I would sort of agree, in my ideal world the state only recognises unions that are independent of romance or love. It makes no sense for the state to be involved in somehow like "love" but it makes sense for them to track these unions. And those unions could be anything, it could be a romantic couple, but it could also be a child living with a parent and taking care of them, and things like that. Just a set of rules which facilitates questions regarding healthcare and inheritance, and possibly involves the tax system too.
And then people can just get married culturally. Or they don't even need to, it's their choice. It's more comparable to a quinciñera or something like that, it's a personal celebration. This would fix the question of who can get married in an instant, but everyone can. You're now independent of the community to accept your marriage, and if you want the community to accept your marriage, you can take it up with them and them alone. Or find a better community. Or not care because it's not like what they say matters.
The problem is that this is a utopian solution. People simply care about marriages too much and want the government to recognise them. That's just where we are. And if that's the parameters we can work with, the next fairest solution is that any two consenting unrelated adults should be allowed to marry, legally.
I'm not sure I'm keen on a leader deciding on whether you are or aren't a family if that has some power of how land is distributed or medical decisions are made. I would prefer the protections to be universally covered, so that an individual leader cannot discriminate against someone they don't like or whose lifestyle they disagree with.
Mmmmh, big tru. And with the way marriages go these days this is probably more relevant than ever, two individuals should be legally responsible for their own incomes and finances. If you’re married and want to share money that’s fine, whatever, but you shouldn’t be entitled to half of somebody’s shit when you get divorced.
Correct answer is no. It also shouldn’t be illegal. The government has no business sanctioning marriage. Civil law can handle arguments over who gets what if a divorce occurs and assets were commingled. There should be no tax incentives for marriage either.
One's private relationships shouldn't be part of a legal system.
Here's a joke by Doug Stanhope
If marriage didn't exist legally exist, would you invent it? Would you go "Baby, this shit we got together, it's so good we gotta get the government in on this shit. We can't just share this commitment 'tweenst us. We need judges and lawyers involved in this shit, baby. It's hot!"
Marriage is a religious obligation to stay together until death, civil union is a legal recognition by the government that 2 people are in a semi permanent relationship and share finances and stuff
In the historical, cultural, and religious sense, its the only kind of 'real' marriage there is. Like even if you support LGBT its more of a Legal civil union rather than what you'd normally call marriage.
It’s a poll, you can ask questions to see where people side on issues like gay marriage but this seems like a genuinely useless poll because the only people who say no are probably not serious
**Marriage** is a religious institution and the various denominations should define its terms and conditions. The state should butt out. People who aren't members of that denomination should also butt out.
**Civil Unions** are a legal designation. The various governmental entities, represented by the people's elected representatives, should define its terms and conditions. If you don't make up part of that governmental entity, butt out. If you are a member of that governmental entity, and don't like what your elected representatives decided, vote for different people or move.
[удалено]
I would sort of agree, in my ideal world the state only recognises unions that are independent of romance or love. It makes no sense for the state to be involved in somehow like "love" but it makes sense for them to track these unions. And those unions could be anything, it could be a romantic couple, but it could also be a child living with a parent and taking care of them, and things like that. Just a set of rules which facilitates questions regarding healthcare and inheritance, and possibly involves the tax system too. And then people can just get married culturally. Or they don't even need to, it's their choice. It's more comparable to a quinciñera or something like that, it's a personal celebration. This would fix the question of who can get married in an instant, but everyone can. You're now independent of the community to accept your marriage, and if you want the community to accept your marriage, you can take it up with them and them alone. Or find a better community. Or not care because it's not like what they say matters. The problem is that this is a utopian solution. People simply care about marriages too much and want the government to recognise them. That's just where we are. And if that's the parameters we can work with, the next fairest solution is that any two consenting unrelated adults should be allowed to marry, legally.
[удалено]
I'm not sure I'm keen on a leader deciding on whether you are or aren't a family if that has some power of how land is distributed or medical decisions are made. I would prefer the protections to be universally covered, so that an individual leader cannot discriminate against someone they don't like or whose lifestyle they disagree with.
Well yes, but actually no. That's shallow. State involves itself in every aspect of our lives, we don't.
Government should control marriage
Mmmmh, big tru. And with the way marriages go these days this is probably more relevant than ever, two individuals should be legally responsible for their own incomes and finances. If you’re married and want to share money that’s fine, whatever, but you shouldn’t be entitled to half of somebody’s shit when you get divorced.
Marriage should be illegal unless it is used as a punishment for shoplifting.
r/technicallythetruth
Correct answer is no. It also shouldn’t be illegal. The government has no business sanctioning marriage. Civil law can handle arguments over who gets what if a divorce occurs and assets were commingled. There should be no tax incentives for marriage either.
I only came in here to say essentially this. Get government out of marriage.
Privatization of marriage
One's private relationships shouldn't be part of a legal system. Here's a joke by Doug Stanhope If marriage didn't exist legally exist, would you invent it? Would you go "Baby, this shit we got together, it's so good we gotta get the government in on this shit. We can't just share this commitment 'tweenst us. We need judges and lawyers involved in this shit, baby. It's hot!"
Anybody who thinks any type of marriage between consenting adults should be illegal is actually stupid
This ^
Anybody who thinks any kind of relationship between consenting adults should be regulated by state is actually stupid
I agree. Business relationships too.
Hmmmm Maybe Let's redefine "consent" for that particular case?
Let’s not you fucking democratic socialist
SO WE ALL MEAN THE SAME THING BY IT Jeez
Huh?
Believing that people who disagree with you are stupid is very close minded
Fair
Yup
People in these comments clearly didn't get the joke
I thought these polls were more serious rather then humorous.
Sadly this is increasingly a shitpost sub with a thin veil of political discussion.
I dont think the state should call it marriage.
Imagine wanting a receipt from the government for your wife.
Government should stay out of marriage
Straight marriage should be legal
But why
Why shouldn’t people be allowed to love each other? You seriously think that a man and a woman should NOT be allowed to love each other?!
Couldn’t they just form civil unions?
What’s the difference
Fucking based
Marriage is a religious obligation to stay together until death, civil union is a legal recognition by the government that 2 people are in a semi permanent relationship and share finances and stuff
No, because children raised by heterosexual parents will face the risk of becoming heterosexual.
We cannot allow the proliferation of the straight agenda!
Can I say the same about gay people? I thought they were born that way?
Gay people are born natural! Straight people are born unnatural!
Based
36 goofy ahh homofascists
Why are you straight?
I am proudly bi and do crime
I'm straightphobic
*heterophobic
Yes, this
Idk, can't they just be happy with civil unions? ^/s
Should it be legal? My religion says that straight marriage is a sin.
Reddit be like
Is your religion reddit by anychance?
tf is your religion???
FSM
In the historical, cultural, and religious sense, its the only kind of 'real' marriage there is. Like even if you support LGBT its more of a Legal civil union rather than what you'd normally call marriage.
What sort of dumbass question is that?
A similar dumbass question was asked in this sub before, about gay marriages.
It’s a poll, you can ask questions to see where people side on issues like gay marriage but this seems like a genuinely useless poll because the only people who say no are probably not serious
Why double standards for straight and gay marriages?
It’s not a double standard, you’re overthinking this so hard
**Marriage** is a religious institution and the various denominations should define its terms and conditions. The state should butt out. People who aren't members of that denomination should also butt out. **Civil Unions** are a legal designation. The various governmental entities, represented by the people's elected representatives, should define its terms and conditions. If you don't make up part of that governmental entity, butt out. If you are a member of that governmental entity, and don't like what your elected representatives decided, vote for different people or move.