LoisGriffin
I am not a sheep! I follow only one!
I agree with everything you have put RebekkaH. A lot prefer civil unions (even Christians) its still marriage though. Maybe its a culture thing on how its viewed.
Upvote
0
You could, of course, call your union whatever you like. My position is that all such contracts offered by the state be termed civil unions. A civilly unionized gay couple who then call themselves married would no doubt face opposition from so-called "traditional marriage" supporters, but only in an unofficial capacity; petitions to the state to protect "marriage" no longer would carry any weight.I usually agree with you Teddy, but I'm not sure I agree with you on this one. Marriage is not just a religious institution, and it hasn't been for decades. In common parlance, a couple who have a cicvil union are said to be married -- and as a gay person, I would want equal rights.
Maybe it is cultural, yes. Still from reading moonkitty's* reaction (objecting to having to refer to her husband as "my civil union partner") I gathered that marriage is valued by American non-christians, too. And I find it a bit selfish to claim the term then. "You can't have that, only we can. "I agree with everything you have put RebekkaH. A lot prefer civil unions (even Christians) its still marriage though. Maybe its a culture thing on how its viewed.
Maybe it is cultural, yes. Still from reading moonkitty's reaction (objecting to having to refer to her husband as "my civil union partner")
Me too.See the view is so stupid. I know many Christians who decided against getting married in the church but no one ever says they are any less married. A few had blessings in a church but the blessing service was not a marriage ceremony.
It almost seems that the Christians who have the views that civil unions are not marriage just want to feel they are somehow better than everyone else. I really dislike that attitude from anyone.
The only difference then seems to be that over here, priests (etc.) have no legal authority whatsoever.
For the purposes of this thread, we will assume that the purpose of marriage as a legal entity - that is to say, the collection of benefits and tax breaks a couple gets for being married - exists only as an incentive to have children. In other words, marriage is something the state allows you to have in order to get you to make more workers for the state. Got that? Good.
Now we come to my idea.
We should dissolve all childless marriages.
It makes sense if you think about it. Here are a bunch of people, freely enjoying the benefits of marriage, but not having any children, which was the whole reason why anyone is allowed to get married in the first place! The way I see it, these people's freeloading marriages should be dissolved.
This is how you'd do it: After you and your significant other say your vows, you have a set period of time - say, five years - in which to concieve a child. If you do not do so in that amount of time, it is considered proof that you're not really trying, or are infertile, and thus do not deserve to be wed. Your marriage is dissolved, and neither of you are allowed to marry again until one of you can provide medical proof that you've achieved pregnancy.
Over here it is a crime to marry someone in a church before or instead of a legal marriage. Priests can go to prison for that. So it's not just that this church-only ceremony wouldn't be valid legally, without legal benefits, but it would make the priest (not the couple) a criminal. That's why it doesn't happen over here.Furthermore, under the constitution, religions would be fully allowed to marry a gay couple, just not in the legal contract sense.
For the purposes of this thread, we will assume that the purpose of marriage as a legal entity - that is to say, the collection of benefits and tax breaks a couple gets for being married - exists only as an incentive to have children. In other words, marriage is something the state allows you to have in order to get you to make more workers for the state. Got that? Good.
Now we come to my idea.
We should dissolve all childless marriages.
It makes sense if you think about it. Here are a bunch of people, freely enjoying the benefits of marriage, but not having any children, which was the whole reason why anyone is allowed to get married in the first place! The way I see it, these people's freeloading marriages should be dissolved.
This is how you'd do it: After you and your significant other say your vows, you have a set period of time - say, five years - in which to concieve a child. If you do not do so in that amount of time, it is considered proof that you're not really trying, or are infertile, and thus do not deserve to be wed. Your marriage is dissolved, and neither of you are allowed to marry again until one of you can provide medical proof that you've achieved pregnancy.
We have to assume whats bolded above for the rest that follows to make sense.
Too bad though that marriage is for much more than procreation however. It is a picture of the relationship between Christ as the bridegroom and the church as bride. The church doesnt marry itself - if it does its in bed with the world and isnt a valid church before God because its cares are the things of this world and not the things of God. A valid christian marriage produces children of Christ as well as physical children and if there is a reason one cannot have physical children this picture and ideal doesnt change setting a spiritual example.
For the purposes of this thread, we will assume that the purpose of marriage as a legal entity - that is to say, the collection of benefits and tax breaks a couple gets for being married - exists only as an incentive to have children. In other words, marriage is something the state allows you to have in order to get you to make more workers for the state. Got that? Good.
Now we come to my idea.
We should dissolve all childless marriages.
It makes sense if you think about it. Here are a bunch of people, freely enjoying the benefits of marriage, but not having any children, which was the whole reason why anyone is allowed to get married in the first place! The way I see it, these people's freeloading marriages should be dissolved.
This is how you'd do it: After you and your significant other say your vows, you have a set period of time - say, five years - in which to concieve a child. If you do not do so in that amount of time, it is considered proof that you're not really trying, or are infertile, and thus do not deserve to be wed. Your marriage is dissolved, and neither of you are allowed to marry again until one of you can provide medical proof that you've achieved pregnancy.
Why do you want to give people financial benefits for contributing to overpopulation? (We'll be 9 billion in 2050.)I think we could be lenient there. So if you have a certain amount of kids, you don't need to have any more to maintain your marriage. So after your forth kid, your marriage is safe. I guarantee it.
Because EU countries have a poor natality (except Ireland, and maybe France in EU). So govs expect that tax breaks will help people makes children. Otherwise we would need more immigration to increase the ratio workers/retired.In fact, I reckon I should have the portion of my tax going towards the education of everyone elses children reduced to reflect the fact that I am less of a burden on the state. Why should I pay for everyone else's little chizzlers.....???? I don't even like them.....