Discordian Weddings

[navkat]

Also, no matter how you feel about this sort of thing, ceremonies are important to domesticated primates.  They matter.  Some might argue that they shouldn't, but that doesn't change the nature of the beast.

It is sorta necessary, even if you do it privately. Just that same way promises are important, declarations are important, music is important. There's a feeling of satisfaction with getting things said. with making yourself heard. We do it here all the time: ranting and kvetching and carrying on because yes, we could keep all this shit in our heads for it to still be true but it's way more comforting and I'd even venture to say, useful to have that shit "out there" and be validated or at least acknowledged.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also:  Legal marriage has worked in this country for 220 years.  It has only become an issue since Gay marriage became a credible option.  The GOP homophobic response was DOMA.  The Libertarian homophobic response was to propose abolishing marriage entirely.

Not calling you a homophobe, Iptuous, just saying that's where the notion originated.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also, no matter how you feel about this sort of thing, ceremonies are important to domesticated primates.  They matter.  Some might argue that they shouldn't, but that doesn't change the nature of the beast.

It is sorta necessary, even if you do it privately. Just that same way promises are important, declarations are important, music is important. There's a feeling of satisfaction with getting things said. with making yourself heard. We do it here all the time: ranting and kvetching and carrying on because yes, we could keep all this shit in our heads for it to still be true but it's way more comforting and I'd even venture to say, useful to have that shit "out there" and be validated or at least acknowledged.

It's a whole lot of necessary, for a great many people.

[LMNO]

Simple answer to BadBeast:  If you find the entire notion of marriage to be iffy, then you haven't met the right person yet.



LMNO
-speaks from experience.

[Elder Iptuous]

oh. ok, so it opens up the person to being sued by the other person...
so, a marriage partner is immune from civil action?

When making decisions in place of a spouse?  Yeah.  You can't be sued, for example, if you "pull the plug" on a braindead/etc spouse, if the inlaws don't like it.
NOTE:  This is a state level thing, so I can't speak for all states, here.  Some states are weird.

ah.  so you weren't just referring to civil action on part of the represented...
well... if you have power of attorney, but can't make decisions on behalf of the person without fear of being sued by a third party, what the hell is the point?

It legally allows you to act.  It doesn't necessarily protect you from civil action.  It CAN'T, otherwise the represented and others affected would have precisely zero recourse if someone misused the PoA.

mm.  that makes sense.  but then, that is the situation with marriage, though? and it's useful in it's place there...
it's a levels of trust thing?

Also:  Legal marriage has worked in this country for 220 years.  It has only become an issue since Gay marriage became a credible option.  The GOP homophobic response was DOMA.  The Libertarian homophobic response was to propose abolishing marriage entirely.

Not calling you a homophobe, Iptuous, just saying that's where the notion originated.

ya.  i believe you.  and that's a shameful origin, but if we had a legal arrangement of trust that allowed people to act in the manner that marriage did for anyone you choose, wouldn't it be better?  then you wouldn't have the gov't involved in an aspect of culture beyond the legal ramifications, denying the socially conservative from complaints about ruining the sanctity of their past four marriages.
and Jay could rest easily knowing that Silent Bob would be able to make the decisions that he wants him to when his hairbrained schemes finally land him in the hospital.  (is what comes to mind when i think about 'hetero life partners' )

[navkat]

Simple answer to BadBeast:  If you find the entire notion of marriage to be iffy, then you haven't met the right person yet.



LMNO
-speaks from experience.

That's not necessarily true. It's rare but some couples genuinely don't need it. Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russel are still together and are anti-marriage. Some people are really okay with just leaving that open and making their promises a la carte.

[LMNO]

Balls.  Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell are cyborgs, and have no legal recourse for marriage, as the state does not recognize them as human.

[Elder Iptuous]

Balls.  Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell are cyborgs, and have no legal recourse for marriage, as the state does not recognize them as human.

and 'pulling the plug' is an option a liiiitle too accessible for their comfort, huh?

[navkat]

Maybe why they live in Vancouver now.

[Luna]

There is also considerable social weight behind being married.

True story:  I didn't marry until late.  I was an adult for a LONG time before I finally tied the knot with the NYEX.  It wasn't until the first time I visited extended family after the wedding (2 months or so) that I heard my aunt tell an off-color joke.  I was, literally, speechless.  At that point, I started picking up on little stuff...  Being included in conversations that I never had been, little things...  I was suddenly being treated like a grown up.

Being married puts a bit more social pressure on working shit out when there are problems... and fucking up means more.  Cheated on your girlfriend and she left you?  Damn, hope the new one is hot.  Cheated on your WIFE?  You're an asshole.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

ya.  i believe you.  and that's a shameful origin, but if we had a legal arrangement of trust that allowed people to act in the manner that marriage did for anyone you choose, wouldn't it be better? 

Not for me.  I am such a fan of marriage, I do it every few years or so.   

[Triple Zero]

Yes, but where are we going to get 40 gallons of personal lubricant?

Hah! I always said if I get married again, I'm giving tiny bottles of Astroglide wrapped in purple chiffon as the wedding favors. I mean, who actually EATS those stale Jordan Almonds, anyway? AMIRITE?

That's a BRILLIANT idea!

Are those the almonds covered in chocolate with a sugar shell, kind of like an M&M except they look like tiny bird eggs or pebbles? I got those too. I think I ate them though, but I didn't really like them.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Over here, you can grant next of kin status to your partner without having to be married.
It would be interesting to see the percentages of couples who live together x couples who are married for the US compared to the UK. I have no idea how they match up, but I'd bet there are far more unmarried couples over here. (Per head of capita)   

The only way to do that here is through marriage or adoption.

i think next of kin comes after marriage partner in precedence of authority here, right? (i.e. marriage partner is a separate and higher state than next of kin)
this is a big problem imo, because the only argument that i have heard against getting govt. completely out of the marriage business is this status issue.  and what if you want to have this status granted for a non-romantic partner?  why can't you have ultimate authority in these cases be given to a close friend?  this would still be an issue even if we abolished the restrictions on who can marry who.

It's the hierarchy of next-of-kin; the spouse is at the top, then (I believe) children, then parents, then siblings, and so on outward through the web of relatives. Of course, if a child or sibling is still a minor they're skipped over when it comes to making legal decisions.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

ya.  i believe you.  and that's a shameful origin, but if we had a legal arrangement of trust that allowed people to act in the manner that marriage did for anyone you choose, wouldn't it be better?  then you wouldn't have the gov't involved in an aspect of culture beyond the legal ramifications, denying the socially conservative from complaints about ruining the sanctity of their past four marriages.
and Jay could rest easily knowing that Silent Bob would be able to make the decisions that he wants him to when his hairbrained schemes finally land him in the hospital.  (is what comes to mind when i think about 'hetero life partners' )

So... we should invent something that does exactly what marriage does, make it available for anyone, but call it something different?

Why should we call it something different? Why not just make marriage available for anyone?

[Triple Zero]

Why should we call it something different? Why not just make marriage available for anyone?

Well that's what the Dutch did since 2001. And our cornerstone of society hasn't crumbled nearly as much as yours ... since 2001. See some people blame 9/11, but what if it has been your lack of equal marriage rights all along?!