Chit Chat
Options

Should marriage be privatized?

1235

Re: Should marriage be privatized?

  • Options
    kkitkat79kkitkat79 member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its Name Dropper
    edited August 2015
    @HeatherKat, Great, thank you! I was looking for people's own thoughts, but let's assume that this is representative. 

    I am familiar with the argument that marriage stabilizes society therefore a government has a legitimate role in encouraging it. I don't necessarily agree that marriage has the stabilizing effect anymore (divorce rates are high, domestic abuse is still a big issue, etc.), but it is a coherent argument. 

    So do people agree, marriage is special because "It best raises children, it protects women, it civilizes men, it lowers crime, poverty and welfare, which in turn reduces government spending and deficits. In short, marriage perpetuates and stabilizes society. Everyone benefits from that, even those who don't get married."? Do you agree that marriage does all these things? 

    @hellosweetie1015, you said something that bothered me so I am going to address it quickly. You said that "Joe Nah has a right to have a wife/husband". Joe Nah has no such right. He is lucky enough to find someone he wants to spend his life with and privileged enough to have their consent. Marriage is a privilege. If someone isn't lucky enough to find someone willing than they have no right to force someone to marry them. I am sure you agree with me on that.  
    Anniversary
  • Options
    TrixieJessTrixieJess member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    edited August 2015
    redoryx said:
    kkitkat79 said:
    @anjemon Only you, @hellowsweetie1015, and @Viszaecar explicitly stated that you have no issues with extending marriage to any form of relationship between consenting adults. @ShesSoCold said that she is not educated enough to have an opinion on the subject, some other people on the other thread explicitly said that marriage is between any two people, and there has been a lot of talk about how really there are not that many benefits to marriage after all.

    The reason why I brought up privatization is one, because I see no other politically feasible way to allow poly units to marry. Like it or not, religion is a big part of US politics and they will never go for it. Also, I do believe that marriage is a private affair between consenting adults and I shouldn't have to ask the government whether it is ok for me to get married.

    @TrixieJess, it is irrelevant whether people want to get married. The question is should they be able to?

    HOLD UP. I'm pretty sure I was one of the first who said I support marriage rights between any and all consenting adults. WHERE IS MY SPECIAL GOLD STAR OF ACCEPTANCE IN THIS THREAD?! 
    I gotcha covered:


    image

  • Options
    Look, my views on state institution of marriage are nothing new and are supported not by the religious right, but by many gays and gay activists. Here, here, here... It goes back to 1969. So my alleged homophobia aside, my arguments are not inherently homophobic. 

    @STARMOON44, You know why what I say bothers you? Because you are facing an internal
    conflict that you cannot resolve. You agree with me that state marriage is an archaic institution that has no value at all. I mean all those things that marriage supposedly does: protects women, raises best children, civilizes men... What a load of nonsense. However, if state marriage is wrong how can gay marriage feel so right?

    Well, let me resolve this conflict for you. Gay marriage absolutely had to happen. There is no doubt in my mind that it was absolutely necessary in order for the state to truly accept gays as equals. With that court decision the state can no longer legally discriminate against gays in any way, it has no longer any moral claim to justify it. Gay marriage is the shock that was needed for the state to become accepting. There is no doubt that some private people are still homophobic just as there are some private people who are still racist. But at the state level legal equality is complete (I hope) as it should be. So now, I think the state institution of marriage has outlived its usefulness. It is exclusionary and there is no need for it.

    @hellosweetie1015, the poor don't need access to marriage, they need access to money. Ask any poor person what they want. They will tell you they want a job that pays well. Being married does not provide stability, being economically well off provides stability. Also, I hope you did not feel attacked. I sincerely apologize if you did, it was not my intention.



    Anniversary
  • Options
    kkitkat79 said:

    Look, my views on state institution of marriage are nothing new and are supported not by the religious right, but by many gays and gay activists. Here, here, here... It goes back to 1969. So my alleged homophobia aside, my arguments are not inherently homophobic. 

    @STARMOON44, You know why what I say bothers you? Because you are facing an internal
    conflict that you cannot resolve. You agree with me that state marriage is an archaic institution that has no value at all. I mean all those things that marriage supposedly does: protects women, raises best children, civilizes men... What a load of nonsense. However, if state marriage is wrong how can gay marriage feel so right?

    Well, let me resolve this conflict for you. Gay marriage absolutely had to happen. There is no doubt in my mind that it was absolutely necessary in order for the state to truly accept gays as equals. With that court decision the state can no longer legally discriminate against gays in any way, it has no longer any moral claim to justify it. Gay marriage is the shock that was needed for the state to become accepting. There is no doubt that some private people are still homophobic just as there are some private people who are still racist. But at the state level legal equality is complete (I hope) as it should be. So now, I think the state institution of marriage has outlived its usefulness. It is exclusionary and there is no need for it.

    @hellosweetie1015, the poor don't need access to marriage, they need access to money. Ask any poor person what they want. They will tell you they want a job that pays well. Being married does not provide stability, being economically well off provides stability. Also, I hope you did not feel attacked. I sincerely apologize if you did, it was not my intention.




    Um no? I do not at all agree with you that state marriage is an archaic institution with no value. Not at all.
  • Options
    @STARMOON44, Fair enough. I am genuinely interested, I don't mean to be antagonistic; what do you think is the value of state marriage? 
    Anniversary
  • Options
    STARMOON44STARMOON44 member
    First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its Name Dropper
    edited August 2015
    kkitkat79 said:

    @STARMOON44, Fair enough. I am genuinely interested, I don't mean to be antagonistic; what do you think is the value of state marriage? 

    Read any one of my other posts on this thread or the one about the Presidential Debate. You aren't genuinely interested
  • Options
    @STARMOON44, I did, but I could not find anything very specific. Here you said that you worry that privatizing marriage will preclude poor people from participating in it, in the Presidential Debate thread you said the civil marriage is a right, and there is another thread, in Customs and Traditions I think, where you say that marriage is a statement of values.

    So I guess what you are saying is that marriage has some beneficial properties and is a right; because it is a right it should be accessible to everyone who wants it; if we privatize it poor will no longer have access to it. Is that right?   
    Anniversary
  • Options
    edited August 2015
    kkitkat79 said: @STARMOON44, I did, but I could not find anything very specific. Here you said that you worry that privatizing marriage will preclude poor people from participating in it, in the Presidential Debate thread you said the civil marriage is a right, and there is another thread, in Customs and Traditions I think, where you say that marriage is a statement of values.
    So I guess what you are saying is that marriage has some beneficial properties and is a right; because it is a right it should be accessible to everyone who wants it; if we privatize it poor will no longer have access to it. Is that right?    FUCKING BOXES GODDAMN IT TK FIX YOUR SHIT

    I have never, in my whole time on TK, agreed wholeheartedly with @starmoon44. There is a first time for everything.

    BECAUSE FUCKING YES IT EXCLUDES THE POOR. I don't have to worry about it. I know, for a fact, that it will exclude me. 
    Daisypath Wedding tickers
    image
  • Options
    @hellosweetie1015, What I mean by privatizing marriage is merely that the government no longer has a say in who is married and who is not. Are you telling me that all those gay people who married each other before it was legal for them to get married were not really married? Are you really this arrogant to decide for other people what is the level of their commitment?

    Just because some bureaucrat tells someone they are not married does not make it so. Individuals can decide for themselves whether they are married or not. So government recognition has nothing to do with your ability to just get married. You go some place special, you say vows to each other... boom, you're married. 

    What government recognition of your marriage does do is give you access to special benefits. Explain to me why access to these benefits should be dependent on whether I am married or not?    

     
    Anniversary
  • Options
    @hellosweetie1015, Great! You are absolutely right, all those things are codified into law already. It is the law. What I am proposing is simple. Instead of asking the government "am I married", I will tell the government "I am married". My spouse or spouses come into a marriage office and tell the clerk "Please register us as married". The clerk asks no questions (other than maybe our age), he simply inputs our information into a marriage registry and gives us a document to sign that we all agreed to be married and we all consent to all the marriage laws that there are. This transaction will cost the same amount as marriage license used to cost. Practically, nothing changes, but the principle is completely different. You are not asking for a permission to get married; you are announcing "I am married". And if anyone disagrees... well, that's their problem.   
    Anniversary
  • Options
    edited August 2015
    kkitkat79 said:
    @hellosweetie1015, Great! You are absolutely right, all those things are codified into law already. It is the law. What I am proposing is simple. Instead of asking the government "am I married", I will tell the government "I am married". My spouse or spouses come into a marriage office and tell the clerk "Please register us as married". The clerk asks no questions (other than maybe our age), he simply inputs our information into a marriage registry and gives us a document to sign that we all agreed to be married and we all consent to all the marriage laws that there are. This transaction will cost the same amount as marriage license used to cost. Practically, nothing changes, but the principle is completely different. You are not asking for a permission to get married; you are announcing "I am married". And if anyone disagrees... well, that's their problem.   
    WE DON'T ASK THE GOVERNMENT IF WE ARE MARRIED. WE CONFIRM THAT WE ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO MARRY (i.e. not already married, over the age of 18 or have parental permission from any/all living parents, are not too closely related per the current laws, and are not being coerced into marriage) AND THEN ONCE WE GET MARRIED AFTER WE GET THAT CONFIRMATION WE TELL THEM WE ARE NOW MARRIED.

    ETA: Failed to fully read in my frustration.

    Yes. That is what you do. When you go to the probate office, to get your licence, they ask you: 

    "Are you old enough?"
    "Are you already married to someone else?"
    "Are you brother and sister?"

    And then they give you your license. My probate Judge says she has never had to turn anyone away for a license ever. It isn't permission. It is confirming that you are abiding by the laws they have in place to get married, so that your marriage is VALID. If your marriage is not LEGALLY valid then FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT you wasted getting married. 

    ETA x2 - fixed that statement because it wasn't quite right. Still raging. I'm going back into retirement after this.
    Daisypath Wedding tickers
    image
  • Options
    kkitkat79kkitkat79 member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its Name Dropper
    edited August 2015
    @hellosweetie1015, Why can't I get married if I am married already? What if my husband and I want to marry Jane? Are we allowed? 
    Anniversary
  • Options
    kkitkat79 said:
    @hellosweetie1015, Great! You are absolutely right, all those things are codified into law already. It is the law. What I am proposing is simple. Instead of asking the government "am I married", I will tell the government "I am married". My spouse or spouses come into a marriage office and tell the clerk "Please register us as married". The clerk asks no questions (other than maybe our age), he simply inputs our information into a marriage registry and gives us a document to sign that we all agreed to be married and we all consent to all the marriage laws that there are. This transaction will cost the same amount as marriage license used to cost. Practically, nothing changes, but the principle is completely different. You are not asking for a permission to get married; you are announcing "I am married". And if anyone disagrees... well, that's their problem.   
    Um, this is kind of how it already works.  The whole reason to get a marriage license is so that the government can see that you aren't already married, are of the correct age, not related, etc (you know the things that are against the law in regards to marrying someone).  But you aren't asking them if you can get married.  Not like how you would ask your parents if you can go to the movies.  You are basically saying "hey we are going to get married so we need a license that when submitted you, as the government, will now recognize us as married."

  • Options
    License is a permission from an authority to do something. It is a permission. You have to ask for a permission. Unless that is not what license means. English is my second language, have I been using this word incorrectly?
    Anniversary
  • Options
    kkitkat79 said:
    @hellosweetie1015, Why can't I get married if I am married already? What if my husband and I want to marry Jane? Are we allowed? 
    FUCKING CHRIST. Are we back to this shit now? 

    Right now, NO. You are NOT ALLOWED. You and your husband are already married. Jane can come and live with you and fuck you and carry your husband's babies alongside you, but you cannot marry Jane without divorcing your husband, and your husband cannot marry Jane without divorcing you.

    And there are reasons for that - some of them valid, some of them not so much. FLDS pastors are marrying little girls off to pervy old men. The power differential there is something to consider. It's significantly more than just "OMG A DUDE WANTS TO MARRY A DUDE GROSSSSSSSS" there are actual ramifications to consider with polygamy that are not there with monogamous couples of any sexuality. 

    I do hope they will be overcome in my lifetime, but right now those issues are not resolved, and there is no way I would vote for it right now.
    Daisypath Wedding tickers
    image
  • Options
    Maggie0829Maggie0829 member
    First Anniversary First Answer First Comment 5 Love Its
    edited August 2015
    image

    Just like a drivers license but now I have permission from the government to kill people.  All I had to do was go to the county clerk and ask if I could and they were all "sure!"

This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards