I actually mean that the negative consequences built into the contract. If someone creates a contract that says "we're married" and that's it, you don't even need a contract. If it says "then we split assets 50/50 if broken", then you have negative consequences of breaking it, and if you don't want to honor the agreement, then the State can help enforce it.
Listen, I agree with your assessment of how it should be, but the fact of the matter is the discussion of marriage within the State. If we removed marriage as a facet of the State, we're on the same page. But while there exists laws of the State based on marriage, my view is that recognition of same-sex marriage grants me (and my husband) all of these rights that I wouldn't otherwise have.
Should it not be a government or religious definition? Yes. We agree. But I sure as fuck don't want some dipshit in the hospital denying me the ability to visit my husband, and recognition of same-sex marriage is an achievement for me to deal with the fucking laws that exist. I'll take recognition of same-sex marriage by the State as a temporary path to fixing the fucked up shit that exists about marriage and the State and the Church.
In any case, I want what you want as well.
Why? Evidence? Love marriages are considered a modern Western invention.
For your scenario to work, the State would have to be involved in every contract, and punishing people that enter/break lightly.
Although the State doesn't necessarily have to get into every contract, as I consider a contract, it's an agreement that the State will help enforce and it WILL get into every contract that is contested. Otherwise, it's just people talking. When we talk about contracts in this conversation as it pertains to marriage (and many other things), we're not talking about two kids making an agreement to give the other kid five dollars if he kisses this girl on the playground, we're talking about a contract that is recognized by the State that will help you enforce ramifications of breaking contracts.
Anyways, I understand the idea no negative consequences to breaking a contract, outside the contract, what I'm saying is that I believe that marriage contracts would (given enough time) become fair via consequences of breaking them, if their consequences are enforceable. Say, marriage contracts become a commodity for $10 from 1-800-lawyers.com.
No it's not. The "world" didn't like interracial marriage for a real long time (even beyond the U.S.). Just because it recently became acceptable doesn't mean the point isn't valid. And yes, marriages without "love" have been very common and completely valid throughout history.
Marriage has nothing to do with a man and woman, it has to do with two people in love, that's it.
Not true. I'm a gay man married to another man, so I'm totally on your side. However, I can safely say that marriage being a thing about two people in love is a pretty naive point of view, both in the historical, intellectual, and practical view of marriage.
Because if you let them set the rules, they could fuck you over. For example, they could let straight people in but not gay people.
Not really a valid argument; if you have 50 siblings, they all can't enter the ICU at once. Not really a "right" that's more of a logistic issue that the hospital says only X amount of people in here at a time.
Agreed! A contract should be a contract divided evenly among the participants.
Yes, you could and should be able to. However, with a contract, I would expect there to be negative consequences to divorce/breaking the contract, as there is now. If there are lots of benefits but no consequences to breaking the contract, then it's a pretty uneven contract. Imagine the free market: the benefits and consequences of enabling and breaking the contract would naturally come to an equilibrium that works well, preventing such abuses.
Why should 2 people get tax incentives simple because of "love"? How about we take the government out of all marriages as far as tax and property reasons are concerned so that single people have the same rights as those lucky enough to find love
As a gay married man, who has libertarian leanings, let me enumerate a few answers your question.
1. Property: Medical visitation rights, medical decision making
2. Tax, property: On death, inheritance rights
3. Tax: Dependents. Raising children who don't provide income or taxes.
I'm sure I could think of more. There are a whole lot of shitty laws out there and I'm not defending them all. I also think of marriage as a contract. But familial dependencies do require more out of tax and property laws/rights than singles do, and I don't think there is a significant problem with having them, as long as they are equally open to everyone without discrimination.
Being against so-called "spousal rape" was but one in a long line of attacks on Christian marriage (being that consent is given once and forever), and therefore, Western Civilization as a whole.
Very bad logic there bud. Being against Christian marriage is not being against Western Civilization as a whole.
Gay parents pushing their social agendas onto their (likely) straight adopted children are more likely to cause self esteem and relationship issues.
Straight parents also push their social agendas onto their (likely) straight children. The Duggar family comes to mind. Poor kids are so sexually and intellectually repressed.
"Family" law assumes and is built around government-approved marriages. To change marriage would change thousands of laws, with unknown and untested consequences.
Can you give an example of a negative outcome? There has already been many changes to marriage in recent history, such as the affirmation of women's rights, the ease of divorce, legalization of same-sex marriages, etc. I don't see any negative outcomes via "family" law; for example, the protection of children. (Note that I'm not saying there are not unintended consequences of such changes; I am speculating that you think there are negative consequences to laws such as family law due to same-sex marriage)
This is where the "if anyone knows of a reason they shouldn't be married line came from", if either spouse was in violation of church laws or the laws of the kingdom, the church wouldn't allow the marriage and the kingdom would sometimes allow or disallow it (but you needed to get special permission)
Eh, no. Well you're a little correct, because sometimes there could be cases such as not getting married during lent... but think about what you're saying. The priest marrying them would already know if they were violating church laws.
The main reason they were asking was if they were related and didn't know it. People used to live in small villages and they didn't have email. They also married young and didn't have a long courtship; young people would typically be chosen to marry by their families. Weddings were the rare instances of people leaving their ~5-mile radius where they lived. So the line "if anyone knows of a reason they shouldn't be married" was not "does anyone here have beef with these people and want to make a politically motivated attack against one of these people", it was an authentic question of "do these people who don't know each other have a reason not to get married such as they are too closely related, or this guy who nobody on the girl's side of the family was a murderer in another village and the bride's family from this village doesn't know?"
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn
