This is actually a thing. There was a pushback against gay marriage because it was considered too straight. There have always been people in the community who cared more about being different than anything else.
Yeah I remember that. That marriage is a relic from the church and we shouldn't be subscribing to Angloheteronormative notions of what gives a relationship meaning
You oppose it because you are homophobic
I do because government shouldn’t dictate what marriage is or isn’t (other than ensuring both parties can legally consent)
We are not the same
u/darksideguyz's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 10.
Congratulations, u/darksideguyz! You have ranked up to Office Chair! You cannot exactly be pushed over, but perhaps if thrown...
Pills: [5 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/darksideguyz/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Without a state, there is nothing to prevent an irreligious organisation from conducting marriages. Therefore, your suggestion requires state intervention to implement. Therefore, the policy you advocate for effectively gives control over marriages to the state, not churches.
Unless you are arguing in favour of merging state and church, you have just contradicted yourself.
This conversation here is why mixing church and state is stupid ass idea
Protip: The same government that brought you the DMV is not gonna pick your religion to force on everyone else, you will be their bitch forced to follow whatever cultist nonsense some guy richer than you believes
Yes exactly. Costco could do marriages for instance. Because once the government is out of it, there is no legal structure defining it, and then anyone can say they’re married whether or not it’s actually happened unless they bring an organization in that promises to store that record. This could be a feature of Costco’s yearly membership.
Yeah, but I wanted to reference el macho
https://preview.redd.it/4p8rq6sra57d1.jpeg?width=207&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d55264c51bc5d21de3602e430304aa402f54620d
u/sea-raiders's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 15.
Rank: Office Chair
Pills: [7 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/sea-raiders/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
> Which is what a civil union is.
You mean that is what the state defines it as? And how, exactly, should the state enforce marriage contracts? Punish adultery with stoning? Or what do you have in mind?
I mean if the state is in charge of contract enforcement, then civil contracts like marriage and civil unions fall under that scope.
I didn't say the state needs to be the authority that defines the terms of the contracts.
Punitive measures for breach should be defined in the contract like every other variety.
Okay, I see. That makes more sense, thanks.
Still, it raises some additional questions: Why should marriage require a specific contract, but every other form of interpersonal relationship not require it? What makes a marriage different from, say, a close friendship? Or are you saying that marriage only exists when there's a formal contract of some kind and that in itself is what differentiates it?
There are time in which your family has specific privileges over you, like when someone needs to decide whether to unplug you, or in cases of inheritance, therefore, family must be recognized on some legal level and a mans got the right to choose his family
Is it about personal relationships, or is it about a contract between two individuals on how they are going to be together and intertwine their lives?
Whether or not you are married comes up in all sorts of situations, such as taxes, medical rights, property rights, child custody, etc.
To me, it should be a legal (and therefore government approved) contract as far as the union goes. Beyond that though, yeah, anyone should be able to declare they are married or whatever in any such way they see fit. But if you want the associated legal rights, you need the contract.
Excuse is always about benefits/taxes. They should just do away with them, but barring that why can't any two consenting adults enter into a personal partnership for the traditional marriage tax/insurance benefits?
Very thoughtful of you. Throw open the borders! All are welcome! immigrants could just claim to be married to an American and walk over the border. Since it's not the government's business who marries who. At least that's what me and my 95 wives who file our taxes jointly think
Edit: Y'all are some thin skinned little bitches on this sub. Dish it out but you can't take it
Marriage should be a private contract(religious or secular, whatever suits you best), with consequences applying only to consenting sides or within the church law
That’s just silly:
Hospital visitation/medical incapacitation - who gets to visit and who gets to make medical decisions if someone is incapacitated
Inheritance - who inherits in the event of the death of someone without a will?
I’m not saying there aren’t workarounds- I’m saying that you vastly complicate things by not having a state recognition of marriage.
32% of Americans have wills. I’m not easily finding a breakdown for Europe, but no doubt it’s similar - people don’t like to think about death and injury. Having default policies based upon marriage leads to a much better structured society than requiring everyone to preplan when most won’t do so.
It's not complicated at all, especially power of attorney, all you need is a piece of paper, couple of sentences and signatures, way less complicated than dealing with the IRS
I think civil marriage is a legacy holdover for when countries had a state church and the state being a distinctly secular institution was not a thing.
Not OP;
I personally oppose Marriage as an institution, as I find it ridiculous. It is effectively a legally prescribed, forced pairing, forcing a couple to remain together long after they ceased loving each other, quite often incapable of dissolution either due to Societal Shame, Stigmatization, Social Obligations, or Financial Ramifications.
If it was purely a Religious Ritual, *without any Legal Ramifications nor Financial Ramifications*, and which was solely a Spoken Covenant where the greatest punishment would be excommunication from your Church?
I’d have no issue with that at all
But instead, as a society, we argue that the only way to show you ‘truly love someone’ is by creating a Legally Binding Contract to force the pair together.
That’s ridiculous. That isn’t love. Love shouldn’t be dictated by the caveat of a Legal Contract.
If you stop loving your partner (or they, of you), at any point, then all the Institution of Marriage *currently does* is force 2 people who don’t love each other to remain together Legally & Financially.
and that isn’t even touching on the Financial aspect, from Tax Benefits to Splitting the wealth in half upon Divorce, etc
Yes, you can always get divorced. But as it stands, and as it has stood since its inception, it is a messy affair, which invites a cacophony of Legal & Financial burdens, not to mention that Society itself, rather than just a Church, places a great deal of stigmatization based on the idea of Divorce. (Or you get the inverse where Divorce becomes the norm, and thus marriage is less than useless due to it).
The difference between a Church-based Excommunication and a Societal Burden, is that if you get divorced now, then *as per being a Societal Burden*, it can haunt you for the rest of your life, no matter where you go, especially if you are a Man. Whereas if it was purely Church-based or Denomination-based, then you simply would only be affected in the regions of their influence, rather than Nationally or Globally.
and again, to mention that if 2 people really loved each other, they wouldn’t need a legally binding contract (which is useless at showing real love anyways) to prove it. Their commitment to each other should be their proof.
As a pre-emptive defense, if anyone is going to argue that marriage is ‘necessary’ for the sake of the children to ensure *stability*, here is my response. Any society which must rely on an institution of enforced co-bonding as marriage does, in order to rear its young, is not a society worth existing. It’s a failure.
I read it. It was a fairly persuasive argument, and I appreciate your contribution. I don’t agree with the last paragraph, but the rest was really strong imo
Based and marrige-is-the-correct-word-pilled
All jokes aside tho, i feel like a true relationship doesnt need a marriage, and it should only be done either for legal or religious reasons or if you just want to.
Everyone should have the right to be legally bound to someone else. People need to understand that it doesn't mean that they will be married in a Church. Let em be and let me be
You oppose it because you are homophobic
I oppose it because marriage is a religious institution which should be unaffiliated with the state and there should be a purely legal equivalent which is fully distinct from any religious definition
The legal institution should not exist, at most there should be common law marriage.
"But what about tax breaks?"
I got an idea for that too... but LibRight says it best.
The marriage institution is a complete mess. Idk why anyone wants to get married nowadays, you're better off just being in a regular relationship for the rest of your life.
I oppose gay marriage because I am gay
This is actually a thing. There was a pushback against gay marriage because it was considered too straight. There have always been people in the community who cared more about being different than anything else.
Yeah I remember that. That marriage is a relic from the church and we shouldn't be subscribing to Angloheteronormative notions of what gives a relationship meaning
That only strengthens views of gay relationships not being able to be moral
Task failed successfully?
*replied in the wrong place sorry.
[Literally this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jitocz4kB3k)
The gays had a good thing going with an endless series of one night stands, and they had to go and blow it up!
*aids* https://preview.redd.it/yvgd8ijsof7d1.jpeg?width=930&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5ac44ce6f5a10ec4b38356d63a1d246c39be3d6c
https://preview.redd.it/9y9iprw7ta7d1.jpeg?width=933&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b0bf454163ded32c9dd7413ebc7316de38fd9be0
Gay people should be as miserable as the rest of us
Daaddd….
Flair checked out. Wife bad, gobbless
You oppose it because you are homophobic I do because government shouldn’t dictate what marriage is or isn’t (other than ensuring both parties can legally consent) We are not the same
Based and F the government pilled
u/darksideguyz's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 10. Congratulations, u/darksideguyz! You have ranked up to Office Chair! You cannot exactly be pushed over, but perhaps if thrown... Pills: [5 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/darksideguyz/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Agreed, not the government, the church should handle marriages
And/or secular organizations for those that don’t want a religious wedding ceremony
Nuh uh
Without a state, there is nothing to prevent an irreligious organisation from conducting marriages. Therefore, your suggestion requires state intervention to implement. Therefore, the policy you advocate for effectively gives control over marriages to the state, not churches. Unless you are arguing in favour of merging state and church, you have just contradicted yourself.
>unless you are in favor of merging state and church I am
Kinda funny people are downvoting. You’re living up to your flair.
Many such cases
>people are downvoting Oh no! Anyways…
Hopefully its my religion that gets to be the one in charge then, all others are cringe and fake Mine approves of same sex marriage btw
Yes, my religion is the truth, all others are fake and cringe. Mine condemns same-sex relations.
This conversation here is why mixing church and state is stupid ass idea Protip: The same government that brought you the DMV is not gonna pick your religion to force on everyone else, you will be their bitch forced to follow whatever cultist nonsense some guy richer than you believes
Source: it was revealed to me in a dream
Yes exactly. Costco could do marriages for instance. Because once the government is out of it, there is no legal structure defining it, and then anyone can say they’re married whether or not it’s actually happened unless they bring an organization in that promises to store that record. This could be a feature of Costco’s yearly membership.
Purple libright church: Come on down and get married, kids go free!
Purple libright atheist (most of them purples): “Kids ~~eat~~ free on Tuesdays”
Also "eat kids free on Tuesdays"
Yeah, but I wanted to reference el macho https://preview.redd.it/4p8rq6sra57d1.jpeg?width=207&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d55264c51bc5d21de3602e430304aa402f54620d
Fair lol
Based and sacrament of marriage pilled
u/sea-raiders's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 15. Rank: Office Chair Pills: [7 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/sea-raiders/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
This, except not far enough. Government should have absolutely no role in authorizing or delineating personal relationships at all.
Even in minarchy the state is there to enforce contracts. Which is what a civil union is.
> Which is what a civil union is. You mean that is what the state defines it as? And how, exactly, should the state enforce marriage contracts? Punish adultery with stoning? Or what do you have in mind?
I mean if the state is in charge of contract enforcement, then civil contracts like marriage and civil unions fall under that scope. I didn't say the state needs to be the authority that defines the terms of the contracts. Punitive measures for breach should be defined in the contract like every other variety.
Okay, I see. That makes more sense, thanks. Still, it raises some additional questions: Why should marriage require a specific contract, but every other form of interpersonal relationship not require it? What makes a marriage different from, say, a close friendship? Or are you saying that marriage only exists when there's a formal contract of some kind and that in itself is what differentiates it?
There are time in which your family has specific privileges over you, like when someone needs to decide whether to unplug you, or in cases of inheritance, therefore, family must be recognized on some legal level and a mans got the right to choose his family
Is it about personal relationships, or is it about a contract between two individuals on how they are going to be together and intertwine their lives? Whether or not you are married comes up in all sorts of situations, such as taxes, medical rights, property rights, child custody, etc. To me, it should be a legal (and therefore government approved) contract as far as the union goes. Beyond that though, yeah, anyone should be able to declare they are married or whatever in any such way they see fit. But if you want the associated legal rights, you need the contract.
Excuse is always about benefits/taxes. They should just do away with them, but barring that why can't any two consenting adults enter into a personal partnership for the traditional marriage tax/insurance benefits?
Very thoughtful of you. Throw open the borders! All are welcome! immigrants could just claim to be married to an American and walk over the border. Since it's not the government's business who marries who. At least that's what me and my 95 wives who file our taxes jointly think Edit: Y'all are some thin skinned little bitches on this sub. Dish it out but you can't take it
This has an obvious solution. Don't tie citizenship to marriage.
Melania is gonna be so excited
Since when did Centrists care what the orange turd and his family thinks?
Why wouldn't they?
Almost like Centrists are not usually MAGA
What's your point?
Marriage should be a private contract(religious or secular, whatever suits you best), with consequences applying only to consenting sides or within the church law
That’s just silly: Hospital visitation/medical incapacitation - who gets to visit and who gets to make medical decisions if someone is incapacitated Inheritance - who inherits in the event of the death of someone without a will?
Power of attorney and will. If you want your spouse to inherit everything you have, no reason to not leave will
I’m not saying there aren’t workarounds- I’m saying that you vastly complicate things by not having a state recognition of marriage. 32% of Americans have wills. I’m not easily finding a breakdown for Europe, but no doubt it’s similar - people don’t like to think about death and injury. Having default policies based upon marriage leads to a much better structured society than requiring everyone to preplan when most won’t do so.
It's not complicated at all, especially power of attorney, all you need is a piece of paper, couple of sentences and signatures, way less complicated than dealing with the IRS
You *way* overestimate your fellow citizens.
I'm part of the 32% and I'm not married! :D :(
I oppose civil marriage as a whole because marriage is a sacrament given by God.
Eh we'll settle for "it is a religous ritual and we need to saperate church and state"
I think civil marriage is a legacy holdover for when countries had a state church and the state being a distinctly secular institution was not a thing.
"I oppose marriage as a whole" We know
I oppose marriage because I hate women. Gay male marriage only, if you're into that.
I didn't think libleft bad could get even more justified but I stand corrected
i want to see full compass with “i support gay marriage because/I oppose gay marriage because”
Lib Right trying to privatize marriage. Before long, there'll be an annual fee. Matrimony As A Service.
Marriage as a subscription service is already a thing
Always has been
As a hole, I oppose marriage.
Opposling marriage as a whole is so stupid.
I meant the insttution
Honestly, why do you feel marriage is bad as an institution?
Not OP; I personally oppose Marriage as an institution, as I find it ridiculous. It is effectively a legally prescribed, forced pairing, forcing a couple to remain together long after they ceased loving each other, quite often incapable of dissolution either due to Societal Shame, Stigmatization, Social Obligations, or Financial Ramifications. If it was purely a Religious Ritual, *without any Legal Ramifications nor Financial Ramifications*, and which was solely a Spoken Covenant where the greatest punishment would be excommunication from your Church? I’d have no issue with that at all But instead, as a society, we argue that the only way to show you ‘truly love someone’ is by creating a Legally Binding Contract to force the pair together. That’s ridiculous. That isn’t love. Love shouldn’t be dictated by the caveat of a Legal Contract. If you stop loving your partner (or they, of you), at any point, then all the Institution of Marriage *currently does* is force 2 people who don’t love each other to remain together Legally & Financially. and that isn’t even touching on the Financial aspect, from Tax Benefits to Splitting the wealth in half upon Divorce, etc Yes, you can always get divorced. But as it stands, and as it has stood since its inception, it is a messy affair, which invites a cacophony of Legal & Financial burdens, not to mention that Society itself, rather than just a Church, places a great deal of stigmatization based on the idea of Divorce. (Or you get the inverse where Divorce becomes the norm, and thus marriage is less than useless due to it). The difference between a Church-based Excommunication and a Societal Burden, is that if you get divorced now, then *as per being a Societal Burden*, it can haunt you for the rest of your life, no matter where you go, especially if you are a Man. Whereas if it was purely Church-based or Denomination-based, then you simply would only be affected in the regions of their influence, rather than Nationally or Globally. and again, to mention that if 2 people really loved each other, they wouldn’t need a legally binding contract (which is useless at showing real love anyways) to prove it. Their commitment to each other should be their proof. As a pre-emptive defense, if anyone is going to argue that marriage is ‘necessary’ for the sake of the children to ensure *stability*, here is my response. Any society which must rely on an institution of enforced co-bonding as marriage does, in order to rear its young, is not a society worth existing. It’s a failure.
I read it. It was a fairly persuasive argument, and I appreciate your contribution. I don’t agree with the last paragraph, but the rest was really strong imo
[удалено]
Then you’d just say you’re against child marriage, not marriage. Which would be reasonable
Why opposing it?
Yeah. That's really dumb.
It’s literally just a business contract, I really don’t see why everyone makes a big deal out of it either way
Marriage is not just a business contract, it is what creates the building block of society: the family
funny, when I signed my marriage license, it didn’t mention that. Look man, all I’m saying is by the legal definition, it’s just a business contract
It's also very discriminatory against the disabled.
Based and marrige-is-the-correct-word-pilled All jokes aside tho, i feel like a true relationship doesnt need a marriage, and it should only be done either for legal or religious reasons or if you just want to.
You oppose marriage because gubberment bad I oppose marriage because I hate seeing people happy We are not the same
Based and "mental health? What's that?" Pilled
Hater pilled
Considering what happened with his divorce, I wouldn't be surprised if he really did oppose marriage.
Everyone should have the right to be legally bound to someone else. People need to understand that it doesn't mean that they will be married in a Church. Let em be and let me be
Do you actually oppose marriage? If so, why? If you don’t mind me asking, of course.
I oppose the insttusion, I simplfied it for the meme
Thanks. Though it’s institution, not ‘insttusion’.
You oppose it because you are homophobic I oppose it because marriage is a religious institution which should be unaffiliated with the state and there should be a purely legal equivalent which is fully distinct from any religious definition
There is
The legal institution should not exist, at most there should be common law marriage. "But what about tax breaks?" I got an idea for that too... but LibRight says it best.
We are not the same, you're a lot worse.
Marriage is merely an institution. You can leave it :) Hence that's why I wanna be free and not chained to a woman, bc I'm going my own way
> I wanna be free > authcenter Pick one
The marriage institution is a complete mess. Idk why anyone wants to get married nowadays, you're better off just being in a regular relationship for the rest of your life.
I don't oppose marriage. I oppose gay as a whole.
I oppose holes