[PUG] - Marriage should not exist in the USA | INFJ Forum

[PUG] Marriage should not exist in the USA

slant

slant

Capitalist pig
Donor
Dec 30, 2008
12,849
30,506
1,901
MBTI
None
Yes, I said it, but it needed to be said.

As I see threads being made about marriage and whatnot, many of you have the knowledge that I do not support gay marriage or marriage in general, so I felt I ought explain my point of view in a more universal approach.

The reason that I think that Marriage should not exist within the United States of America is because it is unconstitutional. I believe that marriage should be abolished and replaced with a modified system of civil union and that all couples- gay, straight, and polygamous should get civil unions, and the term 'marriage' will no longer hold legal weight.

How would marriage be unconstitutional?

It violates separation of church and state.

The conflicts we face today about polygamous marriages as well as gay marriages has to do with the fact that there are religious practices that are being controlled by allowing these types of marriages- and a religion by default has the right to practice their religion however they would like. If a marriage doesn't believe people can be gay and doesn't want to marry them, they don't have to. And that's the flaw within our system.

Marriage is a religious ceremony and no rights should be granted through it. By giving this ceremony legal acknowledgement we set up our system for a disaster of disagreements between religion and state. It doesn't make any sense why we are giving these church entities so much power when it's against our country's constitution to do so. So, in case anyone was wondering, that is why I am against marriage and think it needs to be abolished...

What do you think? Marriage, is it unconstitutional? It is, I already know that, but go ahead. Tell me why it isn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ontheroadtohope
I agree 100% with you, but until full equality rights are not granted, then I am pro gay marriage. The issue does not really lay in weather marriage its constitutional or not, but the fact that heterosexuals get a benefit that others don't. Therefore, weather marriage is redefined or not is peripheral. What matters is equality.
 
the legal ramifications of marriage need to be maintained.... that is all
 
Slant, you bring up some good points that I have never thought of before.

However, I do not agree that it is unconstitutional.

I’m not saying your system isn’t better, I’m simply saying that claiming marriage as “unconstitutional” is not accurate.

State recognized marriages CAN be based on a religious ceremony, but they do not HAVE to be. You can have a judge or a state magistrate administer your marriage (depending on what state you’re in), and it is recognized by the government the exact same way as a religious marriage.

Marriage is REGISTERED by the government, not INITIATED by it. You’re not FORCED to register your marriage if you don’t want to, but if you do, there are benefits. Why? It’s the same principal that the government uses when giving tax write-offs to people who give money to churches: it’s community service.

The way our government looks at marriage AND religion is by asking whether or not it benefits the people, hurts the people or has no effect. According to government evidence (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2614329/), both religion and marriage have shown statistical health and behavior benefits. So, the government rewards people who are married or who support a church BECAUSE it views those things as increasing community health and therefore, as community service.

Now, that does NOT mean that religion or marriage is for everyone, and there is no government PENALTY for not being married or religious. And just because the government thinks that there are benefits, does not make it true. BUT, that is the thought process and in that context of marriage increasing public health, I think it is just as constitutional to reward people for contributing to community health in that way as it would be to reward them for opening a soup kitchen for the homeless in their small business. Same principal: improving community health.

Bottom Line: The government does not reward anyone for a religious ceremony, they reward people for community improvement (according to their research).

Now, if it’s the word “marriage” you dislike because it has religious connotations, then fine: the government can recognize marriages AND civil unions as public health benefits (assuming civil unions have the same benefits… I can’t see why they wouldn’t, but obviously no research has been done on that yet).

NOTE: I do not necessarily believe that the current restrictions the government places on WHO can register their marriage are right, but it is not the churches that are making those calls. Many churches now have openly gay ministers and I’m sure they wouldn’t mind performing gay marriage ceremonies… And nothing is stopping them! Just because the government won’t recognize your marriage does NOT mean you aren’t married: it just means you didn’t jump through the government’s hoops. It’s not the churches that are the reason gay marriages aren’t recognized (though, it does depend on the church), it’s the government that is the reason why, because the government registers marriages.
 
I think the whole concept of marriage is worth reveiwing. People live longer. They tailor their families through contraception. Life has changed drastically from my Grandparents days. Women with careers, etc. I thought the idea of tailoring your marriage would be quite a good one. I still think that commitment to your partner is a good idea, but maybe marriage for life is no longer realistic. Maybe a twenty year contract with the right of renewal...... or maybe even 10 year contracts if you had no kids... might help the divorce rates. .... And for those who want to stay together until they die, it would give them nice milestones to celebrate as they renew their contracts.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Blind Bandit
slant said:
What do you think?
Click to expand...

In principle, I agree with you 100%.

That said, as it regards the issue of unconstitutionality, I shall not comment
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norton and Blind Bandit
Io- said:
I think the whole concept of marriage is worth reveiwing. People live longer. They tailor their families through contraception. Life has changed drastically from my Grandparents days. Women with careers, etc. I thought the idea of tailoring your marriage would be quite a good one. I still think that commitment to your partner is a good idea, but maybe marriage for life is no longer realistic. Maybe a twenty year contract with the right of renewal...... or maybe even 10 year contracts if you had no kids... might help the divorce rates. .... And for those who want to stay together until they die, it would give them nice milestones to celebrate as they renew their contracts.
Click to expand...

10 Year contracts. Lol. This is an interesting topic and it really brings up the purpose of marriage. Obviously, marriage is something that has to do with religion and the church. Moving into what makes me scratch my head at marriage the most is that you are not allowed to have sex before marriage. So, my understanding is that once you stand on top of the alter and mumble a few words God goes instantly from saying that it is not ok for them to have sex to the exact opposite. Doesn't make sense.

Why would you still go to hell if you were committed to each other but not married. After all, isn't that the true definition of marriage: to be committed to one another? I just think that the term marriage needs to be redefined because it is something that is taken rather lightly these days. If it were outlawed, i wouldn't put up a fight aginst the proposal though because it intrigues me.
 
Marriage predates religion. Religions have naturally integrated marriage into their doctrines and customs, but they have also integrated eating habits, clothing, languages, hygiene, warfare, agriculture, etc. Religion tends to permeate everything; there is no reason to single out marriage as a distinctly religious custom. (Believe it or not, atheists get married often enough.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blind Bandit
slant said:
The reason that I think that Marriage should not exist within the United States of America
Click to expand...

And what makes your country so special?
 
Last edited:
Raccoon Love said:
I agree 100% with you, but until full equality rights are not granted, then I am pro gay marriage. The issue does not really lay in weather marriage its constitutional or not, but the fact that heterosexuals get a benefit that others don't. Therefore, weather marriage is redefined or not is peripheral. What matters is equality.
Click to expand...

Sooo are you 91.4% in agreement?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diana
I like Civil Unions in comparison to marriage, for those who aren't going about a religious affair in this ritual of committment. But some are trying to go about it in a religious manner.

Having clarified that I support the rise of recognition for Civil Unions (ideally beginning from the individual level of those who aren't religious,) I would say that this matter appears to me extremely gridlocked, and that the best way you could go about changing this matter may be to target the presence of religiosity to begin with. From one tough thing to change to another, I know. But, if the foundation remains, the things it produces are likely to.

In 2008, the estimate for how much of the population of the USA was 76%. The United States of America is a Christian nation.
 
Last edited:
No just, no. As TLM has stated marriage can exist without religion. It's true purpose is to secure reproduction of human race. It's a social construct that was built to serve biological imperative. Mess with that and we'll be in a hell lot of trouble.
 
I have felt for a long time that I would like to see the civil monitoring of marriage ended. I value marriage as a spiritual union and if religions want to be involved in it's formalization, I think that's lovely, but I don't value the civil involvement in it.

I know that our society is built around civil involvement in marriage in too many ways for this to be an easy transition, but I think we're getting close to ready to jettison it as a society.

I don't know if I feel the unconstitutional approach is warranted. Sometimes I get nervous with all the separation of church and state stuff. It often leans too far into taking away church rights in favor of the honoring state rights. It's supposed to be a balance and it never seems to work out that way. It always seems to be about abolishing the rights of one or the other, as I see it.

Also we don't give the church too much weight as it concerns marriage. Churches really don't have anything to do with civil marriage. Being married in a church means nothing to the state unless you also go to the state and go through their due process. You can go through the state's due process for marriage and never have anything to do with a church.

I'd prefer if we just as a nation decided, done. Let people marry or not as they conceive it.
 
I agree that every civilized country should make unions not religion based marriages.
 
Buuuut... I'm sure there are many people that find great significance in marriage for a myriad of reasons... Tradition, religion, a sense of affirmation, ceremony, etc. Although such things may not seem very important to me...But I don't think I could discard the values of others by saying we should revamp this institution.

I know these points have been made before buut...
Religion does not own marriage, on the contrary many people marry even though they are not religious.
Some people marry for the contract, the fortune, to evade taxes, to get into a different country, were wed to someone by their family, etc.

and I feel the strong urge to further derail so I think I should stop right now.

:m200::m200::m200:
 
I sorta kinda not really agree; the legal term should be civil union as is all that any government institution can see when regarding people... however, people should be able to call it whatever they want, be that marriage, etc... that's cultural and separate and, since it is defined most importantly by the couple involved above all else, is not even available to be abolished OR supported by any institution OTHER than the couple.
 
I'm sorry but the moment I saw your title I immediately agreed. I barely know what marriage in USA means anymore with almost everyone having sex after the first few dates and couples cohabiting. Marriage is thus meaningless and that is why USA has the highest divorce rate. OK I'm not saying its just the US and this is just a theory. Marriage in the USA is unconstitutional as couples are practically married anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back