Also you're still not flipping the argument correctly in that why should a marriage ceremony have Big Brother as a secondary involuntarily required best man, when seemingly more important religious events such as baptisms or Bar Mitzvah are not intruded upon?
...I'll just quote my previous post here:
IMO, we ought to leave marriage to the church where it belongs.
Although it's true that the post you last replied to wasn't quite making that argument, because that post was only arguing against the idea that the discrimination isn't *really* a problem as long as there's a separate system available with similar benefits. Separate but equal is not equal; we've already gone through that debate in this country...pick one system and stick to it, and the easiest system to stick to is probably to just drop the whole damn idea.
So I think I pretty much agree with you here. Although I will contradict myself slightly to say that there probably is some benefit to getting "government" involved, simply because it simplifies a lot of potential questions later. Same reason that power of attorney does have a reason to exist as a concept, and both are granting a lot of the same rights AIUI. "Divorce" -- or whatever equivalent process -- is probably always going to be messy and complicated if only because "marriage" tends to imply a lot of shared property that you'll have to deal with. There's other contracts to simplify that, but it's nice to have a simple, least common denominator that most people can use without too much extra effort. If you end up arguing this stuff in court later, it's a lot easier for the judge if you've got a signed document rather than having to drag in character witnesses just to prove you were "married". So stop calling it "marriage", but come up with something kinda similar that's available to everyone because it's just a contract without the thousands of years of emotional/cultural ties.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday July 25 2018, @05:48PM
...I'll just quote my previous post here:
Although it's true that the post you last replied to wasn't quite making that argument, because that post was only arguing against the idea that the discrimination isn't *really* a problem as long as there's a separate system available with similar benefits. Separate but equal is not equal; we've already gone through that debate in this country...pick one system and stick to it, and the easiest system to stick to is probably to just drop the whole damn idea.
So I think I pretty much agree with you here. Although I will contradict myself slightly to say that there probably is some benefit to getting "government" involved, simply because it simplifies a lot of potential questions later. Same reason that power of attorney does have a reason to exist as a concept, and both are granting a lot of the same rights AIUI. "Divorce" -- or whatever equivalent process -- is probably always going to be messy and complicated if only because "marriage" tends to imply a lot of shared property that you'll have to deal with. There's other contracts to simplify that, but it's nice to have a simple, least common denominator that most people can use without too much extra effort. If you end up arguing this stuff in court later, it's a lot easier for the judge if you've got a signed document rather than having to drag in character witnesses just to prove you were "married". So stop calling it "marriage", but come up with something kinda similar that's available to everyone because it's just a contract without the thousands of years of emotional/cultural ties.