Define Marriage

[robvalue]

Yes, but it's not guaranteed to pass. People can try and put through any bill they want, any time. They can do it whether or not gays can marry. I'm saying it is irrelevant. You appear to be both saying you have no problem with it, yet opposing it.

[Longhorn]

Robvalue, unfortunately the concerns raised by the 'slippery slope' argument have already started. I know of at lease one case about the constitutionality of plural marriage bans has started making its way through the courts.

Could you please present an argument against polygamy in consenting adults and explain why exactly it should be banned?

[Faith No More]

 The problem I see with the current process of redefining marriage is that it brings into question all the objective preconditions. 

I don't see that as a problem, because it allows us to determine which of these objective preconditions are valid, which is especially necessary given these preconditions were applied when prejudices weren't recognized as such.

Does it frighten you that some of your previously conceived notions might be unsupportable?

[Mudhammam]

In all seriousness, the role of the government in 21st century marriages doesn't even make sense to me. You want to grow old and share your possessions with someone(s)? Cool. But why should the government recognize and/or reward that? There was a time when the state had a vested interest in procreation and used the benefits married couples receive as an incentive for people to start families. I don't know that our population growth needs any extra effort at this stage but that's essentially the only reason I can conceive as to why marriage is the state's business. And thanks to science, gay couples (or triples or quadruples...) as well as straight are able to do that.

[robvalue]

I am against married couples getting any sort of tangible benefit, such as tax breaks. I think that is ridiculous. It should afford you no advantage over non married people, in my opinion.

Part of me getting married is me wanting to be legally associated with my wife, in any matters this might be relevant. That, and it is a romantic gesture, it's symbolic.

I completely understand some people seeing marriage as completely irrelevant an unnecessary, I truly get that.

Also, Chad: yes, laws change. Change can be good. Just because things have been a certain way, it doesn't mean they should stay that way.

[Iroscato]

My take on marriage? By and large, it doesn't work. Never has done, never will. But for those who want to try and make it work? Who am I to try and stop them? A man and woman, two men, two women...who gives a shit. Two human beings who love each other and want to give their lives to each other...let them get on with it.

What exactly about that can't you understand or agree with, Mezmo?

[robvalue]

I agree the divorce rates, and the amount of unhappiness in marriages that get "stuck out" is very high and that is saddening.

But the first is certainly better than the second, in my opinion. I think people who stay together "for the kids" do more harm than good. I can personally attest to that at least in once case.

[Hatshepsut]

But why should the government recognize and/or reward that? There was a time when the state had a vested interest in procreation and used the benefits married couples receive as an incentive for people to start families...

I would agree marriage should be neutral tax-wise. It's worse than one-sided, though. Marriages with only one breadwinner get a break, but if both spouses work there is usually a tax penalty. That's because the married deduction and brackets are higher than for single, but not as high as for two singles. It seems the government not only wanted people starting families, it wanted moms to stay at home as well.

[Minimalist]

But why should the government recognize and/or reward that?

Because when you lose all the "sacred," lovey-dovey, horseshit marriage is a legal contract between two people which is enforceable or dissolved in a court of law.  Getting these fucking preachers to get their noses out of everyone's business would be a great start.

Most people don't know that this is a late addition to the metric fucktons of catholic bullshit which were dumped on Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_%2...lic_Church

The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 had already stated in response to the teaching of the Cathars: "For not only virgins and the continent but also married persons find favour with God by right faith and good actions and deserve to attain to eternal blessedness."[39] Marriage was also included in the list of the seven sacraments at the Second Council of Lyon in 1274 as part of the profession of faith required of Michael VIII Palaiologos. The sacraments of marriage and holy orders were distinguished as sacraments that aim at the "increase of the Church" from the other five sacraments, which are intended for the spiritual perfection of individuals. The Council of Florence in 1439 again recognised marriage as a sacrament.[37][40]

And a fairly late addition, at that!

[Brakeman]

Robvalue, unfortunately the concerns raised by the 'slippery slope' argument have already started. I know of at lease one case about the constitutionality of plural marriage bans has started making its way through the courts.

I'm already married, but when this "slippery slope" plural marriage thing passes I'm going to marry my right hand. If that goes well I might even marry my left hand, but we don't get along so well, if you know what I mean...