Brad Pitt talk??

[trung]

"Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able"
I can't understand what he meant.

Could anyone help me explain about that??

I'm confused

Also, do you think Marriage is oudated? Give me the reason for your opinion!!

Thank guys.
Newbie need help

[JackFree]

Probably talking about same sex marriages. everyone who want to be married should be able to.

Cheers

[Dextar]

Originally Posted by trung

"Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able"
I can't understand what he meant.

Could anyone help me explain about that??

I'm confused

Also, do you think Marriage is oudated? Give me the reason for your opinion!!

Thank guys.
Newbie need help

Re: Brad's Quote: "I'll take "Gay Marriage Issues" for 400 Alex...

And the whole problem with Marriage in the US is that the government got involved in a religious ceremony. As typical of the US government it has complicated a very uncomplicated issue by legalizing a union. (This started many years ago)

Now religious institutions claim domain over who can legally be united.

It would have been much simpiler to have the government allow anyone who wanted to designate rights of property transfer and survivorship issues with a legal contract.

They should have let the religious institutions grant whatever they deem their members should follow, but it not be legally binding.

But now we have this whole boondoggle of marriage and divorce and who is eligibile to marry who and all sorts of legal matters. And with religious institutions and lawyers invovled I fear it will forever be one huge mess of conflicting views.

Too bad really.

Dex

[NetStalker]

Originally Posted by Dextar

Re: Brad's Quote: "I'll take "Gay Marriage Issues" for 400 Alex...

And the whole problem with Marriage in the US is that the government got involved in a religious ceremony. As typical of the US government it has complicated a very uncomplicated issue by legalizing a union. (This started many years ago)

Now religious institutions claim domain over who can legally be united.

It would have been much simpiler to have the government allow anyone who wanted to designate rights of property transfer and survivorship issues with a legal contract.

They should have let the religious institutions grant whatever they deem their members should follow, but it not be legally binding.

But now we have this whole boondoggle of marriage and divorce and who is eligibile to marry who and all sorts of legal matters. And with religious institutions and lawyers invovled I fear it will forever be one huge mess of conflicting views.

Too bad really.

Dex

Well the goverment really needed to get involved cause without "legalizing" the union then probates, courts, wills, insurance, etc....would be a bleeding mess right now.

As to the same sex thing...well, im just not for it. Kind of old fashioned that way.

As to the Brad Pitt thing....why buy the cow when you get the milk for free....???

[sob]

Originally Posted by trung

"Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able"
I can't understand what he meant.

hmmm at first i thought he was talking about underaged kids getting married

i dont see how people can be bothered by same sex marriage. a marriage is only for the 2 people getting married, no one else.
im pretty sure that the tradition of marriage is older than most, if not all of todays religions.

[Dextar]

Originally Posted by NetStalker

Well the government really needed to get involved cause without "legalizing" the union then probates, courts, wills, insurance, etc....would be a bleeding mess right now.

As to the same sex thing...well, im just not for it. Kind of old fashioned that way.

As to the Brad Pitt thing....why buy the cow when you get the milk for free....???

Bah business partnerships are dissolved all the time, as well as partners kicking the bucket. The same rules could have been applied to people who wished to grant rights of ownership upon death. But instead the government codified a religious ceremony which causes all manner of strife.

If they had separated the two and allowed the legal to remain with the government and spiritual/religious remain with the clergy then it would have been much simpler.

Now you have created a system where the government had to institute religious law. Its the kind of thing wars are started over.

If you had removed Marriage from the legal agreement and just state in the agreement that upon death of either of the persons in the agreement the possessions and wealth of the joint owners transfer solely to the surviving member unless otherwise stated in the contract. Same would work for the responsibility to any underage dependents. One could also add fidelity clauses and such.

Then let the Religions deal with sanctifying a union with a ceremony. Thus leaving it up to people to live with whomever they damn well please and keep the government's nose out of it.

Myself I don't give a whit who people live with or what they do behind closed doors, but I also believe its total BS that someone who wishes to live with a same sex partner demand they have their union be deemed a marriage. Not when such is clearly grounded in religious doctrine.

Dex

[NetStalker]

Originally Posted by Dextar

If you had removed Marriage from the legal agreement and just state in the agreement that upon death of either of the persons in the agreement the possessions and wealth of the joint owners transfer solely to the surviving member unless otherwise stated in the contract. Same would work for the responsibility to any underage dependents. One could also add fidelity clauses and such.


Dex

Yep sounds good when the union is between person a and person b, but when you add in 3 or more persons to the union, or divorces and remarriage then once again, it takes government to step in to figure it all out, or what about the "I was married to him for 25 years with 3 kids" and "she just married him 3 months ago" then again, back to the courts.

Look, im a dyed in the wool Republican, and Im all for smaller government, but in this area, the more regulation the better. Too many damn people dont even know what marriage means anymore. Much less commitment.

I refer to my previous post...cow and milk

[DoNotPause]

Originally Posted by JackFree

Probably talking about same sex marriages. everyone who want to be married should be able to.

Cheers

have to agree alot on this
+rep

[Dextar]

Originally Posted by NetStalker

Yep sounds good when the union is between person a and person b, but when you add in 3 or more persons to the union, or divorces and remarriage then once again, it takes government to step in to figure it all out, or what about the "I was married to him for 25 years with 3 kids" and "she just married him 3 months ago" then again, back to the courts.

Look, im a dyed in the wool Republican, and Im all for smaller government, but in this area, the more regulation the better. Too many damn people dont even know what marriage means anymore. Much less commitment.

I refer to my previous post...cow and milk

Yes, it takes government to regulate agreements no doubt. that is why there is a contract!

However government has no business being involved in religious ceremony. If you stop and consider for a moment you would realize the contract would take care of all your concerns. The problem is not the legal aspects the problem is the government being involved in the religious aspects.

If three people agree to a binding contract that decides who gets what possessions in case of death or a violation of any of the clauses of the contract who should really care?

Does anyone care if Sally, Bill and Ted enter into a business contract that decides the same things for all manner of business chattels?

Why does it matter if those same people wish to live together and jointly own possessions of a personal nature. In fact in can be done. Its just that Marriage confuses the entire issue because of the religious aspect being intertwined with the legal aspect.

If the two were separated then you could save a great deal of hassle.

Sadly the legal and religious lobbies would never let it happen.

Dex

[PINKY]

Originally Posted by JackFree

Probably talking about same sex marriages. everyone who want to be married should be able to.

Cheers

I wonder just how far you would be supportive of that statement...

So same sex is a given....

What about Cousins? or Brothers and Sisters?

What about cultures that allow for more than one wife - should they be legal?

What about arranged marriges? - If one or both parties are pressured into marriage - should that be legal?

What about cultures that allow the marriage of under aged - for example should a 30 year old be allowed to marry a 12 year old - even if the 12 year old says its ok?

There was a case in the papers the other day where two sisters who have lived together (away from their parents) for the past 50 years - who applied to have the same rights as civil partnerships (regarding inheritence tax laws)and were refused - should they be allowed to marry?

In the papers a while back - a guy was caught screwing a goat and prosecuted - he was conviceted and forced to marry the goat (yes seriously - someone do a search for me ) - should that be legal? (think it was India)



I know I have given some extreme examples here, but a statement that many seem to be making along the lines of "anyone who wants to marry should be allowed to" is dangerous teritory as far as I am concerned - particually when you look at cultures that allow marriage to children.

Personally I think marriage is fast becoming devalued (even trivialised) by society, with divorces figures becoming higher and higher... its not helped by stupid laws, like in the UK you can make whats supposed to be a life comitment and marry at 16, have sex and children, live on your own and leave school to get a job, but you cant watch Aliens with Sigorny Weaver on DVD for another 2 years because it might corrupt you due to your age...

As far as my opinion goes, I daren't answer the question who should or shouldn't be allowed to marry (although I firmly support same sex marriges), but what I would like to see is couples forced to co-habit as man and wife (or civil partners) for a two year period minimum before being granted a license to marry. Put the value back into it rather than make it more accesible IMO...


wow, that turned into a loooong post!