Should the government merely acknowledge civil unions whether it is homosexual or heterosexual? In a secular society why should the government have any say over marriage which is essentially a religious arrangement?
Should the government define 'marriage' at all?
03/29/2011
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
If I get what you are saying, is the government should strip the word "marriage" from all government involvement and wherever the government has previously referenced "marriage" (marriage licenses, tax purposes, spousal privilege in court, next of kin benefits and rights, all that stuff) now refer to that legal relationship as "civil union" whether it be between a hetero or homo couple? I guess that could work, except "marriage" as a word and idea has such a greater power to it than "civil union". I also don't see it as essentially a religious arrangement, but as essentially a social/cultural arrangement between consenting adults. Whatever the arrangement is called, it should be open to couples of all orientations, and legally recognized and supported by all the states' and the federal government.
03/30/2011
The United States is far from being a secular society. We really only pay lip service to the separation of church and state.
03/30/2011
Unfortunately, you're right Oxygen99
I think it should fall as defined by the highest tax authority. To me, marriage is a business deal and has been for about 3600 years. Governments have a lot to gain tax wise from married couples, I hope they figure something out within the next 5 years though. A huge wave of same-sex weddings would be a boon to most any economy!
I think it should fall as defined by the highest tax authority. To me, marriage is a business deal and has been for about 3600 years. Governments have a lot to gain tax wise from married couples, I hope they figure something out within the next 5 years though. A huge wave of same-sex weddings would be a boon to most any economy!
03/30/2011
Quote:
I agree entirely. The word "marriage" has always disgusted me. In my mind, it is evocative of a boring, traditional lifestyle; 2.5 kids, an ugly house with a white picket fence, etc. Personally, I believe that the term "domestic partnership" is much more fitting, since marriage is supposed to be an equal partnership.
Originally posted by
alliegator
If I get what you are saying, is the government should strip the word "marriage" from all government involvement and wherever the government has previously referenced "marriage" (marriage licenses, tax purposes, spousal privilege
...
more
If I get what you are saying, is the government should strip the word "marriage" from all government involvement and wherever the government has previously referenced "marriage" (marriage licenses, tax purposes, spousal privilege in court, next of kin benefits and rights, all that stuff) now refer to that legal relationship as "civil union" whether it be between a hetero or homo couple? I guess that could work, except "marriage" as a word and idea has such a greater power to it than "civil union". I also don't see it as essentially a religious arrangement, but as essentially a social/cultural arrangement between consenting adults. Whatever the arrangement is called, it should be open to couples of all orientations, and legally recognized and supported by all the states' and the federal government.
less
I also believe that the benefits of marriage that people get, such as tax breaks, are unfair to everyone else. It is as if the government is trying to make people marry each other, and to what end? What possible advantage could it have? People are people, and whether or not a person has found someone to marry should not have an impact on any aspect of a person's life.
Quite obviously, people do not need to be married to have children, and I think that people are beginning to accept this more than they had previously. I don't see how being married would change things.
And on that note: As much as I try, I can not get my boyfriend to understand why I will not marry him. It's frustrating, as I've tried to explain my reasoning several times. (We have no children and have no plans to - ever, have been together for nearly 4 years, and are quite happy the way we are.)
04/09/2011
No matter what the Government says, it's not ever going to change the way I choose to live (by God) I don't honestly know how to answer the question in a way that would be understandable. I prefer to be married before my partner and I move in and start our home together. I've not made the best decisions and I've done things before marriage that I should try harder not to do, but I do my best with what I can. I can only hope others will be their best. I know many people who don't care either way about marriage laws. If you're happy with someone then do as you please. By all means. I think there are more dire needs to be met though. In my own activist causes, I find myself volunteering more towards the needs of those who are without. Those who lost loved ones and homes in natural disasters and such. I think our world is just desperate for help in so many other more important areas. I think all people should be equal no matter their sexual preference or religions (of course unless they're religion is downing others who choose to believe!) but God loves everyone the same NO MATTER WHAT. That is what I try to do. I will go by what God and His word tells me to do and not have to worry about the government's crap.
05/20/2011
Total posts: 6
Unique posters: 6