Could you give me some more information?

So is the idea that a civil union, being contract based, localized to each couple, specific to their needs? Just thinking about how specific some contracts could be based off of the people I've encountered lol. And how do you enforce that? Same way we currently do I suppose with courts and court dates......very heavy on the 'he said she said' side of things. Also, what does that say about how long unions stay together, and the theoretical consequences of broken unions on the rest of the society (if the goal is all of us to head to a floating tin can with limited space, privacy and aired laundry become an issue).

I wonder if Asgardia could make it's involvement in civil unions then more like a partnership constitution? Both parties have to treat and respect each other in general, stipulations for individual couples could still be made in contract form, but Asgardian courts would have a concrete platform to make decisions on (disclaimer: I'm pro restoration so I would hope court based decisions focused on healing vs divide).

Personally, I am in favour of the idea of making a civil union organised by contract. However, I would question if we must limit it to 2 individuals.

I agree. As long as participation in the contract is based on consent, there is no reason to limit the number of people in the contract to two people.

First of all, what do you think is the goal of this civil union (marriage, contract, etc.) at all? Only after the answer we can choose the best form of it (if it will be necessary).

This question is currently attached to religious issues. As a free nation of free thinkers, we can let the marriage issues to the people's faith: what a person believe the marriage is, it's what will be. We can fix laws for couples with children, for example, to determine the responsability of the couple with their children. However, division of goods or pension, for example, only makes sense in a capitalist society, with richness and poverty. Transcending the capitalism, and ensuring more equalitarian society, the definition of "marriage" and the legal issues arising from this definition became more flexible. I do not see the need of contract. The question is if we are spiritually ready to be free of contracts, and if one Asgardian can accept the definition of couple or marriage of another Asgardian.

I completely agree with Italo Henrique. Are we spiritually ready to be free of contracts? What are the purposes behind a contract of civil union?

Before deciding about the question of marriage and civil union, we also must be very clear about what we understand about gender and possibilities of relationships.

Some opinions

-consent is always the most important

-to give consent one must have reached legal age

-multiple partners should be allowed to join in on the same union all together.

-Multiple seperate unions should also be allowed, but partners of exsisting unions will be informed and asked for consent. If they do not consent they can end their union.

-sex, gender identity or sexuality of any of the partners do not affect their right to form a union

-all contracts should include some basic rules, here is one I recomend: -Abuse, physical or psychological harm (consented actions is not considerd abuse, consent should be written and signed by everyone involved to be considerd proof) automatically free the abuseed partner of any and all obligations with in the contract related to the abuser.

I think we go into a wrong decision.

Look, we first have to think:« what is the objective of marriage and civil union?»

Most defenders of civil union says that they want to have the same rights that traditional couples...

Marriage, in a state and legal point of view, is useful for a country because it is the basic structure of the society. Now in Asgardia do we want Family to be the basic structure, or INDIVIDUALS.

Morever, marriage or civil union is based of the need of heritage laws. Understand: «my children will inheriy my money and goods.»

THIS IS THE BASE OF A SOCIETY WHERE SOME CHILDREN BEGINS LIFE WITH MORE ADVANTAGE THAN OTHER, because of their parents.

I would advocate just to NOT FORBID OR RECOGNIZE any union on legal matters. Why should Asgardian state will put himself into recognize or not sentimental union, if there is no need to do so.

LAST ARGUMENT: CIVIL UNION DON'T BRING ANYTHING TO A SOCIETY IN ITSELF, except guarantee heritance rights in some case. Why is it necessary here, except for those who want to impose sn ideological view on marriage?

Marriage and unions of any sort MUST STAY A PRIVATE MATTER, why Asgardia state has to enter in that debate, does it help or obstruct the project in some way?

By: SirCedric on 23 December 2016, 7:04 p.m. Moreover, marriage or civil union is based of the need of heritage laws. Understand: «my children will inherit my money and gods.

Nope, that is one of the reasons, but not THE reason. There are decision-making procedures involved with civil union and/or marriage. Here is just a couple:

If you're a couple and one of you gets injured the other one gets input on how you are treated. Without laws providing this ability decisions about your care my fall to people outside of your relationship. A common incidence involves same-sex couples where laws forbidding same-sex unions allow the decisions of family members to outweigh the persons chosen spouse. This is especially true where families disown people based on their sexual orientation. A person that literally hates you can decide about your health care.

Without legal recognition how do couples, or groups for that matter, purchase property together? This is one of the great powers of being in a legally recognized relationship. The ability to leverage collective buying power by combining incomes. Of course, this may be undone by the creation of a non-currency based transaction system, but the issue currently remains.

children will inherit my ... gods

No and no. Your children should not automatically inherit your god(s). Your children should be free to pick a religion, if they so chose, after reaching the age of consent. One of the greatest poisons of religion is the idea that you have the right to indoctrinate your children in your religion as part of your religious freedom. A principle which completes removes their religious freedom. It's amazing how often religious believers scream about people trying to remove their right to chose their religion while simultaneously screaming for their right to pick another persons religion while they're intellect is immature.

Sorry about "gods"'... I mean "goods" no "gods". I've eaten the o... I'm going to edit the post right now

Sorry about "gods"'... I mean "goods" no "gods". I've eaten the o... I'm going to edit the post right now

To CDNeely

When you says quote: There are decision-making procedures involved with civil union and/or marriage

All the procedures and the example you describe can be easily solved by a legal testament, or a manifested will that can be showed on the ID document (like for example if you want to be organ donor or no. You could designate someone as "in charge"for you if you're yourself unable.

No need of civil marriage or union for that.

Quite agree with Dirk,

In fact the idea is to simplify and digitize something. Why do we have to bring here a debate on marriage and civil union when it brings more problem than solutions, when the solutions is just to give enough individual rights to each citizen. The idea of "unit" is seducing indeed. Doesn't have to do reference to marriage, civil Union or any sentimental engagement in which the state has nothing to do with if it's not the base of his society

I like Little Machas post. I agree with it. As a proponent of liberty but also a Christian, I don't think who a person gets married to is any of my business. As long as its another human/s, it doesn't bother me at all who a person is married to.

I think this discussion is 100% on the right track, and I appreciate the divide having been decided between religion and legal practices. People sign the legal document, but religiously, they can practice whatever kind of wedding they'd like. It allows maximum individual freedom. Love it!