Agnostic.com

18 3

Is marriage for all a good idea?

Recently the Australian asshole government carried out an expensive survey, they didn't even have the guts to hold a referendum, on the question of "gay" marriage.

I must admit I am against marriage because it is a monopoly held by states and religious authorities. This was not always the case. We should claim our most fundamental rights back. The religious suckers were the first to strip us ... of the right to live with anyone of our liking.

View Results
PontifexMarximus 8 May 6

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

18 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

This headline Has to say, "Is marriage for ANYONE a good idea", right?

Perhaps even just "is marriage a good idea?"

3

Marriage should be a private contract between as many people of whatever genders want to commit to each other, period. The government shouldn't be involved.

3

The joke aside ("massage for all" option in the poll) this issue is one we should all be behind. I know, I said we should be behind the ISSUE, and not behind a policy position. Seriously though, the only reason to be against two people in love having the freedom to choose each other and to marry is for religious objections. Or some personal hang up, like homophobia. Our "group" should not hold an objection to anyone else's love. We are not compelled by religion to hate anyone, and if we are opposed to love for all anyway (without a religious objection), perhaps we need to re-examine ourselves. IJS
One more teeny tiny thing. An issue with this website: I hit the like button by mistake, and there seems to be no way to take it back. I don't want to seem to be agreeing with the "shit stirring" described in the original post that began this conversation. That is all.

JPM7 Level 3 May 6, 2018
4

I clicked yes to massage for all. I need a good massage. As for marriage it is a personal thing. It has no need really except that governments today allow it as a religious right and only in this respect does it have financial benefits. The church had no rites of marriage until the 1500's. People used to have a celebration in which they announce who is marrying so the community knew which couples were pairing up. Mostly they were male and female, but there were gay couples even back in Roman times.
If you like somebody and want to live with them that is your business.

I couldn't agree more.

5

Gays have a right to be unhappily married just like everyone else

1

Marriage should be optional, period. Responsibilty for what may happen as a result of, or during a marriage, e.g., having children, must be consistent with the responsibility assigned to the non-married. And in neither instance should there be any legal or codified advantages of one arrangement over the other. As for the specific question of gay marriage, why should they not have the opportunity to be in happily wedded bliss, or wedded misery same as hetero couples?

2

I hit the yes massage for all, as everyone deserves a nice relaxing massage to calm the body. There's nothing much nicer than soft music and human touch 🙂

Most people don't seem to read the options.

4

WiFi is an absolute requirement for any society to be able to call itself civil! I mean, come on!!

But as for marriage, I am gay and (finally) proud to say so--It only took decades of personal shame. So you can imagine my opinion, that the RIGHT to marry should extend to any human adults capable of making an informed consent, so long as people are protected from coersion (not always the case, unfortunately). That is utterly different from saying ALL should marry. Marriage is a compromise. It confers certain legal protections but also some loss of autonomy in all manner of lifestyle decisions, from where to live, to type of job one even considers, to even how to decorate one's own living space, whether to eat in bed or in front of the tv, or both. Marriage is WORK. I say that as a happily divorced man. ?

Thank you for your comment. Actually I am not against people making arrangements to live together as couples or . Marriage, not so long ago, was a private arrangement for most people. I am just opposed to the idea that I have to get the consent of a state or religious authority to enter a sort of privileged union with another person or several other people.
You should be free to make such an arrangement with needing the permission from an entity that doesn't even know you.

You are so right on marriage being work. My ex called me yesterday wanting me to be the legal beagle for her GF in Texas who wants a divorce. In many ways I loved my ex dearly and still think of her often. Her phoning me made me aware that only NOW do I really have peace of mind.

@PontifexMarximus I agree completely. My comment was in part a silly observation that the post's phrasing.. "marriage for all" made it sound as if marriage should be compulsory, which is obviously not the intent. ...just looks humorous.

It is vexing that the government incentivizes Marriage with tax breaks that mean single people pay more. The rights I am concerned about that gay people need when their families of origin Don't respect them are legal next of kin protections for the significant other, and inheritance rights protection. If two people are living together unmarried and one dies, there are sometimes problems with the surviving partner losing his or her home for lack of a legally recognized domestic status.

@MikeInBatonRouge This very thing happened to an acquaintance of mine. She had lived with a man for decades, he told her the house would be hers should anything happen to him, and when he died suddenly, it turned out that he'd made no such arrangements. His kids (from a previous relationship) tossed her out and gave her very little time to decide what to do or where to go. She has serious health problems on top of all this and is unable to work. So she has to give up her autonomy and go to live with a sibling. It's a very unfair outcome.

0

ROFLMAO!

1

Since there is no middle ground choice of marriage for some not for all, I did not vote.

I have been having this conversation with my daughter recently. Marriage is a legal contract which grants married persons additional right that non-married do not have. Get married if you need one of those rights. Taxes, Property, Health Care, Children.

So she has broken marriage into two parts. Officially, married by the justice of the peace and later will have the public ceremony and celebration.

1

I like that first option for "massages for all" as being the most welcome and useful for all mankind, which includes womankind. Very relaxing! And I really enjoy giving sensual warm oil massages myself. And getting them. As for marriage that is an unnecessary artificial social construct and if some people feel like doing then that is their choice. Hearts fall in love and that can be mutually satisfying, and it may change over time. A solemn commitment, and a piece of paper will make no difference at all if the hearts feel like they no longer want to be together.

When love dies papers can't fix it.

5

I voted for "free wifi". But let me state for the record that I believe STRONGLY that anyone who wishes to marry SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MARRY, regardless of gender or sexual orientation or religion or whatev. I don't think, even, that marriage should be restricted to the traditional two-person category and should be opened up to allow polygamists to participate. (Whether or not these unions are inherently stable is a conversation for a different post.)

The only issue that arises with poly relationships is (at least in the US) tax advantages. The tax code should have to be rewritten to account for multiple partners.

Exactly my point. The state should stay out of it. People should be free to form unions with anyone consenting.

I won't get started on our tax code. I don't feel like ranting today. 😉

4

I can't remember who said it but they defined marriage as two people so much in love that they decide it's time to get the state involved - made me smile

2

Cool to get some comments. Thank you. I remember when I go married the first time I needed a health certificate and some other stupid paper stating that I was capable of marriage. Even after tw marriages I still feel incapable, but the certificates state otherwise.

3

Marriage is a legal contract, why should it matter who the parties to the contract are? It doesn't.

How is marriage a monopoly?

Marriage is only valid if certified by a legal body that has the power. I many countries the state has the monopoly in other jurisdictions it is held by religious authorities.

I agree, its a binding legal contract... and it shouldn't be a monopoly. If two consenting adult people wish to join lives then let them.

@PontifexMarximus Fair enough. Although if there weren't a monopoly, anyone could create a marriage business. If McDonalds did, then they could do drive through weddings. If you want to get a divorce, you have to clean out the grease traps... How would they distribute shared property and determine child custody? I could get crazy really fast.

5

It boils down to who is affected by it... If what someone does doesn't affect others negatively then we shouldn't give a shit what they do. I'll never understand why this is such a huge topic for entire countries. If it doesn't hurt anyone then we shouldn't care and if you do care because it makes you feel uncomfortable then it's you who needs to change not the couple who are getting married. It's amazing how so many people think love can only exist between a Weiner and a hoo-ha... Pretty strange to me.

Edit: this is not directed at anyone and sorry I get a bit preachy.

But I agree completely! If it is not going to personally effect you, it is none of your damn business. Period!

Now whether people have healthcare/insurance affects me because they end up in the ER, can't pay, cost pass on to others, thus it affects me! Guns! That affects me. I KNOW people who have no business owning guns but they do. One of those nuts may snap and shoot up the store/library/senior center or other place I am some day, so that affects ME!

Abortion? In a way it may affect me. If you are prevented from making your own choice about this, you may have a child you do not want. That is fine if you give it up for adoption but if not, you may abuse or neglect that child who may then become a twisted adult who will snap and shoot up someplace where I am, that affects me.

Or, if that child is catastrophically disabled but does not die immediately it is likely to become a taxpayer burden to care for over the years because you were denied the abortion you sought when you found out what your baby's future would be. That affects me. On the other hand, whether or not you CHOOSE to have an abortion does NOT affect me so, NOT MY BUSINESS!

Who you love, who you live with, who you sleep with, who you marry, does NOT affect me. If laws dictate who we can love, who we can live with, sleep with or enter into marriage with, what will stop them from some day dictating who I can love, live with, sleep with, marry? Then it will affect me, which is why I oppose laws of this nature.

And you thought you got preachy sometimes. Was going to stop after the first sentence but couldn't stop myself.
And, for those who think this sounded quite cold at times, you should know I am a firm believer in the heavy use of sarcasm/satire whenever possible.

@DotLewis you might be missing my point... Abortion doesn't affect me so she can do it. To use guns effectively you need training or you are a danger to others, to use guns effectively in a fire fight you need to train every day for a lifetime or you are more dangerous than a random shooter.. those have a high risk of harming others which affects us. Health insurance affects us so everyone should have it and not be financially raped for medicine needed to survive or to live a semi normal life.

@DotLewis last thing... Your argument for tax payer burden is wrong. It's not that much... Our burden is from insane military spending and quite honestly, our taxes aren't that high while our wages are cripplingly low. My best example is good old Walmart, Walmart had 482 BILLION in revenue globally in 2016 making it the highest earning company on the planet and it pays one of the lowest wages in the world... We are burdened by Walmart employees needing financial aid due to shit wages. All this while Walmart gets more and more tax cuts and refuse to offer health insurance to their employees at a reasonable cost or at all. There are reasons why people don't have insurance and it's probably not their fault that their employer doesn't provide it.

@Joenobody when’s company doesn’t pay it workers enough to live and the workers wind up on food stamps, it corporate welfare. The US is rampant with it, but hear almost no one say anything.

@Joenobody Actually, I think we have the same point. Keep in mind, as I stated, I am and avid user of sarcasm and satire.
The whole rant was to support my opening thesis, that if it doesn't directly affect me, it is not my business. Abortion? Damned right it is no one's business but the woman and her doctor. The statements about it were "tongue in cheek", yet clear arguments for women being the one to make these decisions.

Could the scenarios I presented be issues? Yes, there are people who may be forced to have children they don't want and will not care for properly if abortion is banned. This DOES concern me. I spent 29 years working with those kind of children. And women having abortion because of a devastating problem with their baby, yes those might cost taxpayers a few cents but the much bigger issue is THOSE women very likely do NOT want an abortion but are forced by circumstances to decide between that or possibly watching their baby die a slow, painful death or live a miserable and painful life or having an abortion. Those are not decisions that anyone should be making for that woman!

People SHOULD have healthcare! EVERY person should have either affordable access to insurance or better yet, Medicare for ALL! Does the their lack of REALLY affect me financially? Not so as I would notice. Pharma and insurance greed is what makes my (and everyone's) health care significantly more expensive.

Guns? We NEED reasonable regulations on these, the rest being true, I DO know people with guns who should not have them. I fully back more regulation than I expect to ever pass but hope that some, like universal background checks and closing show loopholes will get passed in time.

I'm well aware of the tax issues you cite, I know that only about 10% of each of my tax dollars goes to "welfare" programs (non-medical) and I'm aware that of the total federal revenue, nearly 50% comes from individual taxpayers while less than 10% come from corporations which is vastly unjust. I'm aware that last year 82% of the wealth generated globally went to the richest 1% and half the world's population had no increase or even decreases in their income. Also insanely unfair.

What can I do? I have not completely boycotted Walmart but I have cut my spending there by probably 90% since their practices became widely known. I still by a couple items there that are not available elsewhere, like sacks of birdseed. When I shop, I check labels, I don’t buy Brawny paper towels or Northern toilet paper or anything from Georgia Pacific, all products that enrich the Koch brothers who are probably no more greedy than the Walton royalty but more evil by several degrees. I vote! EVERY ELECTION!

So, when it comes down to it, I don’t think there is a lot of difference between what I advocate for and what you may believe in. Perhaps I will be more snarky than you in explaining my beliefs but that does not make them contradictory to yours.

@DotLewis sorry I have a hard time spotting nuances... I honestly don't know how. This is why I'm direct. I can barely spot a joke in face to face communication if it doesn't follow with laughter. To put it simply, I have no chill. We seem to agree. Lets leave it there. Sorry.

5

Massage for all! lol

smox Level 4 May 6, 2018

I also want massage for all!

@shockwaverider Finally, something everyone can agree on!

2

if People want to get married let them. If they prefer a commitment ceremony let them. To me marriage is a religious construct. I’d much prefer to find a way to separate church and state.

CS60 Level 7 May 6, 2018

I understand that and would endorse it if people couple marry whom ever they fancied. I wouldn't even limit the number. But I am against the fact that some authority takes the right from me.
It should be enough if you go to a mate and take her/him as a witness without any state or, as it is still the case in many jurisdictions, a religious authority interferes.
To this day the Philippines do not have a simple divorce procedure in place.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:74680
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.