View Single Post
Old 12-20-2012, 04:33 AM
InsaneMystic InsaneMystic is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 261

Originally Posted by Tonberry View Post
I think I might have some cultural differences here, because I don't understand why you would start with "I am against marriage because" and list a bunch of stuff, and then be for civil unions, but with more rights, which to me is just the same thing.
It's simply that civil unions don't carry any of the historical baggage (women as property, children as a central goal, mix of state and religion, etc.) that marriage does. People speaking out against gay marriage, poly marriage etc. actually have a perfectly valid point to their complaints by weight of history, and religion will always have a say in the matter who gets to marry and who doesn't. (e.g., Catholic theology regards marriage as a holy sacrament, so of course, the Vatican has some authority about who's allowed to marry or not, which secular law cannot ever challenge due to freedom of religion...) Much better, then, to strip all legal meaning, including tax benefits etc., from the term and leave it to religion alone - which IMO includes the option of personal, private, but in no way legally binding spiritual vows - to deal with, keeping secular law completely out of the matter. And if someone isn't not spiritually inclined at all, I don't see why they'd want to insist on calling their 'ship by a religiously charged term like "marriage" anyway.

As for the rights and benefits - in term of children getting ensured to be provided for, and things like last wills/testaments, or terminal illness care when the patient is no longer able to decide for themself, etc., *some* kind of legislation will always be needed to decide who is regarded as "kin/family" in the eyes of the law... so you can't really get a society to work if you get rid of the concept completely.

Giving this necessary legal handle to civil unions alone would work fine, and as it's still a "fresh and shiny" term unclaimed by religion, and without all the historical baggage of marriage, it will be a lot more flexible to adapt for true equal rights for all. ("Civil union" doesn't evoke any pictures of ownership and prescriptive monogamy to me, at all, while "marriage" most definitely does... thus, "poly civil union" seems a natural concept to me*, while I can't help but see "poly marriage" as a contradiction in terms, unless one takes it to mean something like a sultan's harem where one man owns a hundred women instead of owning just one, like a Western husband. )

* Wasn't there one just very recently somewhere in South America? I don't see me ever wanting one, myself, but nonetheless I thought it was awesome, groundbreaking news in terms of progress towards true equality for all forms of relationships. I couldn't see the same thing happening with marriage anytime soon, if ever, as it's a fossilized dead end, in a big part due to its inseparable conflation with traditional codified religion.
Reply With Quote