I don't believe that marriage is strictly Judeo-Christian. Surely we see pair-bonding in other cultures as well?
Marriage is not, marriage as it is codified in the US is. I am not going to go back and refind the sources I posted earlier, but maybe you remember (I thought it was to you anyway) that I had links showing polygamy to be the most practiced form of marriage in the world.
The idea that proper relationships are "pair-bonding" and will naturally exclude, and is better for excluding others is a Judeo-Xian concept.
I realize that that's a broader definition than the government uses, but that's reason to change the gov't definition, not throw it out altogether.
This is why our positions on what should be done are not so far apart. I have not said that removing marriage altogether is the ONLY or BEST solution.
I guess I differ from you in that I see the merit of leaving the gov't out of it, but I am willing to be practical as people will be needing contracts anyway... why not some marriage contracts and some union contracts and some partnerships (by the way they not only have this in the Netherlands but also recognize long lived together couples)?
Civil marriage is a pair-bonding agreement.
On top of being the sort of ideologue who feels like one should not be forced into sacrficing a pigeon to the state instead of zeus in order to get a certain government contract... You just said about all there needs to be said above.
We do not believe that "pair-bonding" is the business of the government. If we are a pair then fine, but being forced into a Judeo-Xian concept, and therefore giving that some sort of legimitimacy. as well as accepting legal restrictions based on that concept, is not in the interest of our beliefs.
I don't see where all this Christian stuff is supposed to be, I guess.
If there wasn't, why do you think most Xians are against gay marriages? Or polygamous marriages? Or discriminate against single couples?
The wording may be changed to suit the palates of the more secular crowd, but it is the same as sacrificing a pigeon to the State instead of to Zeus... a needless exercise (I mean why even have a vow making ceremony) which is meant only to extend a Judeo-Xian form of social tradition.
It's just that you only get one spouse. Maybe we should change that, but marriage doesn't prevent you from adding more people to your relationship; just to your marriage.
While I am glad that you are openminded enough to allow the laws to stretch, all of this should be pointing up what I am saying. They would need to change in some way just to get to fairness to those outside the Judeo-Xian culture.
Hearing I can add as many as I like but I only get one spouse, is like being gay and hearing that I can marry anyone I want but I can only have a girl. That's the CATCH, and the reason I am complaining in the first place.
I believe you, but I can't imagine what those jobs are. Could you elaborate? Not because I don't believe your claim; it's just that I've never heard of such a thing.
Yes, high profile jobs, or jobs with conservative companies. Adultery most certainly would get you canned from a job at a company like Disney, if it were to become public. Same goes for fornication (which is unmarried sexual activity). To prevent the suggestion of improper lifestyle (could be a womanizer or gay) a person would have to be married.
The military is known for expecting officers to get married in order to rise in rank (equally). And the whole concept of the "beard" (a woman that is married to a man to cover that he is gay) comes from such business practices.
We should certainly do away with those. But those are tangental to marriage.
To YOU they are tangential to marriage, but to the majority of Judeo-Xians they are not or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I mean I do agree with you that they SHOULD be, and in an objective sense they are, but then again in an objective sense MARRIAGE is tangential to taking legal responsibilities and gaining some rights regarding a significant partner(s), right?
That's why marriage could realistically be done away with as a gov't program. You could of course still be married in every sense, but the papers would just be more to the point.
I mean, honestly, if you want to quibble about being "forced" to take on a name, well, that's just too silly to argue with.
Husband or wife is not the same as human or adult. It has history and it has connotations. That is exactly why the majority of Xians (and indeed americans) are against gays being able to claim husband or wife status.
I understand you are not them, but it seems like you are ignoring the fact that they are saying exactly what this stuff means to MOST PEOPLE.
It is not silly to desire not to have to adopt someone else's religious culture and terminology just to get a basic legal document and rights for one's relationship.
If terminology wasn't a big deal, as you seem to suggest, then why do you care about being called "married"? Why is it more important to be that, than have a contractual partner?
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2