The US should just end the institution of Marriage

[OHCHUTE 0]

In all fairness...

Due to the fact that we have so many different types of people, who have different sexual persuasion and desires, the US might consider simply ending the contractual arrangement of marriage.

It could be replaced with: a simple contract between two humans and only two people, no animals, no minors. Beneficiary rights would remain as part of the contract. One party to the contract dies, the remaining contract holder gets the loot. If both die, a subsequent beneficary gets the loot. If no subsequent beneficary is listed the state gets the estate.

Offspring would be handled as it is now via marriage license for responsibility of minors etc.

IVF would become illegal-- don't have a egg, don't have a sperm then you'll have to deal with that just like the blind have to deal with being born blind. Adoption is permitted by contract holders.

This way we wouldn't have the argument about who can get married or not.

If the gay community wants unions, benefits, the only way to make it work in everyone's interest is to put eveyone on the same playing field. Married couples could just as easly enter into a contract, in lue of getting married. Those married now could just convert their contract over from marriage license to some type of personal union contract for no charge.

The lawyers would stay happy too as contract disputes are something they deal wtih all the time and that matter wouldn't change that much.

How does that sound? Any other suggetions?

No more demonstrations, logo's and illwill.

See I'm trying...

[kallend 2,150]

I don't think the state can "end the institution". I think the state could leave marriage to the churches and just recognize as legal whatever contractual partnership arrangement the two consenting adults agree to.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I don't think the state can "end the institution". I think the state could leave marriage to the churches and just recognize as legal whatever contractual partnership arrangement the two consenting adults agree to.

I was about to make the same comment.

Marriage as a relationship thing is private and anybody should be able to enter as consenting adults in any fashion. Nothing to do with government. Live any way you like.

Marriage as a government thing is just about benefits. Nothing to do with emotion or validation, or physicality, etc etc etc. Government can't legislate those things one way or the other, so those are odd arguments. It's just benefits and frankly government should stay out of the benefits parts because it preferences specific grouping combos over individuals. And there is already laws in place for enforcing private contracts.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

Shockingly, I agree with OHCHUTE, except for the IVF and adoption part. If a single person wants to have a baby through IVF, or adopt a baby, and they can support it, they should be allowed to.

- Dan G

[OHCHUTE 0]

The debate is about marriage and the benefits surrounding marriage. There is a marriage license and state laws surrounding that license. So then just eliminate the license and come with a specific name to a contract that relates to that contract?

[normiss 897]

Good for the lawyering business too!



I fully agree with you John, this is a personal matter the government really has no business in.
I don't need a church involvement personally, but I do understand that plenty do want that. I just see it as a legal agreement between two adults - as you said.
Simply specify what you want in the contract.
Done.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Shockingly, I agree with OHCHUTE, except for the IVF and adoption part. If a single person wants to have a baby through IVF, or adopt a baby, and they can support it, they should be allowed to.

Adoption is fine. But the idea to procreate via science/ technology would be barred.

Also, everyone gets the same tax treatment: contractee's and singles without contracts.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Good for the lawyering business too!



I fully agree with you John, this is a personal matter the government really has no business in.
I don't need a church involvement personally, but I do understand that plenty do want that. I just see it as a legal agreement between two adults - as you said.
Simply specify what you want in the contract.
Done.

Church is not included and only as requested. There is no preacher where contracts will be recorded and held until dissolution of the contract much like the way corporate charters are done. Of course there would be dissolution hearing to determine outcomes, money, child support etc.

[labrys 0]

Quote

Also, everyone gets the same tax treatment: contractee's and singles without contracts.

So... you'd eliminate Social Security survivor benefits?

Owned by Remi #?

[BigMikeH77 0]

Quote

I think the state could leave marriage to the churches and just recognize as legal whatever contractual partnership arrangement the two consenting adults agree to.

Unfortunately, marriage is closely intergrated into public policy. The state wants you to get married, buy a house, raise kids, and so on... So much so that tax incentives and special status is awarded to married couples.

Sure, churches say that their marriage is for one man and one woman - and to now, so does the state... But as same-gender couples/families become more socially accepted (notice I did NOT say "the norm"), recognition of a marriage/civil union between those couples by the state is a must.

On a semi-related note, I am of the firm belief that ALL marriage contracts should have expiration dates; Renew at three years, 8 years, and THEN indefinite. Think of how much the divorce rate would plummet, the money that would be saved in courts, and so on and so on. No need to divorce, simply just don't renew the contract.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

a simple contract between two humans and only two people,

Why do you hate trisexuals?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Unfortunately, marriage is closely intergrated into public policy. The state wants you to get married, buy a house, raise kids, and so on... So much so that tax incentives and special status is awarded to married couples.

and this is now antiquated - and showing favored benefits over other groups (including singles) should be deleted



Survivor SS bennies - that's the big one isn't it? I'd think that any two (or more consenting) people can enter into a contract. And that survivor benefits could be very specifically defined by the original intent: did the 'partner' stay at home for a minimum number of years to raise kids, care for the home, etc etc etc. You'd have to show a 'lifetime dependence' set of criteria on the other spouse to qualify. Else you are just like any other individual citizen.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

Also, everyone gets the same tax treatment: contractee's and singles without contracts.

So... you'd eliminate Social Security survivor benefits?

People are hanging on terms. Marriage. Just eliminate marriage from the conversation and replace that with something else unique to identifying it as a contract with special gov't treatment. Nothing really changes except for names of documents. Then apply the equality treatment to that contract that everyone is seeking regarding benefits and survivorship etc. There will be a space there were people could call their union anything they wanted: married, item, joined etc. But the contract would have unique identifier. Much like: Will, Deed etc.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

a simple contract between two humans and only two people,

Why do you hate trisexuals?

Edit: 2 humans only

[labrys 0]

Quote

Survivor SS bennies - that's the big one isn't it? I'd think that any two (or more consenting) people can enter into a contract. And that survivor benefits could be very specifically defined by the original intent: did the 'partner' stay at home for a minimum number of years to raise kids, care for the home, etc etc etc. You'd have to show a 'lifetime dependence' set of criteria on the other spouse to qualify. Else you are just like any other individual citizen.

I'm all for getting the government out of the retirement fund business, myself. Let me chose my own fund and what happens to my investments after I die.

Owned by Remi #?

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

Unfortunately, marriage is closely intergrated into public policy. The state wants you to get married, buy a house, raise kids, and so on... So much so that tax incentives and special status is awarded to married couples.

and this is now antiquated - and showing favored benefits over other groups (including singles) should be deleted



Survivor SS bennies - that's the big one isn't it? I'd think that any two (or more consenting) people can enter into a contract. And that survivor benefits could be very specifically defined by the original intent: did the 'partner' stay at home for a minimum number of years to raise kids, care for the home, etc etc etc. You'd have to show a 'lifetime dependence' set of criteria on the other spouse to qualify. Else you are just like any other individual citizen.

Much could be specificied much like performance is in commercial contracts. If no performance then there's a breech.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

Survivor SS bennies - that's the big one isn't it? I'd think that any two (or more consenting) people can enter into a contract. And that survivor benefits could be very specifically defined by the original intent: did the 'partner' stay at home for a minimum number of years to raise kids, care for the home, etc etc etc. You'd have to show a 'lifetime dependence' set of criteria on the other spouse to qualify. Else you are just like any other individual citizen.

I'm all for getting the government out of the retirement fund business, myself. Let me chose my own fund and what happens to my investments after I die.

That was wall streets doing: 401's, deferred taxes etc so they'd sell more stocks. Wall street owning the US gov't is another topic.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

a simple contract between two humans and only two people,

Why do you hate trisexuals?

Edit: 2 humans only

OK, being serious: Doesn't that reflect our modern Western cultural bias against polygamy? As you know, the practice of polygamy has a long history in humankind. So if you're proposing strictly contractual unions, why not contractual polygamy?

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Sure, churches say that their marriage is for one man and one woman

Not all churches.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Remster 30]

Quote

and this is now antiquated - and showing favored benefits over other groups (including singles) should be deleted

Some should be deleted. Some need to be adapted. And in all, it's an awful lot more work. A few orders of magnitude.

Remster

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Some should be deleted. Some need to be adapted. And in all, it's an awful lot more work. A few orders of magnitude.

Absolutely. Laziness by congress is no excuse. Review each benefit, one by one.

First rule - if the benefits can't be written such that every single citizen is included, then ditch it. that will thin the list out significantly.

What's left is likely all about kids. And that stuff can apply to *gasp* 'people with kids'. Much more direct that giving benefits to a social construct that is inferred to have the potential to have kids but may or may not. Just skip the middle man.

Even that can be deleted really - if you have kids, well it was your choice, take care of them and stop making those without kids supplement your choice.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[RMK 3]

Quote

***
That was wall streets doing: 401's, deferred taxes etc so they'd sell more stocks.

Where do you get your financial information? Finance and banking is a quite broad area. This sentence and your comments on other threads with mention of entities such as “stock companies” leaves me scratching my head; I can’t understand what you’re talking about. The concept of the US 401K plans does put individuals more in control – it would be a useful addition for other countries to incorporate.

You’re angry and wish America could go back to 1955; we get that. We just ask that your rants are phrased so as to be comprehensible.

"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

[Remster 30]

Quote

Quote

Some should be deleted. Some need to be adapted. And in all, it's an awful lot more work. A few orders of magnitude.

Absolutely. Laziness by congress is no excuse. Review each benefit, one by one.

First rule - if the benefits can't be written such that every single citizen is included, then ditch it. that will thin the list out significantly.

What's left is likely all about kids. And that stuff can apply to *gasp* 'people with kids'. Much more direct that giving benefits to a social construct that is inferred to have the potential to have kids but may or may not. Just skip the middle man.

Even that can be deleted really - if you have kids, well it was your choice, take care of them and stop making those without kids supplement your choice.

And then repeat 50 times for all states, and n times for all group employment policy, and ....

So, what are you doing in 2132?

Remster

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

And then repeat 50 times for all states, and n times for all group employment policy, and ....

So, what are you doing in 2132?

keep them busy cleaning up their messes and they don't have time to come up with neat and fanciful ways to spend

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Remster 30]

Quote

Quote

And then repeat 50 times for all states, and n times for all group employment policy, and ....

So, what are you doing in 2132?

keep them busy cleaning up their messes and they don't have time to come up with neat and fanciful ways to spend

I know we're both kinda 1/2 serious about it, but it would take a long long time in this reality. Maybe not in some other parallel universe, but for the time being we're stuck with this one.

What do we do about equal rights in the meantime?

Remster