Should marriage and unions be regulated by goverment?

[Eric7216]

Actually it doesnt I can go get marriage right now and the government has no say :shrug:

Not true. Not if you wanted to marry a relative.

It seems ironic to me that the fundamental reason for government involvement in marriage is largely religious morality. Sex and love is considered so damn special that it is best done with 2 people in a long term relationship. So government gives these people special rights that unmarried don't get. People may try to deny that sex is not necessarily part of marriage but then why can't a brother marry his sister or brother or parent?

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Not true. Not if you wanted to marry a relative.
2.)It seems ironic to me that the fundamental reason for government involvement in marriage is largely religious morality. Sex and love is considered so damn special that it is best done with 2 people in a long term relationship. So government gives these people special rights that unmarried don't get. People may try to deny that sex is not necessarily part of marriage but then why can't a brother marry his sister or brother or parent?

1.) Actually its 100% true, nothing stops me from marrying a relative . . nothing I can do it right now
2.) well since thats factually not true I dont see the ironic part

you might want to go back and re-read what was actually being discussed. Government regulates and protects a LEGAL marriage contract but marriage can be what ever people want it to be.

 

[Eric7216]

1.) Actually its 100% true, nothing stops me from marrying a relative . . nothing I can do it right now
2.) well since thats factually not true I dont see the ironic part

you might want to go back and re-read what was actually being discussed. Government regulates and protects a LEGAL marriage contract but marriage can be what ever people want it to be.

Then Allegheny County needs to update their website.
Cousin Marriages in Pennsylvania:
No. See Pennsylvania Statutes, Title 23, Chapter 13, § 1304, section (e) for more information.

And, fine, if you want to believe that there was some other reason why government got involved in marriage in the first place then I can't help you.

 

[Lursa]

You can believe what you want, but forcing those beliefs on others will not be as easy as winning a single Supreme Court case!

Yes, that's what they said in the South back when the Supreme Court upheld Loving vs Virginia and interracial marriage.

 

[Disputatious71]

Yes, that's what they said in the South back when the Supreme Court upheld Loving vs Virginia and interracial marriage.

Strawman...

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Then Allegheny County needs to update their website.
Cousin Marriages in Pennsylvania:
No. See Pennsylvania Statutes, Title 23, Chapter 13, § 1304, section (e) for more information.

2.) And, fine, if you want to believe that there was some other reason why government got involved in marriage in the first place then I can't help you.

1.) nope no need you are still lost in the conversations. Like I said you need to re-read what was actually said. Also read my post slower, it will help you understand what was ACTUALLY being discussed. Government regulates and protects a LEGAL marriage contract but marriage can be what ever people want it to be.

2.) I dont want your help since its factually wrong.

 

[Lursa]

Strawman...

No, pretty much a parallel. Many people called interracial marriage a sin and an abomination and used scriptures to back up their beliefs.

Here's one statement from a judge at the time:

The same dead enders argued that interracial marriage was against "God's Law." So it pitted the same clash of religious rights (to discriminate) versus civil rights and we know who won that battle.*

Trial Judge*in Loving: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

 

[Disputatious71]

No, pretty much a parallel. Many people called interracial marriage a sin and an abomination and used scriptures to back up their beliefs.

Here's one statement from a judge at the time:

No race is a social construct, sex is a biological creation. Interracial marriage is still a marriage which is between one man and one woman, the only difference is the type of a man or woman. Thus your sophism is a strawman...

 

[AGENT J]

No race is a social construct, sex is a biological creation. Interracial marriage is still a marriage which is between one man and one woman, the only difference is the type of a man or woman. Thus your sophism is a strawman...

not since the foundation of the topic is RIGHTS. Its factually not a strawman at all.

 

[Lursa]

No race is a social construct, sex is a biological creation. Interracial marriage is still a marriage which is between one man and one woman, the only difference is the type of a man or woman. Thus your sophism is a strawman...

? What? Race is a purely biological attribute. Period. As is sexual orientation. Altho one can never have sex and not act on that biological edict (that's the same for gay or straight orientation).

And the only disadvantages/advantages to race or sexual orientation are purely social in construct.

And marriage has been redefined according to social demand many times: interracial, polygamy, and now SSM. In this case, as for Loving vs Virginia, it was also Constitutional, under equal protection.

 

[digsbe]

People should be allowed to enter into joint contracts joining bank accounts, raising children (custody), etc. I think the government should recognize unions with terms set by the participants, not "marriage."

 

[AGENT J]

People should be allowed to enter into joint contracts joining bank accounts, raising children (custody), etc. I think the government should recognize unions with terms set by the participants, not "marriage."

all that stuff already exists, so does a legal contract called marriage and that is not gonna change because theres no logical reason to change it. :shrug:

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

depends who you ask. ask a democrat and everything should be regulated by government. ask a libertarian and nothing should be regulated by government. ask a conservative and they'll direct you to the bill of rights.

 

[Lursa]

depends who you ask. ask a democrat and everything should be regulated by government. ask a libertarian and nothing should be regulated by government. ask a conservative and they'll direct you to the bill of rights.

Very astute.

I'm a Democrat. :doh

 

[Hatuey]

Starting in the 15th and 17th century is not "always", not by a long shot.

Lmfao, in one post I decimated your initial assertion that heavy government regulation of marriage started in the late 19th century but if you'd like to go further than the 15th century, I'm down.

In medieval Europe, marriage was a business transaction and not the bull**** fairy tale you probably believe in. The aristocracy traded their daughters, nieces, etc for cattle, soldiers and pretty much anything that would make them more powerful in whatever way. They also regulated how/who/where those living in their serfdom(s) married. They routinely intervened in who serf women would marry. Not only that, but marriage was regulated in material terms as married women had fewer rights, and general civic responsibilities than their single (and widowed) counterparts.

However, even before that, it was common for local leaders in Europe to officiate and mediate the dowries of each family. Hell, the Romans alone regulated the civic consequences of marriage down to a science. Why? Because marriage in their view existed for the purpose of creating new citizens. They even regulated the aspects of consent. A marriage was only considered valid if both parties fulfilled various legal requirements.

We're now at ancient Rome, do you want to go back further? Or am I to take it that you have nothing other than "nuh-uh"?

 

[roguenuke]

No race is a social construct, sex is a biological creation. Interracial marriage is still a marriage which is between one man and one woman, the only difference is the type of a man or woman. Thus your sophism is a strawman...

Marriage is a social construct. There is no necessity to have one of each sex in a marriage, which is a social construct.

 

[phattonez]

Lmfao, in one post I decimated your initial assertion that heavy government regulation of marriage started in the late 19th century but if you'd like to go further than the 15th century, I'm down.

There's the word: heavy. Marriages were regulated earlier, yes, but these were mostly just registrations that a marriage had occurred. Starting in the 19th century do you see beginning heavy regulation with genetic tests, and even eventually blood tests before marriage was allowed.

So like I said, there was government recognition of marriage starting in the 15th century, but you have millennia before then where there was no government regulation of marriage at all. There's plenty of years of recorded history before the 15th century.

In medieval Europe, marriage was a business transaction and not the bull**** fairy tale you probably believe in. The aristocracy traded their daughters, nieces, etc for cattle, soldiers and pretty much anything that would make them more powerful in whatever way. They also regulated how/who/where those living in their serfdom(s) married. They routinely intervened in who serf women would marry. Not only that, but marriage was regulated in material terms as married women had fewer rights, and general civic responsibilities than their single (and widowed) counterparts.

I'd love to see any evidence for this. Medieval serfs had much more freedom than you recognize.

However, even before that, it was common for local leaders in Europe to officiate and mediate the dowries of each family. Hell, the Romans alone regulated the civic consequences of marriage down to a science. Why? Because marriage in their view existed for the purpose of creating new citizens. They even regulated the aspects of consent. A marriage was only considered valid if both parties fulfilled various legal requirements.

In their view? This is the view of the whole of human history up until recently. That is what marriage is. Only recently have people begun to view it as a contract between two people who like each other.

 

[Dogger807]

Marriage is better off in the domain of government than it would be solely in the hands of religion. Which is what people actually mean when they say government should get out 9f the marriage buisness. If we want fair and equal treatment for all races, sexes, creeds, and persuasions then we most defiantly need to keep government in the marriage buisness.

 

[phattonez]

Marriage is better off in the domain of government than it would be solely in the hands of religion. Which is what people actually mean when they say government should get out 9f the marriage buisness. If we want fair and equal treatment for all races, sexes, creeds, and persuasions then we most defiantly need to keep government in the marriage buisness.

Yes, the government has never abused their powers in marriage.

 

[Hatuey]

There's the word: heavy. Marriages were regulated earlier, yes, but these were mostly just registrations that a marriage had occurred.

I've already explained why the above is entirely wrong. Continuing to claim the opposite is simply an attempt to revise history. Marriage and its effects on property rights, hereditary rights, and even the basic civic rights of individuals were regulated long before the beginning of licenses.

I'd love to see any evidence for this. Medieval serfs had much more freedom than you recognize.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
serfdom | Britannica.com

The essential additional mark of serfdom was the lack of many of the personal liberties that were held by freedmen. Chief among these was the serf’s lack of freedom of movement; he could not permanently leave his holding or his village without his lord’s permission. Neither could the serf marry, change his occupation, or dispose of his property without his lord’s permission. He was bound to his designated plot of land and could be transferred along with that land to a new lord. Serfs were often harshly treated and had little legal redress against the actions of their lords. A serf could become a freedman only through manumission, enfranchisement, or escape.

However, villeins were of a lower status that a freeman because the lord did not permit the villein serf to marry someone outside of the manor, or change homes or donate his property. The only way that a vellein would become free would be to run way to the city or a borough. But this would incur harsh penalties including losing land rights, paying a high price or loss of livelihood. - See more at: Serfs in the Middle Ages | Middle Ages

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110810105825743

An unfree medieval peasant under the control of the lord whose lands he worked. As villeins or servants of a lord they represented the bottom tier of society. They were attached to the land and denied freedom of movement, freedom to marry without permission of their lord, and were obliged to work on their lord's fields, to contribute a proportion of their own produce, to surrender part of their land at death, and to submit to the justice and penalties administered by their lord in the manorial court in the case of wrongdoing. The lord had obligations to his serfs (unlike slaves), most notably to provide military protection and justice

This is seriously commonly known stuff.

In their view? This is the view of the whole of human history up until recently. That is what marriage is. Only recently have people begun to view it as a contract between two people who like each other.

It's funny that you ignored the part where governments were regulating marriage 2000 years ago, so that you could switch over to some non-argument about why people decide to get married. It's a good sign of your desperation to avoid this discussion. It doesn't look like you're trying to avoid the discussion one bit, no sir.

 

[The Mark]

Marriage is better off in the domain of government than it would be solely in the hands of religion. Which is what people actually mean when they say government should get out 9f the marriage buisness. If we want fair and equal treatment for all races, sexes, creeds, and persuasions then we most defiantly need to keep government in the marriage buisness.

"get government out of marriage" would effectively mean "no more tax breaks for married persons".

Since combined finances and tax breaks, etc, are some of the main reasons for a legal contractual marriage.

Frankly, any couple or group of persons can claim they are married under <insert belief system> and it would be perfectly legal.


It's the legal recognition that gay persons wanted, and now have.

 

[phattonez]

I've already explained why the above is entirely wrong. Continuing to claim the opposite is simply an attempt to revise history. Marriage and its effects on property rights, hereditary rights, and even the basic civic rights of individuals were regulated long before the beginning of licenses.

But in terms of deciding who can get married, and whether there are any obstructions to getting married, the state didn't really have a say.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
serfdom | Britannica.com

This tells me absolutely nothing



Serf - Oxford Reference



This is seriously commonly known stuff.

As far as I can tell the lord only required that there be a home for the newly wed couple. That doesn't seem unreasonable, since the lord was responsible for protecting serfs.

Not that I'm really defending serfdom, but to depict it like chattel slavery is disingenuous.

It's funny that you ignored the part where governments were regulating marriage 2000 years ago, so that you could switch over to some non-argument about why people decide to get married. It's a good sign of your desperation to avoid this discussion. It doesn't look like you're trying to avoid the discussion one bit, no sir.

You're showing outside regulation, but regulation of the institution itself? You don't have much evidence of that.

 

[Hatuey]

But in terms of deciding who can get married, and whether there are any obstructions to getting married, the state didn't really have a say.

I've already explained why the above is wrong. If a lord could determine whether a serf could get married, he could easily determine who that serf got married to. How that went over your head is beyond me. What? Do you think if the local lord was particularly fond of some piece of commoner ass, and some low life commoner tried to marry her, he couldn't easily block the marriage? You're being silly.

As far as I can tell the lord only required that there be a home for the newly wed couple. That doesn't seem unreasonable, since the lord was responsible for protecting serfs. Not that I'm really defending serfdom, but to depict it like chattel slavery is disingenuous.

Build a strawman so you can knock it down? Good. It's better than addressing what I'm saying. What you can tell is irrelevant. Lords could and did habitually regulate marriage.

You're showing outside regulation, but regulation of the institution itself? You don't have much evidence of that.

You're splitting hairs. Phattonez, I claimed that marriage has always been regulated by governments. When Protestants entered the picture, governments habitually barred protestants and catholics from marrying. For much of Europe's history, you couldn't even get married as long as your local lord agreed. European governments also regulated who the commoners and even kings could marry (ex: Royal Marriages Act). Before that, the Romans had strict laws defining marriage through social status. However, here you sit continuing to claim that marriage was not being regulated. I'm not sure why, but you keep on charging. Maybe if you split enough hairs, your narrative will become true.

 

[phattonez]

I've already explained why the above is wrong. If a lord could determine whether a serf could get married, he could easily determine who that serf got married to. How that went over your head is beyond me. What? Do you think if the local lord was particularly fond of some piece of commoner ass, and some low life commoner tried to marry her, he couldn't easily block the marriage? You're being silly.

You sure posit a ton of hypotheticals without actually referencing anything.

Build a strawman so you can knock it down? Good. It's better than addressing what I'm saying. What you can tell is irrelevant. Lords could and did habitually regulate marriage.

The extent of that supposed regulation though has not been established. Could they regulate it? Sure, lords had plenty of say over serfs. How often did they regulate it and how tightly? You haven't said.

You're splitting hairs. Phattonez, I claimed that marriage has always been regulated by governments. When Protestants entered the picture, governments habitually barred protestants and catholics from marrying. For much of Europe's history, you couldn't even get married as long as your local lord agreed. European governments also regulated who the commoners and even kings could marry (ex: Royal Marriages Act). Before that, the Romans had strict laws defining marriage through social status. However, here you sit continuing to claim that marriage was not being regulated. I'm not sure why, but you keep on charging. Maybe if you split enough hairs, your narrative will become true.

So you have the Protestant case which is already after the 15th century and now talking about royal marriage which would affect less than 1% of the population. You haven't much evidence here.

 

[Hatuey]

You sure posit a ton of hypotheticals without actually referencing anything.

That's not a hypothetical. It's supported by the evidence I've provided. Lords had a say in who their serf's married just as much as they did on where/when etc.

The extent of that supposed regulation though has not been established. Could they regulate it? Sure, lords had plenty of say over serfs. How often did they regulate it and how tightly? You haven't said.

Move the goalposts a little. If you do it quietly enough, I won't notice, lol. What regularity they used it with is irrelevant. The power to regulate it is what I discussed. They did in fact have it. That they used it is supported by historical accounts. :shrug:

So you have the Protestant case which is already after the 15th century and now talking about royal marriage which would affect less than 1% of the population. You haven't much evidence here.

Phattonez, you continue to ignore that which doesn't fit your narrative for obvious reasons. I've cited various examples, many of which also applied to interfaith marriages. I've also showed examples from governments predating the 2nd millennium. You seem to want to focus on little bits of information while ignoring the larger point - that point being that governments have ALWAYS regulated marriage and what has changed is the religiosity of such governments.