Civic Marriage - any point?

[voidhawk]

DeeDee’s post on homosexual marriage got me thinking about the whole point of marriage and the question I couldn’t answer is if you do not have a theistic belief system what is the point of marriage because it seems on the face of it there isn’t one.

Maybe the legal basis to marriage should be removed.
If you do have theistic beliefs you may want your relationship acknowledged and sanctioned by the deity you believe in and the community you live in and this would still be open to you. Marriage would become analogous to baptism, an important ceremony to the community in which it takes place but with no status in law.

If you don’t have theistic beliefs why do you want to get the government involved in what is essential a private matter between the people in the relationship and their families. If you don’t trust the people you are going into a relationship with (why would you want to get into a relationship with them?), well there has never been a shortage of lawyers, I’m sure one could be persuaded to draw up a suitable contract for a suitable fee.

With no particular form of relationship endorsed by the state the various religious groups would be free to keep their particular interpretation of the correct form of human relationships as exclusive as they liked, and likewise people with non theistic beliefs could celebrate their relationships in any way they choose.

It would dissolve the controversy over same sex marriages by putting all relationships on an equal footing before the law.

Just a thought.:smile:

[yxboom]

I would concur with everything you have stated. When you tear down the walls of morality (specifically marriage in this instance) it all falls down. A man is just as welcome to have a "correct form of human relationship" with his 4 year old nephew, the law would have no grounds to enforce morality. NAMBLA would applaud your analysis.

Be real. Marriage is in place to build up a healthy home and family. The law recoginzes marriage as such for it's productivity to society at the very least.

[voidhawk]

At present the only one form of relationship is recognised as a marriage. If the default position is that marriage is a good thing, my proposal would enable as many people who desired it to claim that their relationship is a marriage.

With regard to your nephew and uncle scenario, I would just point out that in the UK under the current legal framework children suffer most cruelty at the hands of the adults notionally caring for them. Maybe the concept family and the concept marriage need an overhaul.

[Sauron]

Yesterday @ 04:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=63431#post63431)
yxboom:

I would concur with everything you have stated. When you tear down the walls of morality (specifically marriage in this instance) it all falls down.

Why is that?



A man is just as welcome to have a "correct form of human relationship" with his 4 year old nephew, the law would have no grounds to enforce morality.


Nonsense. One of the principles of contract law is being of the minimum age and mental capacity to consent to a contract - it doesn't matter if it's a contract for home repair, or a contract to buy a car. A civil marriage would be the same way. No 4-year-olds involved.



NAMBLA would applaud your analysis.


Perhaps because his analysis is flawed?
:huh:



Be real. Marriage is in place to build up a healthy home and family.


No, it's in place because people with religion want their government to reward them with special legal privileges. Marriage would exist (and indeed, has existed) for thousands of years without any government to help out.



The law recoginzes marriage as such for it's productivity to society at the very least.

Not really. Marriage existed long before there was a government to recognize it. Civil recognition of marriages has only been fairly recent on the world scene.

Are you saying that the societies in the past were totally bereft of morality and stability until marriage laws existed? Let's see your evidence.

[Faramir]

Yesterday @ 12:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64731#post64731)
Sauron:


Be real. Marriage is in place to build up a healthy home and family

No, it's in place because people with religion want their government to reward them with special legal privileges. Marriage would exist (and indeed, has existed) for thousands of years without any government to help out.

:huh:

First you say that marriage is in place becasue because religious people want special privileges. Then you say, in the very next sentence that marriage would exist without any government.

Do you meant marriage laws? You really need to clarify your position.

But wait, it gets better:


Yesterday @ 12:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64731#post64731)
Sauron:


The law recoginzes marriage as such for it's productivity to society at the very least.

Not really. Marriage existed long before there was a government to recognize it. Civil recognition of marriages has only been fairly recent on the world scene.

Are you saying that the societies in the past were totally bereft of morality and stability until marriage laws existed? Let's see your evidence.

:argh:

Did I miss something?

Who said that the laws, in any way, made marriage productive. The quote was that the law [u]"...recoginzes marriage as such for it's productivity to society"
Not that the institute of marriage needed the law to make it productive.

You then go on to prove the point, by challenging the poster to show that people prior to legalized marriage did not have stability and morality. As you rightly pointed out, it was the stability and morality inherent in the institute of marriage that created the desire of governments to inact laws to encourage this stabilizing influence in society.

It wasn't the marriage laws that brought stability to society. It was the desire to maintain stability that brought the marriage laws.

The real question is, will changing the definition of marriage to be what ever you desire increase or decrease the stability of society?

If marriage is as stailizing as you seem to think, then why shouldn't the government encourage this stabilizing influence on society?

[Ryokan]

supporting marriage is a good thing. It increases social stability, ties down young males, who are the cause of most social diseases, helps prevent the spread of STD's and lessens mental illness, and leads to a larger # of children, which is beneficial to the US since without immigration we suffer from negative population growth. Marriage is a good institution, and worthy of state support.

[Wesley's son]

Also married people live longer.