Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Legalizing gay marriage is the wrong solution for social equality. Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    For the most part I consider the issue of gay marriage to be of relative unimportance. It is a symbolic mile-stone for a movement that has pretty much already arrived. Gay marriage is clearly an issue of great import to TSR however, and it recently occurred to me that the agenda has taken the exact opposite direction it should have.

    The real issue is not of the right to marry. It is one of equality. It should not just be equality for homosexuals but for all. Why should straight people have legal benefits that gay people don't? Why should lovers have legal benefits that platonic mates don't? Why should mates have legal benefits that business associates don't? Why should couples have legal benefits that single people do not enjoy? Marriage should offer zero legal protection or benefit for anyone whatsoever.

    Some religious institutions would claim that marriage is their domain. Fine, so be it. It should not matter if a couple chooses to make a commitment through the Catholic Church or the Rainbow Church, those commitments will only be as valuable as the individuals who make them and their faith in that institution.

    Here is a list of some of the legal protection, privileges, and issues marriage may address; Children, legal status, banking, inheritance, financial support, money, possessions, names, welfare benefits and tax. The most critical marriage issue in my opinion is children. Custody and child support issues are already protected by laws in place. All state benefits in regards to tax and welfare should treat married couples like two individual people, because in the states eyes they are. All other issues can be settled by contracts. Just like any other business partnership, which is exactly what a marriage is legally.

    Under this plan any person or group will be able to be married by any institution that wishes to marry them, and they all will be completely legal under the eyes of the law. Problem solved.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does that include incestual marriage and marriage to people far younger or older without limitations eg. an 11 year old marrying a 60 year old?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    Does that include incestual marriage and marriage to people far younger or older without limitations eg. an 11 year old marrying a 60 year old?
    In regards to sexual conduct we would once again refer to the laws already in place, such as the laws prohibiting pedophilia and statutory rape. A marriage however, would be reduced to the definition of the people involved. A marriage might mean what we traditionally think of in western society or it might mean anything else. The marriage can occur between anyone for any reason. Their conduct however, will be what is subject to the law.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think this is a reasonable idea. Basically it means abolishing the concept of civil/legal marriage.

    Of course the concept of marriage would still exist, and there would be nothing to stop any religious or secular organisation offering wedding services. It would just cease to be a legal status.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    I think this is a reasonable idea. Basically it means abolishing the concept of civil/legal marriage.

    Of course the concept of marriage would still exist, and there would be nothing to stop any religious or secular organisation offering wedding services. It would just cease to be a legal status.
    This. Make marriage a purely personal thing - people can call their personal relationships whatever they want and have whatever ceremony they want.

    I'd also propose keeping civil partnerships, but expanding them to heterosexuals (and polygamous relationships) and making them a purely formal thing, solely existing for the legal and financial benefits.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    I think this is a reasonable idea. Basically it means abolishing the concept of civil/legal marriage.

    Of course the concept of marriage would still exist, and there would be nothing to stop any religious or secular organisation offering wedding services. It would just cease to be a legal status.
    You got it, this is my point exactly. I don't know why I have never really heard it suggested before. It seems to me to be a perfect solution.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    This. Make marriage a purely personal thing - people can call their personal relationships whatever they want and have whatever ceremony they want.

    I'd also propose keeping civil partnerships, but expanding them to heterosexuals (and polygamous relationships) and making them a purely formal thing, solely existing for the legal and financial benefits.
    My argument is more leaning towards the direction that there should be no legal and financial benefits for anyone. Why do couples deserve those benefits over people who choose to stay single?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    My argument is more leaning towards the direction that there should be no legal and financial benefits for anyone. Why do couples deserve those benefits over people who choose to stay single?
    Because when you're sharing everything with another person the way you pay for things can change quite a bit.

    For example, if you have a flatmate and they can't afford to pay their bit of the bills any more, you might be willing to help them out a bit, but there's a point at which they might just have to move out and find somewhere cheaper. If it's your partner, on the other hand, you'll stretch a lot further.
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Completely agree, except for the idea that couples should have no legal benefits. They should, but these should be available to any couple who registers a civil partnership (straight/gay) and should not automatically be awarded upon a couple's "marriage".
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, I completely agree with this. Marriage is an unequal institution by nature and ought to have its legal ramifications abolished. Why shouldn't three people be able to marry each other? What stake does the state have in enforcing monogamy?

    Let marriage be a symbolic statement of people's commitment to each other, and if people wish to apply for legal benefits they may form a contract together. Gay marriage is only a tip-toe in the right direction.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.