Solution to All Marriage issues (Equal, same sex or otherwise)

The Federal American Government should just do away with Marriage and unions on a Federal Government Recognized level. We should be taxed and given benefits on an equal basis regardless of age, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, marital status, and socioeconomic status.

Just make it all equal and fair, abolish the whole idea of marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, so if you want to get married go to whatever institution will do it and get it done. It won’t affect your standing in society positively or negatively. It won’t give you any perks and won’t take any away, it’ll simply be a union two people decided to join of their own free will to express their love(or hate) for one another.

What do you guys think? Good idea? At all possible?

Try telling the people who are already married that they have to give up their perks and benefits. Go on, I dare you. (hint: they aren't going to be happy campers)

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Try telling the people who are already married that they have to give up their perks and benefits. Go on, I dare you. (hint: they aren't going to be happy campers)

As one of those people myself... I wouldn't' say "Take it away" more like "give it to everyone."

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Try telling the people who are already married that they have to give up their perks and benefits. Go on, I dare you. (hint: they aren't going to be happy campers)

Besides the obvious benefits of having a life partner, what state sanctioned perks and benefits are you referring to?

What will marriage cost you?

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Try telling the people who are already married that they have to give up their perks and benefits. Go on, I dare you. (hint: they aren't going to be happy campers)

Besides the obvious benefits of having a life partner, what state sanctioned perks and benefits are you referring to?

What will marriage cost you?

It's much easier to co-parent as a married couple than as an unmarried couple.

a reply to: PsychoEmperor

ok i will bite :

current marriage // civil unions grant partners certain rights

and people expect those benefits

you cannot just remove them all and expect people to be ok with that

a reply to: PsychoEmperor


Now I see where You got Your screen name/nom de plume.. What do You want on Your tombstone? hahahaha

no dice!

a reply to: DrJunk

Depends if they are together or not. Civil unions, domestic partnership, and such. People can be hapy together and raise a family without a piece of paper. And especially without a blessing from a guy in a funny hat or a wooden hammer.

A lot of family's are miserable and still married.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Try telling the people who are already married that they have to give up their perks and benefits. Go on, I dare you. (hint: they aren't going to be happy campers)

Besides the obvious benefits of having a life partner, what state sanctioned perks and benefits are you referring to?

What will marriage cost you?

Taxes

>>
The Federal American Government should just do away with Marriage and unions on a Federal Government Recognized level. We should be taxed and given benefits on an equal basis regardless of age, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, marital status, and socioeconomic status.
>>

Entering such a partnership or union does indeed change someone's status and responsibilities so it's fair that other rules, taxes, benefits etc. apply for those who are married. There is nothing wrong with that.

>>
Marriage is a religious institution
>>

Not it's not.

>>
so if you want to get married go to whatever institution will do it and get it done.
>>

Why would I need to join some religious institution or group if I want to get married?

>>
it’ll simply be a union two people decided to join of their own free will to express their love(or hate) for one another.
>>

It's not "simply". There are responsibilities, financial and otherwise if two people live together as a family.

To me it looks you just want to keep the title "marriage" but otherwise make it meaningless, merely some religious, symbolic thing like a baptism...but it's not. Marriage (or union or however you call it) affects how people live together very REAL...unlike a religious ceremony which is based on superstition or some beliefs.

Better even, if you have the desire to MAKE your marriage a religious event as well you're actually free to do so.

And what actually is that "solution", I mean, for which "problem" ?

a reply to: PsychoEmperor

I guess you've nailed it. We can file marriage under "tax purposes", and not under love.

In Australia we don't recognise gay marriage but the Gov't does recognise same sex relationships on all their gov't forms.

My understanding with the issue of gay marriage is that our system is open to legal challenges. So once gay marriage is made legal the polygamous religions in Australia - the biggest being Islam will automatically challenge the legislation in court to fight for legal polygamous marriage. (There is already a Sharia Law party in Australia and a few court cases where Muslim lawyers have tried to change the constitution.)

If that were to be passed then it would spell havoc for the welfare and immigration systems.

I support gay marriage and live in a gay friendly area and I think it's a shame that the majority of gay people who want to be married cannot because of a religious minority.

As a conservative Christian I feel and know I have the right to decide what marriage is and how it should be applied to people around me.

a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Entering such a partnership or union does indeed change someone's status and responsibilities so it's fair that other rules, taxes, benefits etc. apply for those who are married. There is nothing wrong with that.

it seems that now days the actually responsibilities for each of the partners seem to vary a great deal from couple to couple and I am not sure just how you mean that it changes a person's status (I can think of a couple of ways that one could be interpreted.) But as far as the actually responsibilities goes the only ones that the gov't should probably be concerned with is:
that any children resulting in such marriages get the support from both parents
and that the genetics of the two don't so closely match each other to produce disabled children (imbreeding)
many of the other responsibilities seem be better determined either by agreement between the two partners or at lleast would be more adequately determined on a case by case basis.

and quite frankly I tend to see some of the "perks" more like the gov't or institutions poking their noses in where they belong....like the idea that close family relatives should be the only ones allowed to visit a patient in the hospital. just can't figure out why that is.. sure I can see how the hospitals might want to control the number of people visiting a patient but what if that patient has a close friend that they would love to see and a bunch of family members that the sight of is only gonna result in elevated high blood pressure along with a not so small amount of anger? in such cases wouldln't it be better to allow patients to just name a few that they are the closest to?

a reply to: PsychoEmperor

It's beneficial to the state for people to marry and procreate for various reasons though. That is why they get involved with it. Plus it can't just be a Religious Institution that people get married at because some people aren't religious. Marriage is actually more of a Contract Agreement between people which doesn't even require Religion.

That's not to say I agree or disagree with your idea, but it would never work out. Too many other vested interested parties that use it to their advantage also.

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
As a conservative Christian I feel and know I have the right to decide what marriage is and how it should be applied to people around me.

You have the right to decide what it is and how it applies to people around you???
How is it that you get to decide the application of rights of others???
Shouldn't it be that you get to decide for yourself only???
How do you think those people around you feel about you being in control over their Rights and how they are applied???
How would you feel if someone else started deciding the application of your rights for you??

a reply to: mOjOm listen I do have the right because I said so and God clearly wants me to anyway . If you don't like that fine , it's the truth though I know what is best for everyone. Praise the Lord Jesus H Christ

a reply to: TsukiLunar

LOL.

Okey Dokey.

I disagree 100%, but I know you don't care.

BTW, God clearly disagrees with you too. It's the truth though because God spoke to me and told me so. If you don't like that, fine. Prove me wrong.

a reply to: mOjOm

We will agree to disagree even though we both know I am right and you are wrong. Have a blessed day.