Conquer Club

Inspired by the... something about gays... can't remember... thread.

There should be no civil marriage. Then, we wouldn't have to worry about gay marriage, civil unions, or such nonsense. Churches could choose to marry whom they please. Individuals could choose to marry whom they please. Fundamentalists wouldn't have to worry about the sanctity of marriage being tarnished, because no marriages between gays would be sanctified by the state nor the fundamentalist's own Pentacostal, holy-rolling, queer-hating church.

Divorces would be incredibly simplified and cost much less for those who can least afford them. Custody of children would be decided by the courts, just as they are today. Division of assets would be decided in legal settlements or by pre-arranged agreements, just as they are today. Two or more people could still have joint bank accounts, joint ownership of property. I know some will say, "But divorce will sky-rocket! The children will suffer!" Divorce is resoundingly common (and socially accepted) today. People won't suddenly run out into the streets and writhe in the ecstasy of divorce just because marriage is no longer a legal convention. Marriage, and life-long commitment, is about much more than a piece of paper. Furthermore, with the abolishment of civil marriage, which would make divorce less expensive for the poorest, people would perhaps be less likely to remain in non-functioning, abusive, and hateful marriages for financial reasons.

The state would no longer give tax breaks and benefits to two people just because they've had their love approved by a preacher or justice of the peace. The single, divorced, and cohabitating would no longer be financially penalized.

So you would give homosexuals absolutly no chances? Since church is too homophobe to let them live their lifes.


No. Just no.

Your idea is perfect in an ideal world. It's just too liberal for certain people to accept. Some people just love it when they have the power to tell others how they should live their lives.

freezie wrote:So you would give homosexuals absolutly no chances? Since church is too homophobe to let them live their lifes.


No. Just no.

What? I don't think you understand what I'm proposing.

Plenty of churches support gay marriage. Who says marriage even has to be ordained by a church? My gay friend officiates weddings, for Pete's sake.

btownmeggy wrote:There should be no civil marriage. Then, we wouldn't have to worry about gay marriage, civil unions, or such nonsense. Churches could choose to marry whom they please. Individuals could choose to marry whom they please. Fundamentalists wouldn't have to worry about the sanctity of marriage being tarnished, because no marriages between gays would be sanctified by the state nor the fundamentalist's own Pentacostal, holy-rolling, queer-hating church.

That is what confused me. Can you please clarify that.

She's saying there should be no marriages... PERIOD!

hecter wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:There should be no civil marriage. Then, we wouldn't have to worry about gay marriage, civil unions, or such nonsense. Churches could choose to marry whom they please. Individuals could choose to marry whom they please. Fundamentalists wouldn't have to worry about the sanctity of marriage being tarnished, because no marriages between gays would be sanctified by the state nor the fundamentalist's own Pentacostal, holy-rolling, queer-hating church.

That is what confused me. Can you please clarify that.

The nonsense I'm referring to is the debate, scandalizing, and hatred spurred by the question of gay marriage.

Anarkistsdream wrote:She's saying there should be no marriages... PERIOD!

No legal marriages. There can be marriages, but the government should have nothing to do with them: before, during, or after the fact.

btownmeggy wrote:

Anarkistsdream wrote:She's saying there should be no marriages... PERIOD!

No legal marriages. There can be marriages, but the government should have nothing to do with them: before, during, or after the fact.

Amen, sister!

Okay. Thank you. I KNEW you couldn't be a stupid homophobic bitch.

btownmeggy wrote:

freezie wrote:So you would give homosexuals absolutly no chances? Since church is too homophobe to let them live their lifes.


No. Just no.

What? I don't think you understand what I'm proposing.

Plenty of churches support gay marriage. Who says marriage even has to be ordained by a church? My gay friend officiates weddings, for Pete's sake.

Well...Here Church is offcially against gay marriage. Every. Probably not from the same country, so maybe it would work for you. Not here.

Sorry.

freezie wrote:Well...Here Church is offcially against gay marriage. Every. Probably not from the same country, so maybe it would work for you. Not here.

Sorry.

In Canada, mon ami? 'Fraid not. For example, Canada has... Unitarian-Universalists? Nearly all accept gay marriage. Methodists? A great many Methodist ministers perform gay weddings. Reform Jewish? The same boat as the Methodists.

Sorry.

freezie wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:

freezie wrote:So you would give homosexuals absolutly no chances? Since church is too homophobe to let them live their lifes.


No. Just no.

What? I don't think you understand what I'm proposing.

Plenty of churches support gay marriage. Who says marriage even has to be ordained by a church? My gay friend officiates weddings, for Pete's sake.

Well...Here Church is offcially against gay marriage. Every. Probably not from the same country, so maybe it would work for you. Not here.

Sorry.

Kid, you still aren't getting this... She says that straights and gays, neither one, should be bound by any sort of government union... If you want to be married, fine, but there are no laws, benefits, or anything else with it...

Do you not get the point?

btownmeggy wrote:

freezie wrote:Well...Here Church is offcially against gay marriage. Every. Probably not from the same country, so maybe it would work for you. Not here.

Sorry.

In Canada, mon ami? 'Fraid not. For example, Canada has... Unitarian-Universalists? Nearly all accept gay marriage. Methodists? A great many Methodist ministers perform gay weddings. Reform Jewish? The same boat as the Methodists.

Sorry.

Quebec...There has been some gay marriage, but most I heard was they were refused. At least before..havent heard anything since.

Quebec isn't the same as the rest of Canada, I am afraid.

Anarkistsdream wrote:

freezie wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:

freezie wrote:So you would give homosexuals absolutly no chances? Since church is too homophobe to let them live their lifes.


No. Just no.

What? I don't think you understand what I'm proposing.

Plenty of churches support gay marriage. Who says marriage even has to be ordained by a church? My gay friend officiates weddings, for Pete's sake.

Well...Here Church is offcially against gay marriage. Every. Probably not from the same country, so maybe it would work for you. Not here.

Sorry.

Kid, you still aren't getting this... She says that straights and gays, neither one, should be bound by any sort of government union... If you want to be married, fine, but there are no laws, benefits, or anything else with it...

Do you not get the point?

I DO get the point. I just said she was right and accepted my mistake. now, kid, do you get THAT point.

Next time you want an answer..stop insulting everyone. Thanks you.

freezie wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:

freezie wrote:Well...Here Church is offcially against gay marriage. Every. Probably not from the same country, so maybe it would work for you. Not here.

Sorry.

In Canada, mon ami? 'Fraid not. For example, Canada has... Unitarian-Universalists? Nearly all accept gay marriage. Methodists? A great many Methodist ministers perform gay weddings. Reform Jewish? The same boat as the Methodists.

Sorry.

Quebec...There has been some gay marriage, but most I heard was they were refused. At least before..havent heard anything since.

Quebec isn't the same as the rest of Canada, I am afraid.

You think they are going to report every gay marriage on the news? You are only going to hear about how the homophobic church is refusing rights, because that's what makes good television/reading.

EDIT: I just read the first post properly. If you were in time to read what I said, forget it, it's irrelevant.

btownmeggy wrote:

freezie wrote:Well...Here Church is offcially against gay marriage. Every. Probably not from the same country, so maybe it would work for you. Not here.

Sorry.

In Canada, mon ami? 'Fraid not. For example, Canada has... Unitarian-Universalists? Nearly all accept gay marriage. Methodists? A great many Methodist ministers perform gay weddings. Reform Jewish? The same boat as the Methodists.

Sorry.

Unitarian-Universalist representin'! We preform marriage's for everyone and don't discriminate at all! Yay we are as liberal a church as can be! Yay UU's

I'm not seven sheets to the wind or anything, but as it's my birthday, I have had a one or two more than usual. EDIT: I don't know why I said that. I think I was going to apologise for my grammar and whatnot, but it seems fine to me.

I think I see a problem with the proposal of abolishing the principle of civil marriage altogether. I don't give a toss about the religious dimension, so that's out the window from the start, so homosexual marriage and everything is fine, as it is in my country anyway.

The main problem is children. If children did not exist, and were not necessary to produce, then I would say "marriage", by which I mean a set of legal obligations to another non-genetically related person, would be less of an issue (but would still be necessary).

But children do exist, and need to made. These children need at least one parent. There is no moral problem with a child being raised by one parent, but I think that most people, of all beliefs and none, would agree that it is better that a child be raised by two cohabiting parents than one.

That one child is better raised by two parents than one, is a simple matter of economics. Do your sums, and you will see that having a child or children raised by more than one parent will make all the difference.

At present, only 50% of the population can produce children. This 50% of the population also tends to be more emotionally attached to the child produced - and I don't mean to offend any parents of the other 50% here - the other 50% often seem to be able to drop any attachments to children without any difficulty.

That 50% of the population that produce the children and subsequently have to look after them are put at an instant economic disadvantage by this circumstance. For instance, by not being able to pay as much attention to their careers.

I say that some legal obligation ought to be attached to that other 50%. Some form of marriage of two is easily the best answer.

Indeed, many have tried to replace marriage entirely, (Israeli kibbutzim spring to mind), but none have lasted.

But there are some rights that let husbands and wives be in more contact, for example the whole money issue, and how they can visit each other in hospitals.

unriggable wrote:But there are some rights that let husbands and wives be in more contact, for example the whole money issue, and how they can visit each other in hospitals.

You don't have to 'prove' you are the husband/wife, though...

You just say, "I'm family."

What about the people who do not take each others surname?

I mean, it really isn't necessary.

unriggable wrote:But there are some rights that let husbands and wives be in more contact, for example the whole money issue, and how they can visit each other in hospitals.

Was that in response to btownmeggy, or me, or someone else? If it was in response to her, I think I agree. Although you're a bit vague. Be less vague.

Anarkistsdream wrote:

unriggable wrote:But there are some rights that let husbands and wives be in more contact, for example the whole money issue, and how they can visit each other in hospitals.

You don't have to 'prove' you are the husband/wife, though...

You just say, "I'm family."

What about the people who do not take each others surname?

I mean, it really isn't necessary.

If you can jsut say 'I'm family' then people could do whatever they wanted. Imagine if somebody wanted to kill you, all they had to do is say 'I'm family'. Besides, right now you have a certificate to prove that you are indeed married

Not if it's common-law.

-X

XenHu wrote:Not if it's common-law.

-X

Common law has been outlawed in most states in the US.