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   
[edit on 2006/12/18 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Society sanctions marriage because stable homes create better citizens for the future, but the institution of marriage is in such a sorry state that government really should get out of the picture.

No marriage, no tax exemptions for children, no inheritance laws, nothing.
It really shouldn't be government's job to "create better citizens for the future." I hope I'm not Godwining this thread, but that's what Nazism wanted to do. If it was government's job to create better citizens, then it would have an interest in controlling the lives of its citizenry. That's a scary thought, and I guess that's part of the reason why we are so screwed up as a nation right now because some in government thought that that was precisely their job.

Beyond that, I agree with your post for the most part. Let marriage fall under the purview of contract law, and deal with it that way. Another plus to that is it would give people more flexibility as to how they wish to set up their unions.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 05:23 AM
link   
I'd like to point out a couple of things....

First, no religion owns the rights to marriage, the tradition predates most of the traditional religions of today. to say that only those who belong to a religious institution should have the right of marriage is insane.

Second, I am sure that many christians would agree with you on the idea of getting rid of civil marriages......after all, who does that leave controlling the institution for the most part.. these same people more than likely don't like the divorce laws, would prefer that abused women remain in miserable marriages, and would really like the child support laws to be done away with. I'm not so sure they would agree with idea of doing away with all the perks that are given for a marriage certificate. more than likely, they just want a more exclusive club to belong to...they still want the perks, they just don't think others should have them.


which leads me to my third point....marriage was set up for the children. children deserve the support of both of their parents, and until dna testing came around there was no way to even come close to proving who the father was. The concept of marriage, if everyone acted as they should solved that problem. at least children who were born from married parents were legally owed support from the father. still left an awful lot of children out in the cold..
but, now, we have extended this right to all children just about.
all children that are born should be equally given the right of support from their natural father, weather the parents were married or not. and, I got a feeling that all this humbug about civil marriages, let's deprive the gay community of these rights, blah, blah, really will boil down to some of these children being deprived of this right...
as far as many of the other "rights" that are granted through a marriage liscense, I agree, the government has no business meddling. and well, to be blunt, at least some of the meddling was necessary to compensate for the losy position women were in a few decades ago!! so, instead of correcting an injustice in the past, they decided to compensate for it...and that led to a headache now.....

[edit on 18-12-2006 by dawnstar]



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by supercheetah
Marriage is a religious institution.


Do you have a source for that? Because my marriage license doesn't mention religion, God, a church or anything of the sort. Just the state.



The only reason I would enter a marriage is for all the legal benefits


Right. LEGAL. Marriage is a state institution. (At this time)



It's not right or fair that the government bars other people from entering into the same arrangement simple because they don't want a heterosexual and/or monogamous arrangement.


I certainly agree with you there.




If people want some sort of legal recognition of their marriage for things like hospital visitation, then create some sort of institution of legal relationships wherein two biologically unrelated and consenting adults can have their relationship legally recognized--ala civil union.


That would be fine with me. Give the word "Marriage" to the church as long as the rest of us can have the legal form of same.



I may as well fight for equality before the law.


Hear, hear! I will fight beside you!


Good post!



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Marriage was originally created only for the upper aristocracry of society. It was created so that the rich could keep the money in the family. It wasn't until relatively recently, sometime in the 1800's, that commoners began to marry. So, no, marriage wasn't created for the children, or as a religious institution. It was simply a legal istitution until the commoners began to marry.

I think civil unions are the best way to go for a secular society, then everyone has equal rights as to being able to be married. If it was left up to the churches, alot of people, especially non-Christians wouldn't be able to be married.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   
The only reason marriage is made into an issue in our nation now . . . and linked to religion is . . . because the opposition to unions of the same sex.

If anybody cares to read about the origins of unions and their purpose many will learn that it had nothing to do with religion . . . at least in the begining.

Our society has made it an issue of religion now.
for a purpose.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Marriage did not become an institution for commoners in the 1800s and religioin has been linked to marriage for thousands of years.


Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs. For instance, ancient Hebrew law required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow.

marriage.about.com...


ks.essortment.com...


A marriage is a socially, sometimes religiously, and often legally recognized union between or among partners forming a family, legitimizing sexual relations between the partners and procreation. Marriages are generally publicly declared in the context of a wedding ceremony. The precise nature and characteristics of marriage have varied widely over time, and across cultures.

Marriage as an institution traces back into antiquity and is found in nearly every culture. Usually it is understood to join a man and woman (who in their marital roles are termed the "husband" and "wife" respectively; generically they may be referred to as "spouses") in a monogamous marriage. Polygamous marriage, in which one person takes more than one spouse, is ancient, but is now common only in Africa and Asia; polygyny (a man with multiple wives) is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry (in which a woman takes several husbands) is rare. Recently the word marriage[1] has also been used to describe unions between homosexual partners (same-sex marriage); as a legal contract, same-sex marriage has been recognized by a few governments[2] and religious institutions.[3][4]

en.wikipedia.org...


Google Search



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
As I said, commoners didn't begin to marry much before the 1800's, as they had no property or bloodline worth protecting. The situation that is being described in the first source is talking about aristocracy and people with alot of money worth protecting.

Your sources didn't bother to explain the difference between commoner marriages and aristocratic marriage. I never said marriage itself didn't exist until the 1800's.

As far as Wikipedia being a reliable source of info, well it isn't. Anyone can submit any crackpot theory they want.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
which leads me to my third point....marriage was set up for the children. children deserve the support of both of their parents, and until dna testing came around there was no way to even come close to proving who the father was. The concept of marriage, if everyone acted as they should solved that problem. at least children who were born from married parents were legally owed support from the father. still left an awful lot of children out in the cold..
but, now, we have extended this right to all children just about.
all children that are born should be equally given the right of support from their natural father, weather the parents were married or not. and, I got a feeling that all this humbug about civil marriages, let's deprive the gay community of these rights, blah, blah, really will boil down to some of these children being deprived of this right...

"For the children..." They're like magic words for getting lousy laws passed. It's not always a good reason to pass a law.

Also, I don't think even the most liberal of liberals want to take away paternity payments. Hell, they're probably the reason they exist (not that I've actually researched this or anything). Libertarians might, but I'm only partially libertarian. Here's what I think should happen. A woman who has a child out of wedlock could bring forth evidence pointing to a particular man as the father. If he contends that, or one or the other wants a DNA test, they'll have one initially at the state's expense. If the man turns out to be the father, he must then reimburse the state for the expense of the test. If he doesn't, then the mother has to reimburse the state.

OTOH, maybe women who can't take care of babies shouldn't have them. There's so many options these days, from preventing a pregnancy to terminating one early. If she does end up having it, maybe she should give it up for adoption. Oh, along with that, society needs to stop judging women who do give up their children for adoption. It's a loving and difficult thing for them to do. They're giving their children a chance at a life better than the one she could possibly give.

Sorry, I went off on a few tangents there. I'm pretty certain it will happen again, though.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
quick question about marraige?

whats in it for the guy?

Seriously what does a man stand to gain from marraige. It should be abolished as cruel and unusual punishment. Works great for the girl, for the guy...not so much.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
BASSPLYR, sounds like you've had a few not-so-great relationships, perhaps? Sorry about that.


Originally posted by BASSPLYR
It should be abolished as cruel and unusual punishment.


As far as I know, no one is forced to get married. No one's twisting the guy's arm. In fact, he's usually the one to ask the woman!


As far as what's in it for the guy... Same things that's in it for the girl. Love, companionship, friendship, someone to take care of some of his needs, someone to grow old with, someone to share life with... And if there are kids involved, somoene to help with them.

That's not really the topic of this thread, though...



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I have geneological records predating 1800 that make it quite clear that there was marriage involved, and they are in no way aristocrats they are talking about. and I've seen much earlier ones. now, they might have been common laws marriages, as opposed to religiously sanctioned ones, but they were marriages.

and what is in it for the man....hmmm.....

I guess no man, ever in the history of civilization, ever wanted to be sure of just who his kids were? to have a part in their lives? there was never a little boy in the world who didn't want a dad to teach him to fish?? ya...it's all for the benefit of the women, that's why in so many cultures, women still are so deprived of legal rights, they can't even go across town without the male escourt??

and as far as no women should have kids unless she can take care of them, alone...well fine, let's extend that to men also, and we'll reduce the world's population drastically!! I've known men who were trying to raise their kids alone, made good money too....but when you figure in the childcare, ect...and then the time needed to cook, clean up after, baths, homework, ect. ect...they were left in about the same shape as many of the single mothers out there are...

marriage originally came about because of children, and the man's desire to know his offspring, and have a say in their upbringing, to be a part in their lives. this is why, so much control was enforced, and still is in some culture onto women....since in order for men to be sure that the child was theirs, they had to control what the women did.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
As far as Wikipedia being a reliable source of info, well it isn't. Anyone can submit any crackpot theory they want.


Where are your sources?



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I think fidelity is more important than marriage. Marriage, it seems, is merely a gesture towards fidelity. I would bet that the need for fidelity (and therefore marriage), and the jealousy and rage that come from infidelity are outward expressions of inherited instincts. I hope I can make that clear, if it isn't already.


Originally posted by dawnstar
I have geneological records predating 1800 that make it quite clear that there was marriage involved, and they are in no way aristocrats they are talking about. and I've seen much earlier ones. now, they might have been common laws marriages, as opposed to religiously sanctioned ones, but they were marriages.

and what is in it for the man....hmmm.....

I guess no man, ever in the history of civilization, ever wanted to be sure of just who his kids were? to have a part in their lives? there was never a little boy in the world who didn't want a dad to teach him to fish?? ya...it's all for the benefit of the women, that's why in so many cultures, women still are so deprived of legal rights, they can't even go across town without the male escourt??

and as far as no women should have kids unless she can take care of them, alone...well fine, let's extend that to men also, and we'll reduce the world's population drastically!! I've known men who were trying to raise their kids alone, made good money too....but when you figure in the childcare, ect...and then the time needed to cook, clean up after, baths, homework, ect. ect...they were left in about the same shape as many of the single mothers out there are...

marriage originally came about because of children, and the man's desire to know his offspring, and have a say in their upbringing, to be a part in their lives. this is why, so much control was enforced, and still is in some culture onto women....since in order for men to be sure that the child was theirs, they had to control what the women did.

You touch upon some of the reasons why human history has been so oppressive towards women for so much of its time (with recent exception, the other times of non-oppression were brief and scattered). Evolution would favor a need for jealousy since a jealous person would favor partners faithful to him to ensure the passing on of his genes. Taken to the extreme, we would probably be like lion prides, where male lions, when taking over the pride of another male lion, will kill the cubs. Biologist have rightly attributed this behavior to the lions' need to ensure the survival of his genes, but if they could talk, the male lion would probably express feelings of rage and jealousy.

When monogamy became popular, women could then be more certain that their genes would be passed on because they could be more certain that their offspring would survive into adulthood. Note: I'm not advocating for polygamy or monogamy or anything else. I'm just making an observation/hypothesis.

** The following is educational, but it does touch upon reproductive anatomy. **

Hehe, one way to measure the average fidelity of different mammals is to look at the size of their testicles. Gorillas have the some of the smallest because gorilla males make sure females within his group only mate with him, and the females are actually pretty faithful to him. Chimpanzees and especially bonobos have much larger testicles compared to human males because their females are far less faithful.

** And now back to our regularly scheduled postings. **

PS

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by forestlady
As far as Wikipedia being a reliable source of info, well it isn't. Anyone can submit any crackpot theory they want.


Where are your sources?
I wanted to ask the same thing, but I was reluctant because it's off-topic. Anybody worried about reliability should create a Watchlist of articles on topics of which he or she knows well, and keep an eye on any changes to those articles. Also, one can keep an eye on the Recent Changes page for any vandalism.

[edit on 12/18/2006 by supercheetah]

[edit on 12/18/2006 by supercheetah]





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join