and no, it should not CARE about my love life until i ask if for something

The legal procedure of separating two lives.

It's akin to contract law

It used to be much simpler, men get everything minus what the woman needs to live

You're stumbling across a very important detail

You've tripped across it multiple times in this

Then there was some case which bascially allowed women to be entitled to a portion of the wealth of the man, outside ofwhat they needed

You are not required to get married* (excepting common law,which generally only applies to people presenting as Mr. And Mrs. Anyway)

Absolutely nothing stops you from keeping a girlfriend of 10 years and breaking up whenever.

so then why is marriage even needed?

Why are contracts needed?

why do we need to lump a bunch of different stuff that are not necessarily related under 1 contract?

Because they're not

Unrelated I mean

but they are. who is legally part of my family and can make decisions on my behalf is unrelated to who is necessarily living with me, is unrelated to who it might make sense (in the spirit of the idea) for me to file taxes jointly with and unrelated to who i might have a kid with.

they can all overlap

but they don't always overlap

Who you live with DOES matter when it comes to filing taxes.

And that consent to marriage matters too

Otherwise, I could've been taxed harder when I lived in DC with someone that made around 200,000 a year.

Those taxes would've KILLED me.

Yeah I assume living together is probably the main reason to cofile taxes

Specifically, joint finances

yeah

Marriage blurs and mixes property rights, finances, offers fifth amendment protection to spouses

It's so deeply ingrained,trivializing it to the point grenade seems to want to would be seriously destabilizing.

Any recommendations on that? How is a spouse determined in legal process, in regards to 5th amendment protection?

hmmm, can you remind me how the 5th amendment relates to marriage?

Is it like, evidence found during investigation of your spouse can't be used to accuse you of a crime?

Wait, that's the 4th...

Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy.

thats the 5th

Yeah

4th is unreasonable search and seizures, search warrants and probable cause

A spouse may not be subpoenaed by Court. The spouse is protected by the same 5th Amendment rights as the accused.

A wife is not required to testify against their husband although they may

Ah, okay

It's one of the tenant concepts of marriage, that it's a shared life.

@RyeNorth who said i wanted all the legal options completely gone? i said i didn't want them all lumped together under such a messy piece of crap that does nothing but cause more problems at every turn and tied to a word that has religious connotations. Split it all up into things that need to be applied for and granted separately based off of criteria that make sense for each one.

why should a spouse who only knew the guy for 2 years, married for 1, get 5th amendment protection vs the live in girlfriend of 5 years who hasn't reached common law yet doesn't?

This whole debate has been us saying it should no longer be tied to religious connotations

We got calling ground on that point.

we do

Common Ground asterisk

You would be able to make the legal argument than because of the length of the relationship, the same protection should apply

Could just make it so everyone is allowed to refuse to incriminate someone they know

That seems like a gross overpowering of the Fifth Amendment. Nobody would be able to get tried for anything at that point.

I guess it's a bit much but I disagree that nobody would get tried for anything

Will the religious fundamentalist have a point that marriage was never intended to be a man and a woman, the fact that these systems are ingrained into society the way they are, and the fact that we're moving towards a secular mode of thinking, calls for a secularization of marriage. The problem has never been with the system of marriage and it's legal form, the problem has been with access to those benefits.

wait.

Between that, and the step of marriage being taken to lightly

wut

i thought the religious fundamentalist argued that marriage was intended to be a man and woman....

They do, but i dont think anyone here would

okay, well i agree on the access to those benefits. But i disagree on the all or nothing of some of those benefits.

i.e. A Las Vegas wedding should not end up with more benefits than couple who have lived together for twice the amount of time the other couple has even known each-other.

But you got to widen the 5th Amendment, that would enable a lot of corruption. You'd be able to have employees, officers even, within a company refusing to testify against the CEO for instance on Fifth Amendment grounds

L sorry about the poor grammar by the way, I'm using speech recognition.

how? is their official mailing address the CEO's house?

Somebody mentioned something about not having to testify against somebody you know

Imagine if the mafia were able to follow that.

Many cases are resolved purely on expert testimony that presents evidence rather than witness testimony

Though I admit I didn't fully think idea through

A lot of the problems I see today, come from people making changes for the greater good without thinking about the future.

currently you can refuse unless they subpoena

The 5th amendment protects you from subpoena though

exactly

I can't be subpoenaed and forced to testify in my own case, neither can my spouse.

I have the right to remain silent, are right under the Fifth Amendment, add a spouse maintains that same right.

and if the idea for that is that it is a shared life, which is why a spouse is protected, i think that should apply to anyone who is living a shared life with someone else, regardless of if they applied for that protection.

Lads are you talkimg about that new court ruling ?

We're going full Convention of states in here

not anymore

but its related

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html

I dont know where i stand on this tbh

baker can refuse service to anyone

Thats my gut reaction

Government should just be does not compute about anything marriage

But then you can make shops for certain race only too

easy, do you believe in a business right to refuse business, or in private property rights, or in the right to associate with anyone you choose, or in limiting government power? if the answer to any of those is true, this is not a bad thing

With the same asumption

Marriage should be secularized, and the religious right of marriage should be left to the church

Where I am: People shouldn't give a fuck and everyone that does is a little brainlet, but businesses can refuse to deal with people for any reason.

@zutt that means blacks can make black only stores, or *cough* cinimas *cough* can have girls only nights.

Yes

Exactly

it also means you have a right to your private property, and your labor.

Well i believe there are laws in place against discrimination in service industry no ?

I remember they had to call off women only cinema screening

For law issues in states no ?

did they have to call that off?

i don't recall.

but that would also depend on the state i believe

My perspective is on separation of church and state. The religious Rite of marriage should not be protected by the courts, nor enforced by the courts. The right to the benefits of marriage however, should be.

They did call it off

What about gay marriage

it is not a sustainable thing, they cant have children

Nothing concerning the ceremony of marriage including birthday cakes and pastors should be enforceable by government.

should the govt have a contract with a gay couple?

The paperwork involved is it right

@Ivanfr should the government block them from adopting?

idk

there are lots of kids in foster care

i would think even 2 same sex parents is better than a foster home

I would have to look at the stats on mental health of kids that are adopted by gay couples

plus suicide rates and all that

i doubt they are worse than those of kids in foster care

You guys just have to drag it back to the GQ don't

whats GQ

You

The gay question

Let it be known that I'm actually laughing right now...

idk what you are talking about

@RyeNorth this is why i want to break up the benefits and protections into different pieces with different criteria.

rather than needing a giant list of exceptions and different clauses.

"want to raise a kid? be under the same roof with at least 1 other person, you get these benefits for as long as the kid is under working age. (or legal age, or whatever age we decide is good enough)"

"living together in an environment that is basically no different than a married couple, even if you guys are just friends? Here, get these benefits"

Let it be known, I don't actually think being gay is moral, but it's none of my business what two people do, and valid points have been made for the basic protections. At the same time, most of the incidents such as this that have put the right under a under attack has been an attempt to undermine marriage anyway. And it's not your average same sex couple that does it. I don't think that marriage should be ruined for those who wish to partake in it, nor do I think they should be required to marry two people they disagree with. Secularizing marriage is the best way to preserve liberties without destroying tradition.

in other-words, the government ruined marriage

as they do everything they touch eventually

imagine my shock

You're not entirely wrong

The real problems come from reactionary meddling without foresight

government itself is reactionary meddling.

i think government is just a tool,

The issue lies that the overwhelming majority has no interest in what is being done, not know how, nor care to participate
As long as they FEEL like things are going well

So all you need is a group of people to lie and tell people what they wanna hear
And then you can just control things with peoples blessing

Secularizing would not be a drastic change in text, what revolutionary socially

But revolutionary

Essentially, it disarms the debate without any real significant changes being made

And puts government in its place, that's always good

isnt the US govt secularized already

it is the ppl that are not atheist but there is little to do about that

I mean they vote for "christian" politicians

It is secularized, except when it comes to Old institutions that aren't.

That's where the whole system goes autistic

isnt it in paper 100% secular

The same people arguing separation of church and state incorrectly I might add, or arguing for the state to force the church to do things

what institutions are you talking about

its secular in technicality.

for example, there is no real proof that marriage was only between a man and a woman for only religious reasons. However, it also had no defense for those benefits for being kept between a man and a woman for secular reasons

If church and state are separate than any religious argument against gay marriage must be considered moot

As far as legislation goes

my point is not religious

That means the state has to give ground

I was making the point that perhaps gay relationships are regressive for humanity

I am an atheist

As far as legislation goes marriage laws are designed to offer people an incentive to have children

the only reason would be just the benefits for having kids. and it would then be argued that they would never have a kid to qualify for them anyway

Because without a new generation populating the country the country weakens

exactly

However

Homosexual couples don’t produce children

and I assume they cant raise them very well either

even if they dopt

adopt*

They actually can

Homosexual couples are just as good at being parents as straight couples

I doubt that very much

technically homosexual couples can produce children. its just one parent would have to adopt the child, as it would most likely be mother/father by a surrogate

out side normal adoption

The study that deemed them worse was horseshit because it compared gay parents to intact straight parents which is inherently flawed when gay marriage isn’t legal thus gay households aren’t as stable

It depends on if they're trying to make political statements with their children.

why would gay couples be less stable because they cant marry?

Gay parents did just as well as unmarried straight households

that doesnt make sense to me

Because without the legal contract you are inherently less stable

if they are a good couple that can raise good children what does it matter if the govt lets them marry or not

I see your point but I dont think that is the reason why they perform worse at raising children

If two people are married they have incentive to stay together. Separating has costs.

Marriage is essentially a proclamation that two lives are in essence one.

It's not a new concept

the children are more reason to stay together that marriage is

u cant kill ur kids but u can divorce

And it's not just a Christian concept

Unmarried people do not have these costs, a single bad fight can result in the end of the relationship as there is no major cost preventing one party from just exiting

if they do that then they are inmature

and shouldnt have a kid in the first place

a bad marriage is worse than a good divorce

for the children

marriage made more sense when "until death do us part" meant living until you were 50, and your kid was grown up at like 15.

since 3 kids with the same person would fill up most of that 50 years time frame.

Should children be taken from broken households and put into stewardship by that same logic?

“A bad marriage” which again, gays couldn’t have until a few years ago

tbh I consider homosexuality a mental illness

They couldn’t have the stability of that marriage

Re: same-sex couples producing kids - Didn't they find a way for lesbians to have biological offspring (with each other, that is) through some kind of off-brand cloning tech a while back? It's probably wicked expensive but I'm pretty sure I remember reading about it

oh pls no

It's evil.

2 men is bad but 2 women is worse

All of the lesbian offspring I know of have been through surrogate fathers

well i mean, i don't see why modern science can't find a way to fuck with producing haploid cells.

Where they just insert a sperm donation

to create basically an egg from a dude, or sperm from a female.

I can think of why they shouldn't

although for lesbians, they would only ever produce females

That is true

^

even if the kid has a penis

They wouldn't mind -_-

since guys carry xy, they could, with the right know-how, use the x to produce an egg. And then they would be getting sperm from the other partner which would still have a scatter shot of x and y. But for a lesbian, the sperm would only ever have x (as well as the eggs)

although, you could have a "lesbian" couple if one is trans

that doesn't require any medical breakthroughs

Did you just use sperm and scatter shot in the same explanation?

yes

-_-

I want off.

Daily reminder that you shouldnt bath with your sister

@RyeNorth you are welcome

if they figure out how to manufacture artificial y-chromosomes then two ladies could have a son

true

I dont think you can consider it their son

would be more like a cyborg

the son of science

and lesbianism

or just nab a y from somewhere else and source the rest of the DNA from the mothers

of course, i'm sure some time in the distance future, you can order whatever kind of child you want from whatever partner you want. probably just walk up to a machine, insert your fingers so they can get some DNA, then pops out a fertilized egg you can either go the natural route with, or use the normal way with some kind of artificial womb that will be all the rage.

getting naturally pregnant will be laugthed at

and dangerous

like somethin primitive

you know how fucked up a baby can become going the natural way?

its barbaric!

and harm it does to your body

also women can stop having pregnancy vacations from work

its a win win

I think the main thing preventing male gays from having biological offspring mostly on their own is that neither of them can actually finish it once the zygote is rigged up and ready to go

do you see those naturalist and their big swollen feet? like my god! /s

@Ivanfr in this future, abortion isn't a thing

Moment people are able to choose genes

Moment we're fucked as a species

you'll have fetuses that people didn't want growing in artificial wombs on the wall in the birth clinics

we are fucked as it is

80IQ having 15 children

is it just a stereotype that gay couples are worse parents

I feel like it might not be but idk

also yeah fuck that shit @Ivanfr

Several people are typing,lol

makes me want to vomit

Iq is not an absolute.

i'm pretty sure at the end of the day, its the roles 2 parents take. not some abstract average.

IQ's pretty important

It is,sure.

Ryecast please marry a person with 80IQ

put ur money into it

Iq measures potential

xD

Cosmetic genetic engineering should be illegal
Eradicating genetic diseases on the other hand

Potential even high iq individuals rarely fully live up to

Iq should not be confused as such.

high IQ doesnt assure success but low IQ assures failure

Not neccessarily