This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Can of Worms: Is marriage necessary anymore?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
xaratherus
Marriage is still necessary to me. To publicly display your true love to your loved one is important (at wedding).
You can have the same ceremony without getting legally married; my two (male) roommates had one this past year. They would have gotten an actual marriage certificate but our state doesn't allow it.
From a legal standpoint, a marriage is literally three (sometimes five, depending on the state) sentences and the signing of a contract; that's all it takes. "Do you? Do you? I pronounce you married. Sign. Next."*
From a social standpoint, the concept of "marriage" has a thousand different definitions of what the institution actually is, and what it entails**. That could be why we're (surprisingly, to me) seeing so many "no" votes about it being necessary.
*From the standpoint of the United States. I realize other countries have other requirements.
**Which is why I roll my eyes when people talk about "redefining" it. Redefining it from which of its many definitions, exactly?
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
And what you're saying is precisely why I wish the US would give up the whole "it's separate but equal" argument and provide for de facto unions over there.Here's the problem: If "civil unions" are reserved exclusively for homosexuals, it get treated as less valid or get less benefits than "real" marriage. I could see there being a movement of heterosexual individuals getting civil unions to support their homosexual comrades, and then if that gets enoguh momentum the government being forced to respect civil unions, but right now the "civil unions" being suggested is just a more politically correct way of saying "gay unions," which, in our mostly conservative nation would get treated as inequal to marriage.
Post by
Morec0
Is it nessescary? No. Should people still marry? I wont be the judge.
Post by
Squishalot
That's the thing - I see civil unions (i.e. de facto relationship) as a form of relationship for anybody, not just the homosexual community, to enter a legally recognised union. As you say - there are enough hetero individuals who'd go down that path. Think about it though - who is insinuating that civil unions = gay unions: is it the homosexual community or the heterosexual community? I don't think that there are many people in the hetero community who are of the opinion that only gay people will have civil unions.
Post by
Thror
Marriage is just a formal matter. There are many ways of displaying love. Signing papers and doing an extremely expensive ceremony is not the prettiest and neither the most romantic of them, in my opinion.
I do not think marriage is "necessary", and I believe we could live without it fine.
Post by
pioneers14
Marriage is just a formal matter. There are many ways of displaying love. Signing papers and doing an extremely expensive ceremony is not the prettiest and neither the most romantic of them, in my opinion.
I do not think marriage is "necessary", and I believe we could live without it fine.
Not all ceremonies are expensive. That is a choice.
Post by
Thror
Marriage is just a formal matter. There are many ways of displaying love. Signing papers and doing an extremely expensive ceremony is not the prettiest and neither the most romantic of them, in my opinion.
I do not think marriage is "necessary", and I believe we could live without it fine.
Not all ceremonies are expensive. That is a choice.
And "That is a choice" is just a phrase. In here (middle class, Slovakia), it is socially unacceptable to do a cheap wedding. People spend considerable sums from their "general purpose savings" to marry. Nevertheless, the money aspect was just a minor point I mentioned.
Post by
Skreeran
That's the thing - I see civil unions (i.e. de facto relationship) as a form of relationship for anybody, not just the homosexual community, to enter a legally recognised union. As you say - there are enough hetero individuals who'd go down that path. Think about it though - who is insinuating that civil unions = gay unions: is it the homosexual community or the heterosexual community? I don't think that there are many people in the hetero community who are of the opinion that only gay people will have civil unions.I know Americans, though. There are some bold, courageous people who would get a civil union to stand beside the gay community, but most heterosexual people would just get a normal marriage, because that's what their family expects of them, or because that's what their spouse wants, or because they don't want to make waves in their community, or whatever other excuses that they'd make up. As it stands, a significant, vocal portion of Americans think that homosexuality is wrong and that gay marriage is wrong. Obviously those people, the "patriotic" traditionalist conservatives would get traditional marriages. Then a portion of the rest wouldn't get civil unions out of fear of ostracism.
Even if people started getting civil unions out of support of the gay community, "civil unions" would still mean "gay unions" in the eyes of most Americans, because the heterosexuals who got them would only be doing it out of support of the gay community. The only incentive the rest of the heterosexuals would have to get them is if the government officially divorces legal unification and traditional marriage (i.e. get a civil union and then optionally have a marriage ceremony, rather than getting both together in "marriage.") And that's not what they are offering. All they are offering is a marriage alternative to gay people, which would inevitably be seen and quite possibly be officially treated as less than "real" marriage.
Post by
Squishalot
The problem is the concept of getting civil unions
out of support for the gay community
. In Australia, where we have our civil union structure in place, there are the hetero people who are in civil union relationships purely because they don't want to get married (think - roped in til death do them part), not because they're doing it in support of the gay community.
Post by
gnomerdon
Is it legal under documentation to have 8 girlfriends assuming you are not married?
Post by
Squishalot
No, because that would entitle you to more perks than you would be if you were married instead (noting that polymagy is illegal).
Post by
gnomerdon
lol.
Post by
Atik
Marriage is still necessary to me. To publicly display your true love to your loved one is important (at wedding).
There is NOTHING about a wedding that, in my eyes, shows two people love eachother.
You are CHAINING the person to you. That is obsession.
Post by
gnomerdon
Say that to my girlfriend. =( She controls my definition of love. She controls the air, food, and everything that I do.
Post by
Skreeran
The problem is the concept of getting civil unions
out of support for the gay community
. In Australia, where we have our civil union structure in place, there are the hetero people who are in civil union relationships purely because they don't want to get married (think - roped in til death do them part), not because they're doing it in support of the gay community.1. The United States does
not
have a civil union structure in place, and I doubt many people would be eager to embrace it, especially with the conservatives already equating it with homosexuality.
2. It seems to me that civil unions would have all the same divorce problems that traditional marriages have now.
Post by
Atik
Say that to my girlfriend. =( She controls my definition of love. She controls the air, food, and everything that I do.
That is also obsession...
Post by
gnomerdon
Even if she has a body like
this?
:(
Post by
Atik
Yeah, still obsession.
Keep in mind, I'm the shallow guy.
Post by
Squishalot
1. The United States does
not
have a civil union structure in place, and I doubt many people would be eager to embrace it, especially with the conservatives already equating it with homosexuality.
2. It seems to me that civil unions would have all the same divorce problems that traditional marriages have now.
1. I know it doesn't, which is why I made the point that we've got ours in place, so it's not just 'this is what would probably happen', it's "this is what is actually happening". But with the extreme conservatives that you guys have, I know what you mean, which is why I prefaced my original point with "I wish".
2. Indeed, they do, except that people in de facto relationships, interestingly enough, have lower separation rates than those in marriages, I think I recall seeing. Having said that, it doesn't really have the same problem - with a marriage, you need to apply for it to be annulled. In the case of de facto ones (again, in Australia), you simply cease to live with each other anymore, and stop claiming the benefits (and likewise, no longer need to provide evidence for them). It's not a 'civil union' in the direct sense of replacing marriage (i.e. register with marriages office and have to annul it if it breaks up), but it gains all the rights, responsibilities and privileges associated with marriage in relation to tax and welfare, adoption, commerce, etc.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.