• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Should people be allowed to marry?

rangrz

rangrz

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
11,686
Location
Canada eh, we get milk in bags.
Okay, my question is not "Should people be allowed to live with a partner(s) of their choosing" nor is it "Should people be allowed to have a guy wearing a dress and white celluloid collar do some hand waving in front of you and your partner"

but it a question of should the LEGAL process of being married exist.

I argue 'no' on a few grounds.

First, why in the FUCK should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada/His Excellency El Presidente of San Juanbanana/Vladimir PutAAAHMOTHERLAND/etc have ANY role in endorsing or not endorsing your choice of romantic relationship? Really, it's suppose to be about you and your lover, not you and the house of commons as per <somemadeupact revised statues of bukkakistan 9001-B.C.>

Two, in countries that have some clause that is more less "all people are equal before and under the Law"...damnit, that just ain't true with marriage. Oh sure, Canada and the E.U. for e.g. allow homosexual marriage. Which is cool with me. What's not cool, is they give various tax benefits to people who are married, but not to single people. How the bloody shitting-dick-nipples is that equal? Why should not all people be treated the same for tax purposes regardless of their romantic status? Seriously.

Two (subsection a) BAAAAWBITCHMOANFLAMECOMPLAIN Gay people can't get married to their partner of choice. Well, they can now in most of the world, but DAMNIT, I can't! Why, because I am poly/love more then one person at once. Therefore, its kosher and cool to discriminate against me and anyone like me, apparently. I'm sure there are more examples of how marriage provides for different treatment of people based on their romantic choices. (aka, on their sexual identity religion or creed, which I thought was VERBOTEN)

I say my first point is my strongest argument against removing the LEGAL process of marriage. But my other point stands too. What do others think, should The State hold in existence the concept of marriage as a substantive matter of law?

(please forgive my over the top language and manner of expression)
 
rangrz said:
What do others think, should The State hold in existence the concept of marriage as a substantive matter of law?

(please forgive my over the top language and manner of expression)
Click to expand...

NO.

(please forgive my under the top manner of expression:))
 
haven't pondered on the question much but right off the top of my head, one possible justification may be:

the legal ramifications of marriage means the making and breaking of marriages are more of an arduous and difficult task. therefore, the decision to wed and/or split is generally going to be made less privolously.

starting a family is not something to rush in or out of. choosing a life partner should not be a light matter, for the sake of the idea of the family unit (pc disclaimer: irrespective of what constitutes it).

i'm a hypocrit cuz we rushed into the legal contract only a few months after meeting, but this reminds me...

there is also the factor of international relationships. how does one determine the legal right for someone to stay in country with their partner if they are a citizen of another state? of course this is abused, but an absense of such mechanisms would penalise all legitimate cases (like mine).
 
marriage is a false identity concept that statistically gives love a bad name.

local government would save a lot of money if it did not exist, as far criminal investigations and prisoner detainment costs, then welfare, adoption and abortion would be far less popular, alcohol related crimes accidents and consumption would be lower, psychology and psychiatry and all that entailed would be much less needed, & people would need less money by not having the stipulations of what a family-unit does have as far as social expectations -
i imagine.

it is tragic, divirce is a whole other ball-game.


... I brought them wisdom from above:
Worship, and Liberty, and Love.
They slew me for I did disparage
Therefore Religion, Law, and Marriage.
- some dead guy in a nameless grave,
 
Good point on Immigration... to a degree. Because that STILL makes some people 'more' equal then others under the law.i.e. "oh, you want to immigrate do ya pal? Either have 250,000 bucks and a Masters Degree, or have charges pending against you for political 'crimes', or, 3rd option, marry someone and your welcome in!" Seems a little unfair to me...

On "the family unit" the idea of marriage still in some places, prevents a family unit where that family is two members of the same sex, and nearly everywhere, where that unit is some N members where N is greater then two adults. In both cases, The State is telling people what constitutes a 'legitimate' household. Even though objectively there is no actual harm from not following that pattern.

Panic: I fail to see to how it would reduce the costs of law enforcement and detention facilities tho. Assault is Assault, a 911 call is a 911 call, regardless of if its between married folk, common law folk, or two dipshits in a bar. Ditto for detention.
 
I am actually for the legal abolition of marriage (and then civil unions for all couples, assuming that we need this type of financial regulation of kinship relations).

ebola
 
rangrz said:
Panic: I fail to see to how it would reduce the costs of law enforcement and detention facilities tho. Assault is Assault, a 911 call is a 911 call, regardless of if its between married folk, common law folk, or two dipshits in a bar. Ditto for detention.
Click to expand...

i dont care to remember how many homicides i have heard of, where shame of divorce, insurance, and child-custody battles are the motive.

people feeling trapped or obligated by marriage is breeding grounds for anxiety depression fear, and violence either self-inflicted or otherwise.

i feel i could keep going, but...
________________________
yes it almost entirely depends on the person as to the reaction, but either way we have enough trouble in society identifying as individuals, this sort of practice is not at all conducive towards that goal.

the legal ties are unnecessary and instigate many things negative...it is such a psychological burden.
 
Last edited:
For most of human history and in most parts of the world, marriage had nothing to do with love. Not only was marriage arranged, it was about property, alliances, inheritance, etc. Marriage out of love is predominantly a modern Western phenomenon. I use the term modern loosely because in all human history, even the last thousand years could still be considered modern. I also use the term Western loosely because, as you all know, the whole colonialism deal bombarded the white man's beliefs onto a lot of brown-skinned cultures.

Anyways, when you think about it in terms of property and inheritance, it only makes sense that historically there has been some entity (the government) in charge of making sure you get what is rightfully yours when a family member or spouse dies.
 
the main reason i can think of in support of legal marriages is that there is a clear person of responsibility in case of death or serious illness (coma). if this is your partner, great, he/she gets to make the decisions if you havent set down a will. this avoids situations where someones parents want to do one thing, and their partner another. i personally think its the legal reasons that most gay people want to get married....if all they want is commitment, they can do that anywhere, anytime
 
But again, for everyone who is unmarried, they require a will or power of attorney. I do not see why it would be such a huge burden to expect that of everyone.

As for traditions, Jerry, I know what you are speaking of, and yes you are correct. I am of course talking of the present time, in our present culture, if The State still needs to decide on people's relationships. Not what happened in what is now Lesotho, 4000 years ago.
 
Presently it's just one giant entanglement employing lawyers. Personally, I think the idea is stupid.
 
The ironic thing to me is that even in marriage, (in the U.S.), the institution doesn't automatically give you the rights people are discussing here. Everything from immigration to medical directives to property inheritance is constantly being legally challenged for people that are married. It is a little more clear cut, but not to the extent people think (just ask any divorce lawyer!)

As far as making it more difficult for families to break up---the U.S. population has pretty much destroyed that myth! The average marriage lasts two years. The husband in the Terri Schiavo case in Florida spent his whole income on legal fees fighting with her parents over who had the right to decide on her life support. Mexican families in California get split up everyday whether the parents are married or not. Most wealthy people now make private contracts (prenuptial agreements) because they want to define how their wealth is dealt with regardless of state marriage laws. So as a justification for marriage I don't think the so-called protections hold up.

Why can't everything be an agreement (notarized like a self-generated will) between the two people wanting to form a family unit? People write their own vows, why not their own unique contracts? (How will we protect each other if one of us dies? What do you want me to do if you are in a coma? How shall we combine/not combine our incomes? If we both die, who should raise our kids?) Then it is more about communication and integrity which is the basis for a healthy partnership anyway.

(I have to come clean and say that I am married and have been for 25 years this December. I never believed in it but got persuaded way back then that it would somehow hurt my kids when they were young if people knew we weren't legally married.(It's never come up, in reality.) In one of life's best ironies we had one of the only weddings where the person that was supposed to marry us forgot to show up! We stood up in front of all these people and I said to my husband,"Do you take me to be your not-so-lawfully wedded wife?" and then he reversed the question to me and my mom stepped forward and said ,"Now let's all pronounce them partners for life." We did go to the courthouse the next day at our parents urging and get the certificate,though.)
 
I see some holes in some of the logic in this thread. One of the arguments is to take government out of the institution of long-term partnerships. But at the same time some of you are saying, "Just have a will made out," or "Make a contract." Those are legal documents and STILL require the government to be involved (i.e. the court system).

Civil union, marriage, will, contract, potato, potahto.....Just change some of the wording around and they all acheive similar objectives :D
 
Jerry Atrick said:
I see some holes in some of the logic in this thread. One of the arguments is to take government out of the institution of long-term partnerships. But at the same time some of you are saying, "Just have a will made out," or "Make a contract." Those are legal documents and STILL require the government to be involved (i.e. the court system).

Civil union, marriage, will, contract, potato, potahto.....Just change some of the wording around and they all acheive similar objectives :D
Click to expand...

Difference is a will or contract is not an exception or unavailable to certain people. I can (and indeed have) given my best friend POA re: life support. I've also given it to a few other people close to me.

I can enter a contract without being a natural person even. (i.e. as a corporation) or as a natural person, and with as many parties as I want. It also does not confer tax benefits, financial obligation (unless explicitly part of the terms of the contract) or immigration rights.

Ergo, with multiple parties in a contract, I can have my poly "marriage" Between two members of the same sex, gay marriage, or I can 'marry' "(5001 + 4000) Canada incorporated" to "Joe's Roofing Ltd"

Thus the concept is more 'equal before and under the law' and is not exclusively there to sanction 'traditionally' accepted romantic relationships.

Also, unless I make an explicit agreement, there is no assumption of it, unlike with marriage and 'common-law' union related concepts.

Also, it would remove the concept of guilty-by-association such as an "illegitimate child" since there would be no in or out of wedlock. Thus removing the stigma from a person who was in no way party to the 'offense' they are deemed 'guilty' of.
 
Ah, I see. That is some stuff I hadn't considered. You, sir, have put more thought into this than I have.

If you read my posts carefully, I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your concept. I mainly needed more info, which you just gave. That and everybody seemed to agree with you so I had to be "that guy." :)

OCCUPY MARRIAGE!
 
On the basis of marriage being something that should have no legal attachments, I agree with you. However, I also understand that its convenient for government to have this system set in place. It's ingrained in society and it makes sense. They want you to get married. They want you to have a kid. They want you to get a house. They want you to be in debt.
 
Marriage is a lot like assembly line manufacturing of interchangeable parts -- both allow society to do a lot of things it wouldn't otherwise be able to do all that easily.

Before we had marriage, a man of power and means would claim exclusive sexual access to as many females as he could support and control. For every extra woman he took, that meant a lowlier male who had no woman at all. Such a deprived man's only choice would be to put his life on the line to challenge a stronger male, and probably die. Even today, places where polygyny is tolerated have large numbers of angry, sexually frustrated males at the bottom, and high crime rates and other indicators of instability as a result. Having a system where one man may have only one woman at a time just makes practical sense. It guarantees that there will be someone for everyone, which makes society a lot more stable.

Notice I didn't say anything about love, nor anything about marriage necessarily being forever. I only pointed out the importance of claiming exclusive sexual access to only one person at any given time.

I agree that Western society needs to get better at increasing and acknowledging the salience of other sorts of human bonds. There are cultures where a man's relationship with his coworkers or hunting partners are more committed and emotionally salient than his relationship to his wife. It takes a village to raise a child, and no two people can do the job of a village. But this in no way undermines the practical value of being [at least serially] committed to only one sexual partner at any one time.

And no, I don't buy the argument that since it's deep in their nature and evolutionary past, human males ought to be free to vie for exclusive sexual access to as many females as they want. We make progress in reducing human suffering and building better societies by making efforts to overcome our base drives. Plus, it does not logically follow that how we were in the past is how we must be in the present and future.
 
Last edited:
... Most people would end up following the one partner thing anyways.

Also, there is not any criminal law preventing me have more then one partner. I can't marry more then one, but I can, and do have relationships with more then one. I think, its a guaranteed fundamental freedom per the Charter... Freedom of Association. So that argument holds up poorly in liberal or semi-liberal nations.

Following that, it is not illegal to have more then one partner if your married either. Not in the criminal law sense anyways. It creates a bunch of family/civil law issues, but can, and obviously, still do it with relatively little in the way of problems.

IMO, the fact it is fine per the major body of law in society. (Criminal law) but creates a bunch of murky legal bullshit in family law and civil law is more reason to remove it. If something is not forbidden, its allowed. (A major concept in a common law system) If it is allowed, there should be no legal ramifications from doing it. (But there are) Thus creating a murky world of unwritten law that is HUGELY at the discretion of not only the judge, but your spouse and their attorneys. IMO, that is a a completely wrong way to run a justice/court system. The law should be enforced by a fairly neutral part(For the most part, the police are a lot more neutral then your ex during a divorce!) and the judge should be adjudicating on law passed by elected officials and consolidated into statutes. I realize case law always plays a big part, but it is usually as an addition to a statute, not just pulled out thin air for BAAAWIWANTSUPPORTPAYMENTSANDDAMAGES purposes.
 
^ So what you're saying is, marriage shouldn't be given any special legal privilege that other legally binding contracts between people don't have, correct?

I think this is a case of society's ideals being the basis for what passes as law. Citizens tolerate and encourage the upholding of laws that give marriage special legal privileges, because most citizens hold marriage in their minds as an ideal, something to be encouraged, to a degree not defensible for, say, business contracts.

I agree with you that the system is broken. in North America many people aspire to marriage and hold idealistic views of it, despite having had very negative experiences of it, either personally or in their families. I think you make a good point in that people need to look at marriage more pragmatically, and decide not to do it if they're not up for the potential headaches it can cause.

Here's the thing, though. I rarely support any proposal to tear down a major societal institution, unless the proposal also includes the building of new institutions that take over the old ones' structural functions. I think our culture idealizes marriage because it's the last remaining vestige of community / village values we have. I can dig up the studies if you wish, but it's been demonstrated by sociologists and psychologists that children are fitter when raised by committed partnerships of adults, rather than one single parent doggedly going it alone. If traditional marriage were done away with, we'd need some institution by which adults would commit to each other for decades, for the joint raising of children. It would have to do this as well or better than traditional marriage, and it would have to be a setup that most citizens considered a palatable option.

I may be well on the way to mad-scientist-hood, because I'm actually in the process of inventing a new type of political and social order, which I think might actually work. Once I have it fleshed out I'll definitely post it here in P&S for y'all to critique. Basically it involves stable communities of 125 people each (Dunbar's number), who live in compounds together. People date (or marry, if they wish) only outside of the community they're born into. Children born to women in a community (about 20 of each sex at any one time) sleep together in sex-segregated dorms, and are raised as much by older children and other adults in the community, as they are by their own mother. Each community would have one or more businesses or other enterprises that it would run, right on site, and places of work would be entirely contained within communities.
 
^

So your making a modified version of North Korea? LOL... I'm sure it has more merit then that whack-job, but on the surface I see some it... For another thread in any event where you can explain in more detail.

I'm arguing on equality and upholding of other rights for everyone, regardless of the type of relationship they wish to be in, if they wish to be in one at all... Essentially, as freedom of association is upheld, and if we stick to the premise of sovereignty over ones own body in a sexual sense. It is quite counter to these two major tenets. (Sovereignty over your sexuality is a major point in criminal law which makes it legal to be gay/trans and which of course also extends to create the whole sexual assault category) along with equality before and under and the law.

But holding with it, it is still ones right to a) associate with and form relationships with persons of your choosing (even if they are the same sex, or there is more then one of them) and to have sex or not have it with person or persons of your choosing. (again same sex or more then one in simultaneity) Taking 'equal before and under the law" Having a special category of 'status' which is based around the premise of your relationship and to some degree, your sexual relations, with a person, where that category excludes certain otherwise legal scenario's of the same, can hardly be called 'equal before and under the law'

Woman W + Man M = Marriage Mg MG has subset benefits B {Tax, immigration, estate...}
Woman W1 + Man M1 + Woman W2 + Man M2 = [undefined] undefined has subset Nothing N {} Which is empty.

Undefined =/= Mg
B=/=N

Not equal to... is, well, NOT EQUAL before and under the law.

but it's been demonstrated by sociologists and psychologists that children are fitter when raised by committed partnerships of adults
Click to expand...

I lol'd. I'll get back to my whiteboard full of hieroglyphs and Lorentz Transformations etc... Real Science. :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top