Welcome to Gaia! ::

Ok, so here's your all-purpose marriage discussion thread. I think we're probably all on the same page, but I'll state my opinion. =)

I think conservatives and liberals alike are missing the point with gay marriage. Liberals don't want conservatives to deny gays marriage, while conservatives don't want to stretch the definition of marriage. I'll jump to the solution: remove all government recognition of marriage. I'll try to break it down...

1.) Marriage is a right, not a privilege.
Marriage is something we don't need the government's permission to do. You don't need a license for it. You give a license for a privilege, not for a right. You don't give licenses out for wearing a pink dress, right? Anyone can wear a pink dress, it'd be kind of silly if a man did, but he can, no need to disallow him to. This arguement gets most conservatives every time. Marriage is something special. It's something you wanted since you were a kid. You always dreamed about flowers, etc. right? If it's so special, why do you have to ask the government for it? It'd be like going to get a license for wearing a pink dress.

2.) Gays could get married, and the conservatives wouldn't have to care.
The biggest reason anyone would oppose a gay marriage is that they would have recognize it. Although I see little difference between gay and straight relationships, some people do. If there's no government regulation, then we won't have to change anyone's minds. They can continue to not recognize gay marriage just like me or you wouldn't recognize a guy marrying a pineapple. If there's no government say in it, then that guy can go ahead and marry the pineapple. It'd get a few laughs, but no one would take it seriously. Same thing would happen if the guy wore a pink dress.

3.) Freedom to religion and contract.
Marriage is a form of contract, which means it falls under a person's right to property (or persuit of happiness). In the utopia of non-government marriage, two people would get married in a church (or Las Vegas drive-thru, whichever you prefer) and only in that place. They wouldn't have to go to any civil servant and declare they're married. Right after they get married, they most likely would get a contract signed between themselves that would declare mutual possessions, hospitol visitation, yada yada, very similar to a prenumptial agreement. So what happens? Marriage is actually spiritual and/or religious, and is seperate of taxes or taking half of either one's stuff. So technically, two people, who don't love each other at all, could enter into the same type of contract, without getting married. They might be brothers, roomates, business partners, or best buds. It wouldn't matter.

4.) Taxes
It costs money to keep track of who's married. It costs money to issue licenses. The more government programs you cut, the more pink dresses everyone can buy. Nuff' said.

If I had to pick between the liberal and the conservative solutions, however, I think I'd take the liberal unless civil unions get substantially more equal to marriages. I'd vote against ANY federal marriage law/amendment that would take power from the states(conservative or liberal).

*Most of the opinions above apply to polygmy as well.

thankyou!
Polygamy doesn't hurt anybody, just like two guys having sex doesn't hurt anybody! (well maybe that one somebody...but he's OK with that) The government should get their asses out of marriage...that's a brilliant idea.
so would that contract be like 'i give you power of attorney over me, and you give me power of attorney over you, we'll split our cash and bills, and if im on life support, you make the call'?

Interesting you should mention segregation. Most arguements against gay/whatever marriage are very similar to the arguements against inter-racial marriage 40-50 years ago. It's a funny part of american society, we never learn from our past.

That's sounds like a decent plan considering that gay marriage (or whatever you want to call it) is one of those issues that the country can solve after more pressing issues are completey solved put out of the way. It is not a very pressing issue and we can take our time in finding out the best solution possible.

Well, the answer you'd get is simply 'God'. Yeah, I think it's bullshit too but that's what they claim.

I didn't really agree with any of the options fully. I mean, I don't think the liberal view of marriage is more than one person....but I'm all for two consenting adults marrying whomever they choose. Even if a brother wanted to marry a sister...I think that's ******** up , but who am I to judge?

(btw, personally I'm gay but I don't think I'd ever want to marry because I think it's 'gei' in the teenagery sense.)

I have an alternative solution to the problem that corrects the inequality and the incentive in one fell swoop. Simply put:

Define marriage as a private contract. As a private contract, the terms would be up to the married couple. If you wanted to recognize it religiously, you could obviously do so... and indeed, that would be part of the contract. If anyone bothered to think about this in the lovely Congress, it'd make sense for everyone.

- Conservatives: Would be under no obligation to adhere to the terms of a private contract, A conservative insurance company could simply dismiss claims of marriage that did not abide by thier terms. There would, however, be no lack of companies willing tocover nontraditional unions because money = good to most businesses.

- Liberals: Polygamy and gay Marriage would be legal. One could even argue the case for intrafamily marriage, as there is little harm done when two of-age adults choose to have sex.

- Libertarians: A sexy idea.

- As the government would have no stake in marriage, there would beno tax benefits for it. Lest people complain, though. HR-25 and the Senate's equivalent bill should be passed without delay. No income tax means no need for tax breaks.

Hm...actually, that doesn't sound like a bad idea. So long as people who are offended by the idea of gay marriage do not have to actually recognize it...ect. So it works all around, I think. And the liberals get their whole thing as well. Yeah...I agree with the Libertarian view. xd

The thing is though...what about the legal benifits from being married....the right to see your spouse when he's/she's in critical conidition (only family allowed), or how about the tax reductions from it. or any of the other multitude of bonuses you get from being married. Would all that be lost?

I'm mostly worried about the hospital thing...since they only allow close family when someone is normaly in really bad shape, most of the times people like girl/boyfriends aren't allowed.

The libertarian view i would die for if it wasn't for those things...

but as of right now i'm dead on the moderate view, with High_Assassin.

I parodys Tanasha's view terms,
Instead of calling them all civil unions...simply let the broad term "marriage" take over. and then define a diffrence betwen Religious marriages, and Civil Unions...so gays can still get "married" in the sense of the broad term "marriage", but it will actualy be a civil union, and conservitives can still call THEIR marriage "marriage" becuase they have a religious marriage...this in no way forces the religion (christian) to accept gays (this would have to be done by goverment intervention..thats a no-no).