[PUG] Marriage should not exist in the USA

[Oranguh]

Mmmmmm.... But just because the term marriage doesn't correlate well to certain ideas we have regarding marriage...... doesn't mean we should discard it! Certainly, I feel that the term marriage is ambiguous and serves many many different purposes. To unify one meaning disturbs the values other people hold concerning marriage.

I, personally, do not hold much merit for marriage. For almost all the reasons posted in this thread, but those arguments do not solidify the values other people hold for marriage. In the end it's what the people make of it, not what is logical or intuitive to us. Right?

 

[mauve]

Yes it would be nice to think that way won't it. But obviously something must be wrong with that since the divorce rate is so high.

 

[Oranguh]

It can mean many things right? Perhaps people generally see marriage as something not so consistant and stable as a decade or two ago. Ideas concerning marriage have always been changing. We can speculate how the general consensus regarding marriage is at a certain period of time... Buuut marriage, to me..... the only constant would be that the concept is very temporal, ambiguous, and personal. Therefore what you make of it is your own version of the true meaning behind marriage.

If that makes any sense aaaanyways this is just how I like to see it~ Perhaps my personal preferences are clouding what is true or not. In the end I guess I'm still a biased human.

 

[Billy]

Agreed, the state shouldnt be labeling anything a marriage. That should be a title bestowed by a church or whatever. In order to make it legal though people should get the state offered CU as well. This way the religious people can still have their ceremonies without any legal consequences added onto them.

 

[Nixie]

I think it is shortsighted to believe that there is a separation of church and state to begin with in the US. Many of our laws are based on Judeo Christian beliefs and there is a strong social bias that everyone is Christian. It is almost an understood, strongly held belief that America is a Christian country. It is so strongly held, I only think those of us who are not Christian see the bias. It is a unspoken understanding among the populous that America is Christian rather than this ideal of not supporting any particular religion and having this so-called separation of Church and State.

 

[Jill Hives]

I think it is shortsighted to believe that there is a separation of church and state to begin with in the US. Many of our laws are based on Judeo Christian beliefs and there is a strong social bias that everyone is Christian. It is almost an understood, strongly held belief that America is a Christian country. It is so strongly held, I only think those of us who are not Christian see the bias. It is a unspoken understanding among the populous that America is Christian rather than this ideal of not supporting any particular religion and having this so-called separation of Church and State.

Sooo much agreed.

 

[Chessie]

Complete agreement. I can't really add much to that.

 

[~jet]

Sad fact is that that is a huge departure from the founders' actions and intentions

 

[Diana]

Sad fact is that that is a huge departure from the founders' actions and intentions

Yes. America is NOT and never should be a Christian nation. Our founding fathers were Diests.

 

[Norton]

If you don't want to get married then don't. But, don't tell me that I can't be married. I like being married and I think anyone should have the right to be married, gay or straight.

Telling people that they shouldn't have the right to get married is authoritarian, a behavior of the extremes, not the middle. Furthermore, read the US Constitution more carefully--start with the "pursuit of happiness."

 

[Diana]

If you don't want to get married then don't. But, don't tell me that I can't be married. I like being married and I think anyone should have the right to be married, gay or straight.

Telling people that they shouldn't have the right to get married is authoritarian, a behavior of the extremes, not the middle. Furthermore, read the US Constitution more carefully--start with the "pursuit of happiness."

+1

 

[Billy]

If you don't want to get married then don't. But, don't tell me that I can't be married. I like being married and I think anyone should have the right to be married, gay or straight.

Telling people that they shouldn't have the right to get married is authoritarian, a behavior of the extremes, not the middle. Furthermore, read the US Constitution more carefully--start with the "pursuit of happiness."

I dont think she meant it that way, I think she meant that the government should have no role in sanctioning marriages. Civil Unions are another matter because they are stripped of religious ceremony and regard merely marital assets.

Marriages would not go away they would just return to the domain of being a church institution. The tax and asset paperwork on the other hand would be an issue for the government to deal with legally.

I am in favor of this because it would mutually offend gays and religious nutters.

Gays because it would deny them the ability to force a religious custom which doesn't recognize them to recognize them and religious nutters because it would be a way to strip their superstitions from public practices involving the government.

 

[~jet]

If you don't want to get married then don't. But, don't tell me that I can't be married. I like being married and I think anyone should have the right to be married, gay or straight.

Telling people that they shouldn't have the right to get married is authoritarian, a behavior of the extremes, not the middle. Furthermore, read the US Constitution more carefully--start with the "pursuit of happiness."

Those words are not in the constitution =p ... Declaration of Independence, actually, an entirely different if not unrelated document. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

note that if marriage is part of the pursuit of happiness (note, it makes no claim actually HAVING happiness, just 'trying' for it.), then a RIGHT to healthcare is just as easily subsumable into either/both 'life' and 'liberty' depending.

Not that that's what you are talking about, but I hear people try to argue it both ways and it is silly. At any rate, the argument is NOT that you cannot get married, but that the government is BLIND to marriage... civil unions are legally binding agreements that affect how a person and persons are treated in constitutional/legal/medical/defense/etc terms whereas a marriage is a CULTURE institution that carries different meanings that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR TAX STATUS. =P

 

[Norton]

In the west, the origins of marriage were countenanced by the Church, which, in most parts of Europe, provided the only real government and moral authority. Marriage was primarily an institution that defined property rights and inheritance, so even though it was enveloped in Church ritual and dogma, its real reason for existence was legal. Obviously, the function of marriage has expanded through the centuries to include women's rights, family law, etc., and to function as an economic unit with specified benefits. For example, if you live unmarried with someone in his or her house for thirty years, when they die, his or her children get the house absent a will, unless they're very nice. Marriage per se is not necessarily based on religion because atheists can marry.

 

[Diana]

You are not legally required to include god in your marriage ceremony. It's a choice. You can have a completely secular civil ceremony that is just as legally valid as a more religious one. And I like that it's that way. In this country we are supposed to have the freedom of religion. So, we have the freedom to choose if we want a religious marriage or a secular one.
I do not believe that marriage should be banished and I do believe that gay marriage should be legal in all states.

 

[~jet]

are endowed by their Creator

Wonderfully vague use of the word to include all religion

 

[slant]

You are not legally required to include god in your marriage ceremony. It's a choice. You can have a completely secular civil ceremony that is just as legally valid as a more religious one. And I like that it's that way. In this country we are supposed to have the freedom of religion. So, we have the freedom to choose if we want a religious marriage or a secular one.
I do not believe that marriage should be banished and I do believe that gay marriage should be legal in all states.

But the problem is that marriage IS religious and that's how people get away with not wanting gay marriage- because marriage is a religious term and it's religious. I mean it is. There's no denying that. So if we strip everyone of the legal rights of marriage and invest it in civil union instead, gay marriage, straight marriage and polygamous marriage will all technically be indifferent legally because it'll be up to the churches to decide that. Civil union will be a contract that gives two or more parties the benefits we used to attribute to marriage. I see no reason that this would disagree with your opinion.

 

[Oranguh]

But the problem is that marriage IS religious.

I think that christian marriages are religious. Other kinds are debatable...
Just because the majority adheres to it doesn't make it true right?~ But it does make it generally accepted.... hmmmm Maybe I'm arguing semantics now~

 

[~jet]

I dunno; I've gotta go back to the fact that the single most important definition of any given marriage is what the two people agree it is (and then heavily modified by any kids they ~might~ have.) Cultural and legal definitions are significantly less material. If the couple believe it is religious, then it is... if they don't, then it's not.

 

[Diana]

But the problem is that marriage IS religious and that's how people get away with not wanting gay marriage- because marriage is a religious term and it's religious. I mean it is. There's no denying that. So if we strip everyone of the legal rights of marriage and invest it in civil union instead, gay marriage, straight marriage and polygamous marriage will all technically be indifferent legally because it'll be up to the churches to decide that. Civil union will be a contract that gives two or more parties the benefits we used to attribute to marriage. I see no reason that this would disagree with your opinion.

What you are talking about will split society even further.
Because all the religious folks will get their civil union and then go and get their church marriage. And they will look down upon any secular folks who only have a civil union. Which will in the religious people's mind will be a sinful union because it will be with out god.

Also I don't think we should go cutting down the marriage tree. People need their traditions. If marriage were abolished and your system went into action it would have an little effect on my marriage because our union is is stronger than that. But most people don't see the world that way. And marriage is really important to people. If you yank something that integral in people's world view away from them... You are going to end up with chaos.

To me the answer is not to wipe the current system but to reform it. By allowing equal marriage for everyone, gay straight polygamous and so on.

I can see the validity in your argument Slant. I just don't think abolishing marriage is something that would work in this country because I don't think people would be able to handle it.