Lexi, You posed the question,"Should we get rid of the Marriage Act?"
The proposition has the very opposite meaning to your last post, on 4 April 2013 6:24:53 PM. It assumes we allow free love and no state contract in permanent relationships. Hence the acceptance by some in defacto relationships as agreeing with your question. It does not pose the right of gays to marriage.

.....But this thread is about those that want
to marry and can't.

Lexi, I am assuming you are referring to gay marriage.

To me, a marriage is between a man and a woman, full stop.

Now even if the gays get their way and gain the right to use the word marriage, then that's step one.

Step two is gaining the acknowledgement from the greater community, something I doubt they will ever get, and something that will continue to haunt them, regardless of whether or not THEY consider themselves as married, as The simple, but unacceptable solution, to them, is to find another word, as their quest to be legally married, is just as much a quest for recognition, as it is for their union.

BTW, as for gays getting legally hitched, go ahead as I say, what ever floats your boat, but the marriage word is taken, so get over it.

If the thread is advocating homosexual marriage that should be stated at the outset and any arguments put. Otherwise it is a bit sly with respondent's opinions are always being marked 'wrong' or deficient, as they are being steered into the secondary agenda.

However we are led to understand that the OP disputes State regulation of marriage. If that is the belief of the poster then 'gay' marriage should also not be favoured.

If State regulation of marriage is objected to then there is a host of regulations that also must be questioned, such as the right of the State to require education for children, or even the right to levy taxes. Why have the State at all? But then again, if it is to be anarchy, where is the argument to support?

Aşk sözleri
çok güzel aşk sözleri

http://www.askasozler.com/category/ask-sozleri/

I do not want to divert the thread.
But would not mind putting another view.
If the idea is to change the act so gays have the right to wed, no.
But by all means get a system that lets them have a version of weddings and legal ties.
At some point in time, we all most stop changes that effect majority,s for the good of minority,s.
NO! I am not anti gay union, but lets find away some get rights they do not have, without hurting others.
A furt6her but important lurch away from threads intent.
A day just has to come, that see,s the family law act drop its bias against fathers after a break up.
Even rewarding women who bought about the break up have stopped dads even seeing kids.
Equality under the law is not happening in this country.

I don't see the part where calling a gay union marriage hurts others. Its hardly the case that the hetrosexual community has treated the idea with such care and responsibility that the word still has really profound emotional significance to many.

The whole concept of marriage as a legal structure seems to be a mess.
Its a unenforcable contract that does not seem to add anything of value to the state, at best a public statement of an often not kept intent to form a long term union.

The marriage state of the parents when children are conceived or born bears only amtoken resemblance to the marriage state of the parents as they are raised.

Defacto laws mean that people who have specifically chosen not to marry find themselves with the similar legal benefits or risks if the relationship ends and someone else determines after the fact that it was a defacto relationship.

The principle drawcard for the same sex lobby to want same sex marriage seems to be that it's denied to them, the principle reason for opposing it seems to be to deny it rather than any actual practical outcome.

We have the incredible situation of same sex lobbyists claiming on the one hand that the government should not judge based on gender but should on number, similar arguments used to attack same sex marriage are used by those wanting same sex marriage to oppose pluralistic marriage.

I'd prefer to see the government right out of the relationship business. If they do want to be in it then it should be blind to the gender or number of consenting adults involved and the committments registered should have some meaning with consequences for breaches.

The ideas that the community or individuals somehow gain from registering unenforcable contracts between two adults (of different gender) or that we would all be hurt by similarly registering other unions between consenting adults are emotive nonsence.

R0bert