The Pursuit of Happiness...

[benji]

Here's a question, why should there be a right to marriage? What need is there for a state recognition of it? Or a need for marriage as a state institution?

If it is religious tradition, why not keep it one? Why should the state assume the position of god?

Why not simply change benefits given to a spouse to refer to one cohabitating adult?

[el badman]

Everyone should be able to have a legal binding relationship with their life partner regardless of the religion they practice, or their sexual preference, whether it is actually called a marriage or not.

Here's a question, why should there be a right to marriage? What need is there for a state recognition of it? Or a need for marriage as a state institution?

Marriage changes quite a few things in the eyes of the law: alien status, taxes, children status, credit,...Way more important for me than some bullshit higher authority that's only used when it's convenient.

[BigKaboom2]

So marriage should be a state institution so that people can game the system and pay less taxes?

[el badman]

So marriage should be a state institution so that people can game the system and pay less taxes?

Not what I wrote. In response to benji's post, I just implied that, whether you do it at the city hall or by the church, it does alter many things that will modify your status anyway, hence there's nothing wrong with considering marriage in a non-religious way.

[BigKaboom2]

But if it wasn't considered in a non-religious way by the state, it wouldn't alter your status in any way - which makes sense to me as I see no reason for the government to analyze a relationship you're in and use it to determine special privileges that you should be entitled to.

[el badman]

But if it wasn't considered in a non-religious way by the state, it wouldn't alter your status in any way - which makes sense to me as I see no reason for the government to analyze a relationship you're in and use it to determine special privileges that you should be entitled to.

Good point.
But since the state does intervene anyway, and it's probably like that in any country, I personally don't see any shame in considering getting married outside of the religious context.
I do agree that ideally, it should not be this way though.

[benji]

Which was my question. The answer to my questioning could not be "that's the way it is." As that is not valid justification to support the thesis that it should be a state institution. I was more than aware of the financial benefits, thus why I suggested an optional method of delivering benefits to "spouses" as people clearly would still want to do that.

I was not questioning whether or not to destroy it as a social and cultural institution as those who believe there is no value, I think there is value in marriage as an institution, I just was wondering why it is necessary for the state to be the nucleus of that moral code.

[bigh0rt]

"The grand essentials of happiness are: something to do, something to love, and something to hope for."
-- Allan K. Chalmers

That pretty much covers the bases for me. I can't be stagnant -- any time I've been in between jobs I've noticed a dip in happiness; same with any time I've found myself spending stretches or extensive periods of just down time at my apartment or whatever. I find I am much happier waking up early for work, going immediately to the gym, cooking myself dinner, etc. and generally filling my day. Something (can be someone) to love -- a passion, something that you feel very deeply for on some level (and there are many). I have many, including soccer, my wonderful family, friends, freedom, and women who have come in and out of my life at various times. Something to hope for falls under goals, essentially, for me -- it's my outlook on my future, which looks bright now. Concrete goals that are attainable and can be seen getting closer as steps are taken give one the sense of satisfaction, which can keep you going through almost anything.