Thoughts on Gay Marriage

[Del Tachi]

A message for all of those who subscribe to the "get the gummit out of marriage crowd" -

Marriage works because divorces are messy.

Marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, is not some sort of divine plan for intimate relationships, it was invented by tribal chieftans thousands of years ago because it makes it difficult for people to disassociate themselves from one another.  It encourages people to stick together, to take collective risks and to pool their resources. 

Importantly, marriage is, more or less, permanent.  Even today, with divorces running rampant, the end of a marriage does not signify the cessation of a relationship between two people, only the beginning of a new kind of legalistic limbo that seeks to mimic and maintain the benefits associated with marriage while trying to get rid of its costs. 

[Del Tachi]

A message for all of those who subscribe to the "get the gummit out of marriage crowd" -

Marriage works because divorces are messy.

Marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, is not some sort of divine plan for intimate relationships, it was invented by tribal chieftans thousands of years ago because it makes it difficult for people to disassociate themselves from one another.  It encourages people to stick together, to take collective risks and to pool their resources. 

Importantly, marriage is, more or less, permanent.  Even today, with divorces running rampant, the end of a marriage does not signify the cessation of a relationship between two people, only the beginning of a new kind of legalistic limbo that seeks to mimic and maintain the benefits associated with marriage while trying to get rid of its costs. 

Marriage works when both parties are willing so.

And you only proved my point: there's no need for gummit to regulare or recognise marriage. This should be vested entirely upon society and the couple.

Its not hard to understand: if John and James want to "marry", they can get married and call it marriage. They can make the party, they can go to a church where the "marriage" would be celebrated, and its all done! They are married.

The gummit would only enforce property ownership agreements, which is the only function gummit should have.

No, you missed my point.

The government has a vested interest in promoting marriage because its existance encourages a stable, growth-oriented society.  Without it we'd still be living in the stone ages. 

[Del Tachi]

A message for all of those who subscribe to the "get the gummit out of marriage crowd" -

Marriage works because divorces are messy.

Marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, is not some sort of divine plan for intimate relationships, it was invented by tribal chieftans thousands of years ago because it makes it difficult for people to disassociate themselves from one another.  It encourages people to stick together, to take collective risks and to pool their resources. 

Importantly, marriage is, more or less, permanent.  Even today, with divorces running rampant, the end of a marriage does not signify the cessation of a relationship between two people, only the beginning of a new kind of legalistic limbo that seeks to mimic and maintain the benefits associated with marriage while trying to get rid of its costs. 

Marriage works when both parties are willing so.

And you only proved my point: there's no need for gummit to regulare or recognise marriage. This should be vested entirely upon society and the couple.

Its not hard to understand: if John and James want to "marry", they can get married and call it marriage. They can make the party, they can go to a church where the "marriage" would be celebrated, and its all done! They are married.

The gummit would only enforce property ownership agreements, which is the only function gummit should have.

No, you missed my point.

The government has a vested interest in promoting marriage because its existance encourages a stable, growth-oriented society.  Without it we'd still be living in the stone ages.

You're entirely right about the part in bold. But why does the government have to promote behaviours of any sort? That is up to individuals and the organised society at large to do, not the state. And why does it have to have a gummit finger on it? That is what I really can't understand.

The state likes marriage for the same reason that it likes prison time for violent criminals or for the same reason that it uses its legal system to enforce contracts.

Not because these things protect "people's rights" or whatever libertarian mumbo-jumbo you're  trying to get at, but because institutions like marriage, contract law, or even public education perpetuate the state's relevance.

And you better be damned glad that it does too!  All the luxuries you enjoy today were brought to you because you live in a relatively stable state where the government encourages people to pool resources and take collective risks in a way that benefits society as a whole. 

Marriage is a weapon in the state's arsenal for promoting continued economic growth and societal advancement; why would we want to get rid of that?