Also, consenting 14 year olds getting married is fucked up, but it shouldn't be illegal. Of course, you can question if 14 year olds are old enough to consent (i have no clue), but age of consent is another topic.

Well I can tell you that its most definetely not an age of consent anywhere. Thats why Warren Jeffs is in fucking prison.

@ILN: The state provides the official way of recognising something universally and fairly across the country in question.

If you remove marriage from the state and let it be defined and recognised freely by communities, all you're doing is saying marriage can be arbitrarily defined and performed.

I don't really understand why you'd see it as better to remove any official recognition of marriage -- it would make more sense if you wanted a singular church body to officiate over marriage, but of course this would be unpopular. But saying that you want any community to define marriage as it wants surely hinders your own view -- because this could actually lead to the further opening up of marriage to various capacities, such as 3-person marriages, group marriages, pre-emptive marriages, etc.

lol, i don't think you understood me

"What were talking about is religion trying to deny gay couples funerary rights, and bereavement"

A religious body can discriminate. If a religious body wants to do that, they can go ahead (i don't support that, i'm just saying before you jump to conclusions lol)

the state cannot. The only reason the state could discriminate against gay couples was because for the longest time marriage was defined between a man and a woman. WHICH IS WHY i'm against the state defining marriage in the first place. The issue would have never even existed.

"The only reason the state could discriminate against gay couples was because for the longest time marriage was defined between a man and a woman. WHICH IS WHY i'm against the state defining marriage in the first place. The issue would have never even existed."

The state has always been involved in defining marriage. What are you talking about? It sounds as though you think the state is a fairly new thing that has intervened in marriage recently, when really marriage can be traced back to Adam and Eve in a garden...

No, i am well aware the state has intervened and defined marriage for very long, i just think that it shouldn't.

It sounds like you have a principled position on marriage akin to complete lawless anarchy where if I wanna marry a sandwich and everyone is okay with that, then so be it, brainbomb just married a sandwich.

So you think that marriage should be completely arbitrary thing.

that seems like an odd position for someone so passionate about how limited 'marriage' should be defined.

Yes, brainbomb's analogy is exactly what I'm getting from your definition as well, ILN. It's a contradictory position.

I suppose you must feel the same about a wide range of issues then, that countries having standing armies for example should be illegal. And that robbery and arson should be legal as well.

Perhaps the state should not be involved in collecting taxes or regulating trade of any kind either.

maybe we could get real cray with it and say the state shouldnt even be a state... it should be called a place.

@brainbomb: Probably not. I get the impression that it's only when the state changes its definition on all of those issues to include gay people that ILN will find the state's ability to equalise to be offensive and above its remit.

"Well I can tell you that its most definetely not an age of consent anywhere. Thats why Warren Jeffs is in fucking prison."
Andorra with judicial consent
Belarus
Bolivia
Colombia
Ecuador with judicial consent
El Salvador with judicial consent
Guatemala
Iran (?) with judicial consent
Mexico with judicial consent
Micronesia
Nauru
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Papua New Guinea with judicial consent
Paraguay with judicial consent
Sao Tome and Principe with judicial consent
Saudi Arabia
Solomon Islands
Sudan
Syria with judicial consent
Tanzania with judicial consent
Trinidad and Tobago for certain groups
United States in certain states with judicial consent
Uruguay
Venezuela
Yemen

I've read that people reacted this way when black people were first included fairly in things by the state.

^I'm with ILN. The benefits of legal marriage should never have been assigned to them by the government. The government shouldn't have its hands in our relationships. You can do whatever the hell you want. If I don't like it, that's great, you do you man. But we don't need the government to tell us this. The only reasons people care are either economic, which as I said shouldn't be in it (and furthermore I believe are accessible outside of marriage. This process should be made easier, ie joint custody of children, assets, etc. as well as heirs/successors, right of attorney, whatever you call making medical decisions, etc.), and from a sense of equality, which should be taken care of if the government abolishes marriage. If you want to give that to six people, go ahead. I would limit this to consenting humans and adults.

That way, if you want to get married in a church, go ahead! If you want to get married by a priest, good for you! If you want to get married by your grandpa in a shed, go ahead. If not, get your benefits and I don't really care.

Im not even sure what country he is talking about either. Marriage in the way he is describing sounds very myopic. Its like hes speaking solely about the United States.

In some countries the state puts you to death for trying to be gay. I feel like were talking to a person who has never left whatever small town midwestern state they are from in America.

@TrPrado: That list of countries reminds me of George Bush II's Coalition of the Willing.

Its just my libertarian philosophy. Although i personally have conservative views on marriage (and many other topics), i don't let my personal views dictate how others should live their lives.

@brainbomb, no, robbery and arson should not be legal

Oh, damn, and I forgot Brunei

So let me ask you this. Lets take this by comparison.

Example A: Ben and Jenny have been married 65 years. Ben dies. He leaves everything to his wife in his will. Funerary costs are high but luckily a smooth legal transition of all monetary deeds goes to his partner and wife. A marriage recognized by the church. Christianity shakes its head yes, this is the system working. Thank you government.

Example B: Ben and Bob are together 65 years. Bob dies of a stroke. Ben is left with no bereavement, no funerary rights, he cant even help settle his partners estate either. heres where it gets messy. They never had kids. And since they are both seniors there is nobody older or next of kin anymore. Ben is shouldered with paying the cost of everything out of pocket and gets nothing. They also arent legally married because well gay people shouldnt be married in the church.
Christianity nods its head yes here too... Fuck Ben, he didnt deserve anything.

Cyrus, you think there are only 2 people in that example who deserve ANYTHING upon death of their partner. and its all exclusively because of heterosexual bias that you think the State is right in administering... yes?

lol brainbomb. I live in Canada, traveled to the USA, Mexico and many countries in Europe, not to mention my background is from Europe...

In a discussion about gay marriage, arson sounds like a vulgar sexual term.

@TrPrado that is a truly horrible list of places lol.

And note, that list is legally capable of being married at age 14. It doesn't even get into sexual consent ages, which is a completely different list.

I'm sorry brainbomb, I have no idea what you are saying.

I say that, jokingly, as a gay man.

By that I mean I am gay -- not in a brainbomb "today I am gay" kind of fictional way.

Brainbomb, it included the USA, lol. Also Andorra is European.

bb: Andorra isn't all bad...

Also, parts of the US have minimum marriage ages all the way at 19 and 21 (looking at you, Nebraska and Mississippi).

Tell THAT to the supporters of Andorra's national football team!