Abolish Marriage

I personally feel that its up to the individual person if he/she marries or not. Its not for everyone so why pressure people to make either choice?

Bottom line: marriage (which is not biblically defined in any way we now considered "traditional") is nothing more than a civil contract. (So, gays can't enter a legal contract in some jurisdictions?!) Since contracts can be signed and made without governmental involvement (signing up for phone service, for example [even though the government gets fees and taxes from it anyway]), let's just do away with governmental involvement in marriages. Some states, like Nevada & California, don't require blood tests to get married; they leave it up to the couple to be honest about diseases / lines of consanguinity / et cetera. They haven't fallen into the pit of Hell as a result. (Europe hasn't sink in, either, for allowing marriage equality. So much for "God's wrath upon the heathens.") Get governmetn out of marriage altogether and keep it a "civil contract into which ANYONE can enter" and all will be well. (Mexican marriages are solumnized by a court official ONLY (to be legal). A church service can be had separately to fulfill family / religions wishes.)

by the way... I just want to congratulate you on your new abomination

XDD

sidvkili wrote: by the way... I just want to congratulate you on your new abomination

XDD

???? I don't understand what you're saying?

he got married recently and finding this thread is hilarious, considering

My marriage is certainly not a piece of paper. It was that moment when I said yes to a woman 10 years ago, which changed my life, and who I love now as I did then. It marked the beginning of a what for me is of a wonderful new life in the form of my daughter who on many occasions confirmed the comfort she experiences in that union.

That's nice....real nice.

JimCode3 wrote: Bottom line: marriage (which is not biblically defined in any way we now considered "traditional") is nothing more than a civil contract.

I disagree with this; a great many faiths put a lot of importance on religion, especially as an outgrowth of its origins. While marriage "proper" has its origins as a legal affair, it arose mutually with the conception of religious marriages, partly because of ancient theocracies, and partly because both the temporal and spiritual sides of marriage are kind of a big deal to humanity in general.

Since contracts can be signed and made without governmental involvement (signing up for phone service, for example [even though the government gets fees and taxes from it anyway]), let's just do away with governmental involvement in marriages.

This actually resembles my personal opinion of the best way to settle the marriage equality issue, at least in the United States. If religions (or the lack thereof) were responsible for witnessing and solemnizing the interpersonal contract that is marriage (instead of the State), and the State was relegated to the position of simply acknowledging and registering that it occurred for legal purposes, it would stop a great deal of the barking from both sides.

A marriage consists of both a spiritual ceremony (a celebration of the bonding between any two individuals) as well as a legal contractual agreement. I don't believe a "true" marriage ever needed the latter, and even what is left, while beautiful and heartfelt, in the end, tends to be no more than a verbal proposition of something that lies beyond it, among the confines of time and shown commitment above all else. The ceremony, I sometimes feel is an act out of a form of insecurity, as if something "needs to be said or carried out" in order for "love" to be more genuinely official.

We need to abolish monogamy, not marriage. It's just plain wrong to deny your own human sexuality and your capacity to love more than one person. Marriage allows people to reach their ultimate capacity for love by saying they will be there for their spouse until they die... a truly noble expression if I do say so myself. So why deny that expression or limit it to one person?