Regarding the state, marriage should be all or nothing. Consenting adults should be able to marry whomever and however many they wish or no one can get married. Personally, I don’t think the government should be involved in marriage at all. I would rather see some other options or protections put in place (if they don’t exist already) for couples who choose to become serious but do not wish to “make it legal.”
I already told my wife that she was it. We got married because her family is traditional and we got tax breaks.
The tax breaks are nice, if I’d known how good they’d be, I’d have married my best friend years ago and just gotten divorced when we found our current wives.
IMO “marriage” shouldn’t be a legal thing at all. It’s between you and your marriage partner/s. The legal/government aspect should be limited to forming legal partnerships with whomever you want to do so for taxes/healthcare/property/etc.
I mean, that’s just fining a different word to describe what the government already does.
I don’t know that I need the government to use a different word than the rest of society for an arrangement just because some people have a special ritual around it.
A government marriage is required for recognition by the government, and a (whatever religion or group) marriage is required for recognition by (whatever religion or group).
It’s not that one should stop using the word or the other has a more legitimate claim, it’s just different things in the same category.
It’s not what the government already does at all. I can’t get a government “marriage” to my 3 housemates so we can all enjoy tax advantages and share medical benefits with each other and whatever else married people do that for. 2 of us could pair up but there’d be an odd man out.
I meant more the legal partnerships aspect than the specifics of who it grants it to. Also, in some areas you can get a marriage between multiple people.
Marriage is the word for the non-business personal binding that you speak of.
You’re saying they should open the doors to that to everyone in whatever organization they see fit, which I agree with.
You’re also saying they should use a different word for it, which I don’t. Religion doesn’t own the concept of marriage.
May as well say that we’re deciding that religion can’t perform marriages anymore. You can have the same party and ceremony, but it’s just a Catholic/Jewish/Hindu/etc union. If you want to get married you need to go down to the courthouse.
Personally I don’t give a shit what it’s called. Calling the legal aspect something else would shut down the resistance from the religious whackjobs that are hung up on the word marriage and the fact that it doesn’t fit whatever their religions definition of it is.
Eh, they don’t get to win. I care what it’s called because that’s the word for it in English. Letting them win means that they’ll just advance to saying that the government shouldn’t be encouraging what they disagree with.
When people proposed “civil unions” as the alternative to gay marriage it shut up exactly zero of the nut jobs. When gay marriage was legalized they started arguing about how you can’t force them to make cakes.
Appeasement doesn’t work. Get petty and make the nutters defend everything they’ve got twisted around in their heads. Care about the word if for no other reason than it makes them pissy.
Regarding the state, marriage should be all or nothing. Consenting adults should be able to marry whomever and however many they wish or no one can get married. Personally, I don’t think the government should be involved in marriage at all. I would rather see some other options or protections put in place (if they don’t exist already) for couples who choose to become serious but do not wish to “make it legal.”
I already told my wife that she was it. We got married because her family is traditional and we got tax breaks.
The tax breaks are nice, if I’d known how good they’d be, I’d have married my best friend years ago and just gotten divorced when we found our current wives.
IMO “marriage” shouldn’t be a legal thing at all. It’s between you and your marriage partner/s. The legal/government aspect should be limited to forming legal partnerships with whomever you want to do so for taxes/healthcare/property/etc.
I mean, that’s just fining a different word to describe what the government already does.
I don’t know that I need the government to use a different word than the rest of society for an arrangement just because some people have a special ritual around it.
A government marriage is required for recognition by the government, and a (whatever religion or group) marriage is required for recognition by (whatever religion or group).
It’s not that one should stop using the word or the other has a more legitimate claim, it’s just different things in the same category.
It’s not what the government already does at all. I can’t get a government “marriage” to my 3 housemates so we can all enjoy tax advantages and share medical benefits with each other and whatever else married people do that for. 2 of us could pair up but there’d be an odd man out.
I meant more the legal partnerships aspect than the specifics of who it grants it to. Also, in some areas you can get a marriage between multiple people.
Marriage is the word for the non-business personal binding that you speak of.
You’re saying they should open the doors to that to everyone in whatever organization they see fit, which I agree with.
You’re also saying they should use a different word for it, which I don’t. Religion doesn’t own the concept of marriage.
May as well say that we’re deciding that religion can’t perform marriages anymore. You can have the same party and ceremony, but it’s just a Catholic/Jewish/Hindu/etc union. If you want to get married you need to go down to the courthouse.
Personally I don’t give a shit what it’s called. Calling the legal aspect something else would shut down the resistance from the religious whackjobs that are hung up on the word marriage and the fact that it doesn’t fit whatever their religions definition of it is.
Eh, they don’t get to win. I care what it’s called because that’s the word for it in English. Letting them win means that they’ll just advance to saying that the government shouldn’t be encouraging what they disagree with.
When people proposed “civil unions” as the alternative to gay marriage it shut up exactly zero of the nut jobs. When gay marriage was legalized they started arguing about how you can’t force them to make cakes.
Appeasement doesn’t work. Get petty and make the nutters defend everything they’ve got twisted around in their heads. Care about the word if for no other reason than it makes them pissy.