Abolish Marriage

"marriage" is NOT a religious tradition or a religious ceremony. It was adopted by some religions, just like clothing and shelter were.
In my language some dictionaries do not even mention that (legal)marriage can be followed by a religious ceremony.

Strats wrote: It seems as if the complication then stems from a perception issue of the term "marriage" between the government and a religious party doing the "adjoining".

Here's what it boils down to: definition. We can do all the revising we like, but if you look through history, it's pretty clearly defined what marriage is. And I personally want to part of it. Yes, there were some attempts at revision in the latter half of the 20th Century, but still, I'd rather leave "marriage" to people who want it, in its traditional sense. Let's use me for example. Let's say I wanted to get "married." What's problematic about that scenario?

1. I am aggressively anti-sexist. It's part of the reason I left my old religion (evangelical Christianity) for my new one (mainline Potestantism). Marriage in its true sense is completely heirarchial. Not to say that all marriages today are, but marriage is specifically designed to be heirarchial.

2. I am anti-natalist. Basically means I believe reproduction is immoral (I know many of you disagree with me. I'm not trying to argue for anti-natalism on this thread, just using this as an example). Procreation and subsequent child-raising have always been one of the key functions of marriage, regardless of culture or religion. This is still one of the biggest arguments used by opponents of gay marriage, showing that the reproductive nature of marriage has not died out despite massive social reform. This problem could also apply to couples who are not antinatalist but have nonetheless decided upon a childfree life.

3. The religious nature of marriage is inherently problematic. Look at all the confusion that has arisen here in the USA over the "definition of marriage." To me, the legal aspect should be nothing more than a civil union, regardless of whether the couple is same-sex or straight, and the word "marriage" should not once be mentioned. As I said before, my religion believes in absolute gender equality, and I don't think marriage is a fitting word for that. So, the sooner we acknowledge what "marriage" means, the sooner we stop using to to refer to all kinds of monogamous relationships that do not meet its strict criteria.

ren wrote: "marriage" is NOT a religious tradition or a religious ceremony. It was adopted by some religions, just like clothing and shelter were.
In my language some dictionaries do not even mention that (legal)marriage can be followed by a religious ceremony.

Ah, ok. I was sort of assuming it was, based on an article I read the other day describing how various high profile English Christians seem to think that the definition of marriage is theirs to determine (relating to the Coalition For Marriage campaign). Link is here if anyone is interested (sorry - it's a rather biased article, but it does explain both sides of the argument anyway if you ignore the bias): http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2012/feb/20/1?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

V-Tog wrote:

ren wrote: "marriage" is NOT a religious tradition or a religious ceremony. It was adopted by some religions, just like clothing and shelter were.
In my language some dictionaries do not even mention that (legal)marriage can be followed by a religious ceremony.

Ah, ok. I was sort of assuming it was based on an article I read the other day describing how various high profile English Christians seem to think that the definition of marriage is theirs to determine (relating to the Coalition For Marriage campaign). Link is here if anyone is interested (sorry - it's a rather biased article, but it does explain both sides of the argument anyway if you ignore the bias): http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2012/feb/20/1?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

Hate to be the antagonist, but the traditional people have the monopoly on marriage. And I'm not saying this to exclude homosexuals. In fact my post above shows that marriage no more applies to me (or many other straight people) than it does homosexuals. Let the ultra-conservatives have their heirarchial antiquated institutions.

Star Forge, have you ever considered that gender stereotypes and any perception of hierarchy have nothing to do with marriage?

Have you ever considered that it is in women's nature to "stick around" but not in men's? By nature i mean the chemical, scientifically observed kind. (males want to stay with females for around 2 minutes after sex, for females it can last a week) (Males are also hardwired to look for as many healthy females as quickly as possible, females are not), and that therefore marriage has nothing to do with that sexist hierarchical agenda you mentioned, but simply a common sense agreement that offers any offspring double the safety, double the resources, lower chance of spreading disease (This has been observed in gay communities), etc?

Ren has a point...men are biologically driven to seek multiple mates while women are biologically driven to seek the best mate...in a way marriage was created to tame thsoe instincts and create a civilized society taking humans out of their animalistic behavior

ren wrote: Star Forge, have you ever considered that gender stereotypes and any perception of hierarchy have nothing to do with marriage?

Have you ever considered that it is in women's nature to "stick around" but not in men's? By nature i mean the chemical, scientifically observed kind. (males want to stay with females for around 2 minutes after sex, for females it can last a week) (Males are also hardwired to look for as many healthy females as quickly as possible, females are not), and that therefore marriage has nothing to do with that sexist hierarchical agenda you mentioned, but simply a common sense agreement that offers any offspring double the safety, double the resources, lower chance of spreading disease (This has been observed in gay communities), etc?

So you're basically saying that marriage (or any civil union) is just a way to create consequences for men who cheat? What about love? Morality? Self-control? I know non-married couples who have ever cheated, and tons of people who cheat within marriage.

Unfortunately many have used marriage as a tool to bypass legal issues and to (pardon the expression) secure the poon (I really don't like that expression) however that is their choice...and they will have to deal with the moral, and ethical conseqences...but they should still have the freedom to choose...as has been stated repeatedly...if marriage isn't for you (not speaking to anyone in specific) then don't get married

RyuJin wrote: Unfortunately many have used marriage as a tool to bypass legal issues and to (pardon the expression) secure the poon (I really don't like that expression) however that is their choice...and they will have to deal with the moral, and ethical conseqences...but they should still have the freedom to choose...as has been stated repeatedly...if marriage isn't for you (not speaking to anyone in specific) then don't get married

And provide civil unions for all of us who want to avoud the "M" word but still be joined together.

Labels, labels, labels.

Tomato Tomoto, Patato Pototo.

I say its your choice whether you wish to stress your brain on the tarnished man-made labels of these things when you don't necessarily have to, or go about your own way to play it out however you want.