There should be no civil marriage.

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
User avatar
btownmeggy
Posts: 2042
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:43 am

There should be no civil marriage.

Post by btownmeggy »

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.
User avatar
freezie
Posts: 3901
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Somewhere between here and there.

Post by freezie »

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


No. Just no.
Image
User avatar
Aegnor
Posts: 1600
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:29 am
Location: Uranus

Post by Aegnor »

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.
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left" -Anonymous
User avatar
btownmeggy
Posts: 2042
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:43 am

Post by btownmeggy »

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.
User avatar
hecter
Posts: 14632
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:27 pm
Gender: Female
Location: Tying somebody up on the third floor
Contact:

Re: There should be no civil marriage.

Post by hecter »

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.
In heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine... You got your things, and I've got mine.
Image
User avatar
Anarkistsdream
Posts: 7567
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:57 am
Gender: Male

Post by Anarkistsdream »

She's saying there should be no marriages... PERIOD!
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.
User avatar
btownmeggy
Posts: 2042
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:43 am

Re: There should be no civil marriage.

Post by btownmeggy »

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.
User avatar
btownmeggy
Posts: 2042
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:43 am

Post by btownmeggy »

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.
User avatar
Anarkistsdream
Posts: 7567
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:57 am
Gender: Male

Post by Anarkistsdream »

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!
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.
User avatar
hecter
Posts: 14632
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:27 pm
Gender: Female
Location: Tying somebody up on the third floor
Contact:

Post by hecter »

Okay. Thank you. I KNEW you couldn't be a stupid homophobic bitch.
In heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine... You got your things, and I've got mine.
Image
User avatar
freezie
Posts: 3901
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Somewhere between here and there.

Post by freezie »

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.
Image
User avatar
btownmeggy
Posts: 2042
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:43 am

Post by btownmeggy »

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.
User avatar
Anarkistsdream
Posts: 7567
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:57 am
Gender: Male

Post by Anarkistsdream »

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?
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.
User avatar
freezie
Posts: 3901
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Somewhere between here and there.

Post by freezie »

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.
Image
User avatar
freezie
Posts: 3901
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Somewhere between here and there.

Post by freezie »

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.
Image
User avatar
hecter
Posts: 14632
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:27 pm
Gender: Female
Location: Tying somebody up on the third floor
Contact:

Post by hecter »

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.
In heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine... You got your things, and I've got mine.
Image
User avatar
Stopper
Posts: 2244
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:14 am
Location: Supposed to be working...
Contact:

Post by Stopper »

EDIT: I just read the first post properly. If you were in time to read what I said, forget it, it's irrelevant.
User avatar
for dummies
Posts: 549
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:14 pm

Post by for dummies »

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'! :D :D 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
viperbitex wrote: what the f*ck were the dinosaurs all about?? Did G-Dog wear his silly pants one day 10 million years ago and make them??
User avatar
Stopper
Posts: 2244
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:14 am
Location: Supposed to be working...
Contact:

Post by Stopper »

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.
Last edited by Stopper on Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
unriggable
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Post by unriggable »

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.
User avatar
Anarkistsdream
Posts: 7567
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:57 am
Gender: Male

Post by Anarkistsdream »

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.
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.
User avatar
Stopper
Posts: 2244
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:14 am
Location: Supposed to be working...
Contact:

Post by Stopper »

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.
User avatar
unriggable
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Post by unriggable »

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
User avatar
XenHu
Posts: 4307
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:38 pm

Post by XenHu »

Not if it's common-law.

-X
User avatar
Anarkistsdream
Posts: 7567
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:57 am
Gender: Male

Post by Anarkistsdream »

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

-X


Common law has been outlawed in most states in the US.
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.
Post Reply

Return to “Acceptable Content”