DaveNewcastle
Established Member
If you did follow my line of thought, then yes, we'd be in agreement that people who are able to be bound to each other have reasonable grounds to expect to marry (though of course that may not be possible for a variety of reasos such as one of them already being in a marriage or not having the capacity to consent to a marriage).Dave, I get what you're saying, but in that case it would be fairer if it was marriage for all or marriage for none. I can see why people wouldn't want to get married, but they should still be able to.
But as for "it would be fairer if it was marriage for all or marriage for none" then I'm not so sure you are right. I suspect that all of the benefits and duties of being bound by marriage that I mentioned (and others), then alternative binding arrangements may be made (e.g. a Contract to provide care during illness, a Will to transfer assets after death, etc.). These wouldn't involve the same 'package' of rights and duties - but they could do. Is there any specific term of a marriage (a benefit or a duty) that you believe is denied to citizens via other means. I'm trying to find what material disadvantage that you are thinking of that may be "unfair".