Who wants to get married?

[BOREDFOREVER]

I wish we could get this poop fixed in Missouri.  We've got KC and STL with plenty of liberal voters, but there's all that Ozark, Branson, southern MO conservative fundamentalism that keeps us from passing a law allowing same sex marriage.

[Rius]

Oh god, I  remember when I went on vacation in Branson. I live in Texas and I never saw so many Confederate flags. We left a few days early.

[PsychoYoshi]

Alternately, perhaps the state could just get out of the marriage licensing business for both straights and gays entirely. We all know that won't happen, though.

[Kayo]

PY YOU'RE BACK <3

[Friendly Hostile]

Alternately, perhaps the state could just get out of the marriage licensing business for both straights and gays entirely. We all know that won't happen, though.

Sure, let's throw a legal concept that makes dealing with various spousal, inheritance and custody disputes that's been around for thousands years right out the window because those intercourse ing queers want in.

[The Seventh]

Sure, let's throw a legal concept that makes dealing with various spousal, inheritance and custody disputes that's been around for thousands years right out the window because those intercourse ing queers want in.

I actually know someone who dislikes the idea of marriage because it was, technically, originally used to discriminate.

But I do rather have it so we adapt it to gays because it, in my opinion, sounds very difficult to remove marriage entirely...think of all the legislation and crap that'd have to occur to have the legal things tied to marriage to be tossed out with it.  And not to mention the backlash that'd occur...

[Zero]

I actually know someone who dislikes the idea of marriage because it was, technically, originally used to discriminate.

That's a completely ludicrous reason to dislike the idea of marriage.

Tell your hipster friend never to breed. Probably won't be too difficult of a goal.

[Kayo]

That's a completely ludicrous reason to dislike the idea of marriage.

Tell your hipster friend never to breed. Probably won't be too difficult of a goal.

This is why we love when Zero posts.

[PsychoYoshi]

Sure, let's throw a legal concept that makes dealing with various spousal, inheritance and custody disputes that's been around for thousands years right out the window because those intercourse ing queers want in.

I'm going to ignore in this post what I'm interpreting as the implication that I'm paradoxically homophobic while being gay myself. If this implication wasn't actually made, I apologize in advance.

Two questions, Hostile.

1) Are you arguing that the definition of marriage is:
a) A union between two individuals who consent on their own terms to live/sleep together?
b) A union between two individuals who consent under the state's terms to live/sleep together?

2)
If A:
-Why is such a contract through the state necessary if the terms of marriage are strictly dictated by the two individuals involved? "To secure marital rights, inheritance, visitation rights, etc." is a moot point if, as I suggested, the state simply stops sanctioning marriages altogether.

If B:
-Why is marriage the state's responsibility when the institution itself pre-dates organized government and religion?

[Friendly Hostile]

I go with A, and no I'm not implying you're homophobic.


However, using marital status for those things is the more efficient way than relying on various agreements, legal documents etc. of determining what happens when a spouse dies, when a couple divorces, when a couple wants to adopt, etc.  Even if the state is no longer providing actual benefits like joint tax filing and what not, marital status is much easier to use for dealing with those issues when a legal issue arises.  The state isn't consenting to the contract or giving permission for it to exist, they're acknowledging its existence and using it to simplify and expedite various legal dilemmas that would otherwise take a considerably larger number of contracts, legal agreements and lawyers to deal with.  The state getting out of the marriage business doesn't make those issues go away, because people will still fight over who gets stuff when they divorce, over what happens when your spouse dies, over whether or not they are entitle to adopt children, or who is legally the parents of the child when it is a child from a previous marriage, or who gets visitation rights in hospitals. 

Instead of having to rewrite laws, wordings and definitions of various legal practices and create a whole new system of having to deal with these things, it's much simpler and more reasonable to simply expand what couples are acknowledged as married.  Everyone still get's to follow their religious and personal beliefs, legal battles are simpler and more easily dealt with, and no one ends up worse off by doing so.  This is an instance where the government makes things simpler and better, and is not interfering, but providing the option to an easier route in the legal realm for couples if they wish to seek it.

[Kilroy]

Uh, yay, they can get married now.

I was always for it, I never saw a reason not to have it.

[Kayo]

Only person I've seen who has a true problem with this is one of my aunts (related by marriage--not blood) who is like, EXTREMELY religious.

I disagree with her--I mean so what if marriage has roots in religion where it was a bond between a man and a woman? Here's the thing: we are NOT a theocracy. While some religions greatly discourage--and even FORBID--homosexuality (I know it's punishable by death in some middle eastern countries where Islam is dominant), not everyone follows these religions. Trying to say that it can only be between a man and a woman, at this point, is like trying to make all inhabitants of the USA follow these religions.

In my opinion, it is in a way linked to religious freedom. No one's making you be a Catholic or a Muslim. You don't have to follow these religions; you can get married to one of the same-sex if you so please. In today's society, marriage just isn't religious anymore. And that seems to be the main argument for people against gay marriage.  Doesn't work now.

[Tahrann]

In my opinion, it is in a way linked to religious freedom. No one's making you be a Catholic or a Muslim. You don't have to follow these religions; you can get married to one of the same-sex if you so please. In today's society, marriage just isn't religious anymore. And that seems to be the main argument for people against gay marriage.  Doesn't work now.

Actually, marriage in itself is not looking to be as important anymore (this is not a homosexual or religious marriage argument, this is just marriage in general). We have so many divorces, affairs, and even single parents (such as teen parents [which I am not trying to point fingers at single parents either]) that marriage seems to only be a temporary choice (or, depending on who you talk to, a life-sentence) and is not as respected as it should be. Marriage should be when two people love eachother enough that they will want to spend the rest of their lives together (until death do they part), and that love would be the reason that they do not cheat or harm one another.

Just saying, I want to love like that someday too.

[Doodle]

Marriage should be when two people love eachother enough that they will want to spend the rest of their lives together (until death do they part), and that love would be the reason that they do not cheat or harm one another.

It should be whatever the hell someone wants it to be.

[Tahrann]

It should be whatever the hell someone wants it to be.

Then it wouldn't be marriage.