Message from @aidanwr for now
Discord ID: 453257431925915658
Im not really in favor of that
not all churches were against it
and it would also not stop you from calling yourself married
You realize sometimes its men who divorce women right ?
the government, nor the church, nor anyone outside you and your partner, should get to make the call if you are married
Id rather not hand over any more power to religious organizations than absolutely necessary
Marriage was primarily a religious ceremony until like 1515 or so
what power would they have? @Blackhawk342
The government stole the idea
As youve been going on at length grenade, the power to marry people
last i checked, the church could not tell i couldn't call my gf my wife and say we are married.
only the government can
more than one religion has their own versions of marraige
But the option you put forward was that you can declare yourself married or not from year to year.
So now grenade, if you go back up through the chat and read you will find that aidanwr has proposed giving that power back to the church
Simply put, that's not something I can get behind.
Yeah Aidan is with me in that
@Blackhawk342 not the legal power, if you look back
don't know how it works for you guys, but where i live getting married by a religious organization has no legal meaning
Between the national socialists and the weebs
Marriage only moved under state juristiction because Henry VIII wanted to leave his wife for someone else and the Catholic church wouldn't grant a divorce
@RyeNorth abstract the legal benefits from the word, as there are too many unrelated benefits clumped together under there.
He literally made his own church so he could get a divorce and made himself its head yea
Yeah by "give marriage back to the church" I mean dissociate the word from the legal benefits and move said benefits onto a different word
Exactly that
Swallow that red pill
there is two pieces here: 1) the concept of devoting ones life to someone until the end of of your time here on earth 2) and a host of legal benefits that should not have to be attached to a the "until death do us part" aspect, and have nothing to do with the concept of devoting ones life to another.
It's the best approach I can see for simultaneously maintaining religious *and* LGBT liberties
and when both are combined, it causes a rats nest of bullshit that destroys the reason for either piece existing.
Do you think the government,in it's duties,should include essential tabloid details of everyone's love lifes?
I really dont want the government to know who im in love with no
also @RyeNorth outside perhaps mandated waiting periods, there really is nothing stopping someone from getting married then divorced, then remarried year after year. So your previous point about declaring yourself married or not year after year is already a reality
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.