News:

One of our core values:  "THEY REFILLED MY RITALIN AND BY THE WAY I WANNA EAT YOUR BEAR HEAD."

Main Menu

Discordian Weddings

Started by Danjanon, February 07, 2012, 02:04:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7
User actions

Elder Iptuous

#75
February 10, 2012, 10:02:01 PM
marriage is a compact between two people (for now!  :p) that they are devoted to each other for life.
there is usually a ceremony for public acknowledgement so that they are held accountable by the community/friends/family.
there is no reason that this cannot be done by anyone right now.
my friend got married to his new husband not too long ago.  here in Texas.
they had a fantastic ceremony.  i have no doubt that they will grow old together in love for the rest of their lives as a married couple.
"legal recognition of marriage" appears to be a setup that allows certain legal rights and privileges between one man and one woman (regardless of whether they even intend to follow the compact of an actual marriage.)
This setup is something that various people may want, and i see no reason that it should be denied to anyone.  And this is regardless of whether they are or intend to marry.  i should be able to have this setup with a friend.  why not?
and if we made this generic setup, then the govt. wouldn't have any reason to involve themselves in actual marriage at all.  the promise between two people would not have the appearance of being contingent upon some damned legal fiction.  the social conservatives that feel that the institution of marriage is something they have a monopoly on would not be able to limit it.
it seems win-win.  what's the argument against it?

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

#76
February 10, 2012, 10:18:26 PM Last Edit: February 10, 2012, 10:20:17 PM by Nigel
Quote from: Iptuous on February 10, 2012, 10:02:01 PM
marriage is a compact between two people (for now!  :p) that they are devoted to each other for life.
there is usually a ceremony for public acknowledgement so that they are held accountable by the community/friends/family.
there is no reason that this cannot be done by anyone right now.
my friend got married to his new husband not too long ago.  here in Texas.
they had a fantastic ceremony.  i have no doubt that they will grow old together in love for the rest of their lives as a married couple.
"legal recognition of marriage" appears to be a setup that allows certain legal rights and privileges between one man and one woman (regardless of whether they even intend to follow the compact of an actual marriage.)
This setup is something that various people may want, and i see no reason that it should be denied to anyone.  And this is regardless of whether they are or intend to marry.  i should be able to have this setup with a friend.  why not?
and if we made this generic setup, then the govt. wouldn't have any reason to involve themselves in actual marriage at all.  the promise between two people would not have the appearance of being contingent upon some damned legal fiction.  the social conservatives that feel that the institution of marriage is something they have a monopoly on would not be able to limit it.
it seems win-win.  what's the argument against it?

I agree with you completely and it seems like we're saying the same thing, except that IMO the government has a very good role in recording the contract, and should always fulfill that role, along with recording things like births, deaths, and property deeds. Otherwise, it's all a bit meaningless, and how would anyone confirm that someone was actually your spouse? The government NOT recording it would open the door to all kinds of horrible fraud, which is, if I recall, the entire reason public records exist in the first place.

"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

#77
February 10, 2012, 10:21:33 PM
In other words, we already have the entire structure in place; all we need to do is remove the sex-based limitations.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

#78
February 10, 2012, 10:22:01 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 10, 2012, 10:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 10, 2012, 09:34:21 PM
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?! ;-)

LOL! It probably is!
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."

Elder Iptuous

#79
February 10, 2012, 10:34:43 PM
yes, it would seem that we are, for the most part in agreement.
the distinction that i am making is that the contract should be separated from the cultural concept of marriage: "to love and to cherish, 'til death do us part"
the govt. really doesn't need to be involved in that. (and as in the example of my friend, isn't.)  but the appearance of the govt's ability to grant this "privilege" is what seems to be causing no end of trouble with the socially conservative.
as far as the legal rights, of course the govt. needs to recognize the contract in order to provide for it.  but why shouldn't this be completely generic and up to the individual?  and if that is the case, why should it be called 'marriage'?
Trip mentions removal of gender requirements in Belgium, but can he enter into an equivalent arrangement with a friend?  if so, why distinguish between the two?  and if not, why not?
And even to get to the same point that they are at here in 'merica.... well. good luck. maybe in some states, but not in others.  it'd be a long time coming here in the bobble belt.

The Good Reverend Roger

#80
February 10, 2012, 10:39:13 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 10, 2012, 10:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 10, 2012, 09:34:21 PM
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?! ;-)

It's because we have Freedom™, and you don't.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Triple Zero

#81
February 10, 2012, 10:49:52 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 10, 2012, 10:34:43 PM
yes, it would seem that we are, for the most part in agreement.
the distinction that i am making is that the contract should be separated from the cultural concept of marriage: "to love and to cherish, 'til death do us part"
the govt. really doesn't need to be involved in that. (and as in the example of my friend, isn't.)  but the appearance of the govt's ability to grant this "privilege" is what seems to be causing no end of trouble with the socially conservative.
as far as the legal rights, of course the govt. needs to recognize the contract in order to provide for it.  but why shouldn't this be completely generic and up to the individual?  and if that is the case, why should it be called 'marriage'?
Trip mentions removal of gender requirements in Belgium, but can he enter into an equivalent arrangement with a friend?  if so, why distinguish between the two?  and if not, why not?

As far as I'm aware, yes I can. Did you read my other post ITT where I gave a brief overview of the Dutch marriage and registered-partnership system?

I could pick either marriage or registered-partnership depending on which one I prefer and I'd have nearly the same rights (where it differs are some rights concerning kids, and I'm actually quite curious why that is, some of it seems out of practical reasons, others I don't know and might have been amendments from more conservative voices, I dunno).

The point is, whether you call it marriage or not, there *needs* to be some kind of legal framework for people that want to spend their life together, in the sense that their partner is also given rights that would otherwise defer to the family, among other things.

I kind of agree that calling it "marriage" sort of gives it a bit more of a religious connotation than just the contract it would otherwise be. But then, if it's used for the same purpose why not call it what it is? And I think it's extra cool that here if you don't want to call it that, you can get the registered-partnership variety, with most of the same rights.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2012, 10:39:13 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 10, 2012, 10:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 10, 2012, 09:34:21 PM
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?! ;-)

It's because we have Freedom™, and you don't.

This Freedom(TM) sounds intriguing, would you recommend it for savages such as like my people?
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

#82
February 10, 2012, 10:54:33 PM
"Marriage" is a social and legal convention; any religious connotations are purely invented. What religion?
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."

Elder Iptuous

#83
February 10, 2012, 10:58:12 PM
I appear to have missed that :oops:

that's awesome! registered partnership. i like that.

Triple Zero

#84
February 10, 2012, 11:05:03 PM
Nigel, good point. I was just thinking because I assume historically it's always been religious (either catholic or protestant, over here).

Iptuous, yeah, I only dug into the specifics on the Dutch Wikipedia today (never really had any reason to find out before) and I must say I'm pleasantly surprised with our laws indeed. Even though the specifics are complex as fuck, but then, a non-registered partnership break up after several years of living together is complex as fuck as well, unless you've been smart about it (which we thankfully were: not sharing the bills for big household purchases but considering if we were to break up, not that we will--except we did--who would want to own this, and then making sure it mostly sort of evens out).
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

Danjanon

#85
February 11, 2012, 12:03:36 AM
By the time we get to the wedding in Australia the bride and groom will have already had two weddings, one legal and one Hindu. In Singapore everyone is required to have the court wedding for legal purposes before their religious ceremony. Personally I think it should work that way everywhere, keeps things clear and separate.

The Good Reverend Roger

#86
February 11, 2012, 12:13:56 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 10, 2012, 10:49:52 PM
This Freedom(TM) sounds intriguing, would you recommend it for savages such as like my people?

Certainly.  I'm all about educating the heathen. 

FreedomTM is all about doing whatever you like, as long as whatever YOU like is the same as what WE like.  You can't have FreedomTM if people run around all unregulated, after all.  That's not safe.  And you can't be FreeTM if you aren't safe, because smudgy people and socialists will come and take your stuff.  And maybe even raise your taxes.  And then the Gay people will convert your children and Obama will close down your church and make you a Muslim.  Furthermore, they'll take your guns and then you can't defend yourself against Those People, who exist only to rape your White daughters.  And then, they'll put an end to NASCAR, and cut off everyone's mullets, which is against Jesus.

Finally, some guy named Bidet will come and take away your toilet paper, like they do in France. 
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Triple Zero

#87
February 11, 2012, 12:16:34 AM
Oh my.

That sounds complicated, but worthwhile. I'll have to see what Geert Wilders thinks, after all, he's the Party For Freedom(TM).
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

The Good Reverend Roger

#88
February 11, 2012, 12:19:32 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 11, 2012, 12:16:34 AM
Oh my.

That sounds complicated, but worthwhile. I'll have to see what Geert Wilders thinks, after all, he's the Party For Freedom(TM).

Well, I'm glad You People have at least made a start on FREEDOM.

http://turtledove.wikia.com/wiki/Freedom_Party
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Triple Zero

#89
February 11, 2012, 12:32:20 AM
:banana:

we're getting better and better at it, too!!
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7
User actions