Should Government be in the Marriage business?

[THE LIGHT]

those things never should have been placed on marriage in the first place
how about we actually fix that and make those rights part of a civil union contract and remove government totally from marriage

so only religious people should be married?

if someone is an athiest, the woman has to be asked 'will you civil union me'?

puleeze...

No. They can say and do whatever they like. The goverment just wouldn't sponsor either one.

 

[Oddball]

those things never should have been placed on marriage in the first place
how about we actually fix that and make those rights part of a civil union contract and remove government totally from marriage

so only religious people should be married?

if someone is an athiest, the woman has to be asked 'will you civil union me'?

puleeze...

Draw up a common law marriage contract.

Problem solved.

 

[Oddball]

It's a bit too late. The government issues licenses for marriage. Gays ought to be able to get them too.

It's never too late to abolish that which has no business existing.

 

[Ravi]

those things never should have been placed on marriage in the first place
how about we actually fix that and make those rights part of a civil union contract and remove government totally from marriage

so only religious people should be married?

if someone is an athiest, the woman has to be asked 'will you civil union me'?

puleeze...

No. They can say and do whatever they like. The goverment just wouldn't sponsor either one.

So you don't care if gay people call their civil unions marriage?

 

[DiveCon]

so only religious people should be married?

if someone is an athiest, the woman has to be asked 'will you civil union me'?

puleeze...

No. They can say and do whatever they like. The goverment just wouldn't sponsor either one.

So you don't care if gay people call their civil unions marriage?

what they call it is their business
just like what they do in the privacy of their homes


btw, it would be the same for hetero couples

 

[JBeukema]

Should Government be in the Marriage business?

Here's a better question: should marriage be a business?

no, it should be left to a religious ceremony
and that is open to ANY belief system

Really?

You don't believe marriage should exist as a social recognition of relational exclusivity, oft forming the nucleus of the newly formed family unit??

 

[JBeukema]

The government should not be granting different tax status to people who are married or single or to people who have kids or don't. ALL people should be taxed as citizens only

so those trying to support their family should have their taxes raised or the billionaire playboy should have his taxes lessened because he's being taxed to death?

And the state should never recognize any marriage but one performed by the state. Churches have no business acting as agents of the state.

agrees

 

[JBeukema]

Marriage is contract law. When two people get married, in the eyes of the state a new 'entity' is created. States license marriage and states have a whole system of courts to dissolve that contract: divorce courts.

Churches sanctify marriages. Some churches hold marriage as a sacrament.

States create the license, churches sanctify to union.

If a church choses not to sanctify a marriage, the couple has other options like a civil ceremony. It still makes their marriage legal in the eyes of the state.

Yet who may enter into that contract is still determined based on the religious beliefs of the majority of churches.

 

[JBeukema]

it IS a religious institution

It is predominantly a social institution, found in a variety of forms across all cultures and alongside numerous religious doctrines.

 

[DiveCon]

Here's a better question: should marriage be a business?

no, it should be left to a religious ceremony
and that is open to ANY belief system

Really?

You don't believe marriage should exist as a social recognition of relational exclusivity, oft forming the nucleus of the newly formed family unit??

you can do all that in a civil union contract, open to anyone that wants to enter into one
and yes, i would include multiparty unions as well
as long as all parties are consenting adults

 

[Nosmo King]

Marriage is contract law. When two people get married, in the eyes of the state a new 'entity' is created. States license marriage and states have a whole system of courts to dissolve that contract: divorce courts.

Churches sanctify marriages. Some churches hold marriage as a sacrament.

States create the license, churches sanctify to union.

If a church choses not to sanctify a marriage, the couple has other options like a civil ceremony. It still makes their marriage legal in the eyes of the state.

Yet who may enter into that contract is still determined based on the religious beliefs of the majority of churches.

Not the religious beliefs, but the dogma of their faiths.

 

[DiveCon]

Marriage is contract law. When two people get married, in the eyes of the state a new 'entity' is created. States license marriage and states have a whole system of courts to dissolve that contract: divorce courts.

Churches sanctify marriages. Some churches hold marriage as a sacrament.

States create the license, churches sanctify to union.

If a church choses not to sanctify a marriage, the couple has other options like a civil ceremony. It still makes their marriage legal in the eyes of the state.

Yet who may enter into that contract is still determined based on the religious beliefs of the majority of churches.

Not the religious beliefs, but the dogma of their faiths.

which can be ANY faith

 

[JBeukema]

Marriage is contract law. When two people get married, in the eyes of the state a new 'entity' is created. States license marriage and states have a whole system of courts to dissolve that contract: divorce courts.

Churches sanctify marriages. Some churches hold marriage as a sacrament.

States create the license, churches sanctify to union.

If a church choses not to sanctify a marriage, the couple has other options like a civil ceremony. It still makes their marriage legal in the eyes of the state.

Yet who may enter into that contract is still determined based on the religious beliefs of the majority of churches.

Not the religious beliefs, but the dogma of their faiths.

Fair enough.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The government should not be granting different tax status to people who are married or single or to people who have kids or don't. ALL people should be taxed as citizens only

so those trying to support their family should have their taxes raised or the billionaire playboy should have his taxes lessened because he's being taxed to death?

What does this have to do with income?

just because someone chooses to have a gaggle of rug rats, does that entitle them to pay less for government when they will probably be using more government services than someone without said gaggle of rug rats?

I don't care if you want to have kids but the fact that I pay a higher percentage of my income because I do not have kids means that more of my money than your money is going to pay for the government services for your kids.

If you want kids then you pay for them.

 

[asterism]

The government should only be concerned with that which constitutes a "household." Let the non-governmental entities define marriage.

And gay people should not seek marriage. Haven't they suffered enough?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's a bit too late. The government issues licenses for marriage. Gays ought to be able to get them too.

That is a very negative attitude. Just because the government is doing something it should not be is no reason to accept that there is nothing we can do about it.

 

[JBeukema]

The government should not be granting different tax status to people who are married or single or to people who have kids or don't. ALL people should be taxed as citizens only

so those trying to support their family should have their taxes raised or the billionaire playboy should have his taxes lessened because he's being taxed to death?

What does this have to do with income?

just because someone chooses to have a gaggle of rug rats, does that entitle them to pay less for government when they will probably be using more government services than someone without said gaggle of rug rats?

The point of tax breaks for those with children if to make it easier to support themselves instead of taking the money that would feed their kids so the government can spend it on roads, vacations, and feeding their kids and their neighbors'.

I don't care if you want to have kids but the fact that I pay a higher percentage of my income because I do not have kids means that more of my money than your money is going to pay for the government services for your kids.

not if you provide tax breaks so they can more readily feed their own children

If you want kids then you pay for them.

Hence the tax breaks for those with children

 

[THE LIGHT]

so those trying to support their family should have their taxes raised or the billionaire playboy should have his taxes lessened because he's being taxed to death?

The government shouldn't be taxing people to death regardless of their marital status.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Marriage is contract law. When two people get married, in the eyes of the state a new 'entity' is created. States license marriage and states have a whole system of courts to dissolve that contract: divorce courts.

Churches sanctify marriages. Some churches hold marriage as a sacrament.

States create the license, churches sanctify to union.

If a church choses not to sanctify a marriage, the couple has other options like a civil ceremony. It still makes their marriage legal in the eyes of the state.

Yet who may enter into that contract is still determined based on the religious beliefs of the majority of churches.

The government determines who can enter into that contract, the churches have no say in it.