Your beliefs on marrage.

[Parasite]

There was a time when marrige served as a partnership for raising children, and helped strengthen social bonds, and ultimatly ensured a strong society, but those days are gone. Its a tax write-off and I dont care who benifits from it. The government should see it as nothing more than a civil union, in fact they have no right to see it as anything else. Let the church bless any union they deem appropriate as "marriage".

The "relationship between a man and a woman" is a religious implication, and thus needs to be ignored by the government. IMO, adults should be allowed to engage in any relationship(s) they wish, as long as noone outside those relationships are affected in an unlawful manner. Meaning, you being "disgusted" by thier relations doesnt count. Adults should have the right to engage in bigomy, poligamy, homosexual monogomy, traditional marriage or any other type of relationship. Hell 2 straight males should be able to share tax, medical and financial benifits if they want. It isnt a matter of love or sex to the government as it is, the only thing the government has to offer ANY partnership is tax and financial benifits.

The government has no right to deny adults any type of adult relationship(s) imo. However that doesnt mean the government should extend benifits to cover all 30 wives in poligamist relationships, nor should they recognize the "second" partner in a bigomist relationship. Likewise, no private institution should be forced to honor more "partners" than they deem economically sound. No church should be forced to recognize any relationships they deem inapropriate, etc. How these institutuions choose to honor these relationships would be left to thier discretion. For tax, medical and financial reasons, 1 "partner" should suffice, and is all anyone can reasonably expect to be economical. But that "partnership" should be extended to any 2 people who wish to engage in it.

As for marriage as an act of love and devotion, the way I see it, love is an abnormality, and if 2 people actualy find it...who cares where the keys fit.

 

[bliink]

Why was he banned? He didn't do anything wrong.

Twas locust.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

i'm not agaist homosexuality, but am i the only one here who is a little skeptical about raising kids in homosexual union?

 

[Dr. Freeman]

i'm not agaist homosexuality, but am i the only one here who is a little skeptical about raising kids in homosexual union?

well if u read my post, then u would understand that i have similar concerns for the child mainly.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Civil Unions are synonymous with marriages in every way though. So they really are interchangeable.

That's the point for legalness.

Fact is that the name 'civil union' sucks though.

Everyone either does want to get married or doesn't want to get married. No-one has ever complained about the word 'marriage' being applied to thier legal union, to my knowledge.

No no. We're not changing it because people didn't want to be married. It's changed because 'marriage' has always been a religious value/institution. The reason (most, some just hate gays) religious people are against gay marriages is because it goes against the sanctity of marriage. By making civil unions, gays will be legally joined and everyone is satisfied.

So the introduction of the 'civil union' only really serves as a convenient way to distinguish between specific types of spiritual marriage and legal marriage.
The confusion between the two terms has sparked many wrongheaded arguments for those who strictly oppose gay marriage, but otherwise the use of marriage as a legal term isn't really a problem.
People just prefer being legally married, as opposed to legally 'unioned'.

The simple solution is to call them Civil Marriages, I think.

You may as well not rename it then. The point was to get rid of the word marriage from the legalness, that way gays could be joined legally without religious people feeling the sanctity of marriage was defiled.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

That being said, Straight, gay and polygamous marriages are the only types of marriage (that I know of) that I support.
Some people like to say "Oh but if we let gays marry next it will be people marrying animals and children!!"
Aside from insultingly equating homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia, this is simply nonsensical scaremongering.
Neither children nor animals have the legal ability to consent, simply because there is no way to ascertain that they haven't been coached, coerced, trained or otherwise manipulated into doing so.
Thus, the only restriction on marriage should be that it is between consenting adults. As long as this logical system is maintained, the "slippery slope" argument is a fallacy.

If you believe that people should be free to have any sexual orientation of their choice, then why should we be discriminating between hetero, homo, pedophilic, necrophilic or bestial sexual preferences?

You mentioned that there is no way to ascertain that the 'victim' of the marriage, has been coached, coerced, trained, or otherwise manipulated into doing so. But can't you argue that, in the same way you can manipulate/coach/coerce/etc a child or an animal, you can also do the same to an adult?
What I dont understand is where this conception that a person suddenly becomes prone to manipulations and achieves a transendental state of enlightenment about the right choices in life as soon as he or she has his or her 18th birthday.
Couldnt you consider a person in a same sex marriage to have been, manipulated, coached or even coerced to believe what they do? (I acknowledge the same could be argued for a hetero marriage).

This term you created...'civil marriage' is meaningless. You can't have a civil marrage, because the point of the term a 'civil union' is to distinguish between marriages and the legaly defined institution of marraige. According to what you said, legally defined marraiges are based predominatly on financial factors, thus based on this legal definition, gay, polygamious, necrophillic, pedophillic or what ever the hell turns you on, can be justified so long as one of the partners can provide finacially. This is why civil union is less meaningful than marraige. Because under civil union, it doesnt matter who or what or why you are together as long as one of the partners can provide.

Marriage is more than that. Marriage has to be based on factors that are spiritual, because the term implies one that has value. It's not just the physical act of 'living together'. It MEANS something to be married.

That meaning is what we should be debating about here. In my opinon, as someone in a later post stated, I believe that the purpose of institution of marriage should fundementally be based on the preservation and protection of the bearers of our future (ie, our children). I believe that you shouldnt insult the institution of marriage if you are not willing to have children.
Furthermore, this idea of marrying for 'love'. For goodness sake, most people don't even know what love is. This is why divorce rates are so goddamn high in america. Because they think they are in love when the other persons makes the feel important and happy. Thats not love, thats a from of external self affirmation. As soon as the other person stops affirming the person, theres no reason left to stay in the relationship. Because the relationship was based on selfishness. Being in love with someone is one of the most difficult things you will ever do in life. If its not difficult than its not love.
If you 'love' someone, than you do it selflessly, like parents do for a child. Children are one of the most expensive things a couple can have, not mention all the whining and sooking. Logically, for a couple to have children, is ridiculous. It doesn't benefit them personally in any material way. Yet parents still continue to have children and bear them. Why? two reasons. Either they were too dumb to realise that having a child was a stupid thing to do, or because they didnt bring the child into the world based on some fallatic principle such as external self affirmation.

 

[Ikerous]

Are you saying infertile couples 'insult the institution of marriage'? Or perhaps because they're willing but incapable they're excluded...
Either way.. w00t for digging up old threads =p

Although i must say, being willing to argue against gay marriage on this forum takes balls. (Considering you can't win...)

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

You have a very good point there ikerous. I would say that because they would be willing to have children, it would be alright.

 

[ríomhaire]

I believe that you shouldnt insult the institution of marriage if you are not willing to have children.

What about all the staight couples who don't have children? What about the gays who have?

Furthermore, this idea of marrying for 'love'. For goodness sake, most people don't even know what love is. This is why divorce rates are so goddamn high in america. Because they think they are in love when the other persons makes the feel important and happy. Thats not love, thats a from of external self affirmation. As soon as the other person stops affirming the person, theres no reason left to stay in the relationship. Because the relationship was based on selfishness. Being in love with someone is one of the most difficult things you will ever do in life. If its not difficult than its not love.
If you 'love' someone, than you do it selflessly, like parents do for a child. Children are one of the most expensive things a couple can have, not mention all the whining and sooking. Logically, for a couple to have children, is ridiculous. It doesn't benefit them personally in any material way. Yet parents still continue to have children and bear them. Why? two reasons. Either they were too dumb to realise that having a child was a stupid thing to do, or because they didnt bring the child into the world based on some fallatic principle such as external self affirmation.

You're an asshole.

 

[el Chi]

Personally I see little point in marriage beyond the legal benefits, and that's so functional it's repellent.
I'm not saying I wish to die a bachelor - oh God no - if I'm in love with someone and want to be with them for the rest of my life, I don't see the need for a certificate to make that "official".
I'm up for throwing a big f*ck-off party in honour of a relationship, but as for an actual ceremony - meh.
If I'm with someone who really wants to get married, then I'd probably do it in a heartbeat, but off my own back... Perhaps my views will change when I'm older.

The thing is, there shouldn't be such an emphasis put on marriage as the ultimate display or bond of love. Society expects that we get married, and this expectation is so ingrained within us that we feel we ought to as well. I think it's this that leads to higher divorce rates. We feel we are supposed to get married, we get married (often too quickly, because of such expectations), maybe we have kids (again, another of societies expectations that won't necessarily work for every relationship), we discover that marriage was not what we wanted for our lives or from the relationship and things can end in divorce, messily in some cases.
Or even worse, the couple stays together out of a sense of duty or whatever, living in misery and contempt.

Don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying marriage is pointless. For many couples it works out beautifully, which is something to celebrate in. I just feel that marriage is not always the way forward, yet we are told that it's almost a logical conclusion.

 

[AzzMan]

Marriage? blah, monogamy FTL.

 

[Llama]

I think marriage is a lifetime bond between two people that love each other and will continue to love each other for the rest of their lives

 

[gick]

Meh, whatever floats your boat really. I do think its unfair that married couples get more legal rights and such though.

 

[brink's]

i justs fine with the marrage as long as them gays don't be in it.

 

[kirovman]

Was there any point in ressurecting this?
I don't see the point in arguing with what someone said about 10 months ago.

 

[el Chi]

I think marriage is a lifetime bond between two people that love each other and will continue to love each other for the rest of their lives

That's sweet. Rather naive, but asweet nonetheless.
God, I'm a miserable bastard.

i justs fine with the marrage as long as them gays don't be in it.

You, sir, are a moron.

 

[CptStern]

i justs fine with the marrage as long as them gays don't be in it.

dontcha worries cuz they be not doing thats around wheres you be

 

[brink's]

I was obviously joking.........maybe a will make that more clear.

 

[el Chi]

I was obviously joking.........maybe a will make that more clear.

I'm so very sorry!
It's just because there were people before with those views and I was cross.
Sorry - a shouldn't be necessary. I'm just a pillock.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Personally I see little point in marriage beyond the legal benefits, and that's so functional it's repellent.
I'm not saying I wish to die a bachelor - oh God no - if I'm in love with someone and want to be with them for the rest of my life,

is it that you want to be with them for the rest of your life? or that you want to live with the way he makes you feel for the rest of your life? There is a huge difference.

I don't see the need for a certificate to make that "official".
I'm up for throwing a big f*ck-off party in honour of a relationship, but as for an actual ceremony - meh.
If I'm with someone who really wants to get married, then I'd probably do it in a heartbeat, but off my own back... Perhaps my views will change when I'm older.

The thing is, there shouldn't be such an emphasis put on marriage as the ultimate display or bond of love. Society expects that we get married, and this expectation is so ingrained within us that we feel we ought to as well. I think it's this that leads to higher divorce rates. We feel we are supposed to get married, we get married (often too quickly, because of such expectations), maybe we have kids (again, another of societies expectations that won't necessarily work for every relationship), we discover that marriage was not what we wanted for our lives or from the relationship and things can end in divorce, messily in some cases. Or even worse, the couple stays together out of a sense of duty or whatever, living in misery and contempt.

See this is the issue. What value does your relationship have if the person you are with isn't willing to love you and take care of you no matter what happens through out the course of time? Relationships aren't about happiness. They are about living together and taking care of each other no matter how you may feel about on another. Thats what Love is. The only reason people rush into marriages is because they are to dumb to realise that what they are feeling isn't love. Quite frankly, if you want a liberal relationship, that you can leave anytime you want, then the term "civic union" is one that is more appropriate.
You said that a married couple "discovers" that they werent meant to be together. You see, the thing is, when you decide to get married, you make the decision that you are to be together. Marriages are never 'meant' to happen. Marriages are made to happen by the efforts of the couple.

You're an asshole

The only reason Im an asshole is because you're a mentally incapacitated.

What about all the staight couples who don't have children? What about the gays who have?

As I've implied before, couples who get married for themselves, instead of to have a family, don't really love each other. There relationship is more reminisenct of a buisness exchange. You make me feel good, I make you feel good, thats why we are together. This goes for couples of both sexual orientation. Thats why this relationship should be called a civic union, NOT a marriage.

 

[Raeven0]

My friend's said, and I can agree, that marriage between any people and any number of people should be totally unregulated by government--in the latter case, as long as all involved parties consent. [edit: it occurs to me that this doesn't take into account age; but then, to define that, you have to get a proper age of consent, which is a different topic entirely.]

As for the kids, I would rather have had two Dads who loved each other than a father and mother who each would've slit the other's throat without a second thought. Just sayin'.

 

[OvA]

I married Rosy Palm

 

[Ikerous]

As I've implied before, couples who get married for themselves, instead of to have a family, don't really love each other. There relationship is more reminisenct of a buisness exchange. You make me feel good, I make you feel good, thats why we are together.

Are you joking... or insane... :|

Wut he said \/

 

[NotATool]

As I've implied before, couples who get married for themselves, instead of to have a family, don't really love each other. There relationship is more reminisenct of a buisness exchange. You make me feel good, I make you feel good, thats why we are together. This goes for couples of both sexual orientation. Thats why this relationship should be called a civic union, NOT a marriage.

A man and a woman who love each other so dearly they are ready to vow their fidelity and love through an official ceremony are not performing a business exchange, whether they want a family or not.

If you believe that people should be free to have any sexual orientation of their choice, then why should we be discriminating between hetero, homo, pedophilic, necrophilic or bestial sexual preferences?

Pedophilia is harmful to chidlrend, necrophilia is shamefully direspecting someone's memory, and bestiality hurts animals. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone.

 

[15357]

Marriage should be state-administered.




No, I am not insane.






Yes, I am joking.

Marriage, as long as it is moral and also abides by the regional laws, is good.

I am against Polygamy because:

#1. Modern Society has a taboo against it, making it immoral, since morality is nothing but a series of norms in a society.

#2. Stop taking all the women!

 

[Sulkdodds]

You said that a married couple "discovers" that they werent meant to be together. You see, the thing is, when you decide to get married, you make the decision that you are to be together. Marriages are never 'meant' to happen. Marriages are made to happen by the efforts of the couple.

You seem to think true love must be permanent for it to be true.
This isn't necessarily correct.

 

[Shasta]

Marrage??????

If you can't spell it, don't try to sell it. Or buy into it. Just stick to sex partners for now- it's easier to spell.

 

[CptStern]

everyone views here on marriage are invalid ..wait till you reach about the age of 30, your views will change ...no one wants to be alone

 

[The Monkey]

everyone views here on marriage are invalid ..wait till you reach about the age of 30, your views will change ...no one wants to be alone

Why do you have to marry someone in order to live with him/her?

 

[CptStern]

I didnt say that ..in fact I lived with my wife for more than 5 years before we were married

 

[Llama]

That's sweet. Rather naive, but asweet nonetheless.
God, I'm a miserable bastard.

^^ Ignorance is bliss

 

[K e r b e r o s]

To the thread author:

What kind of marriage are we talking about? The normal 'straight marriage', or 'Same Sex Marriage?'

In terms of values, I think a marriage is about love and devotion. It's also a morbidly cute excuse to exercise our instinctual bearings to procreate.

As for Gay Marriage, same value, only sense they can't have kids, I believe they should be able to adopt.

 

[madog]

I would have a lot to say about this but I must keep my tongue on a leash. I have different views based on what some say are "pessimistic" ideas. I will not say anymore than that though, as I promised. So ya... marriage, sex, and all that good stuff is the best! Straight marriages seem to have a better emotional bond in them since the feminine and masculine qualities compliment each other.

 

[Adabiviak]

Marriage should be an extension of an already established relationship.

 

[Nat Turner]

Get to know a woman for 3 or so years, and that's when you marry her. Otherwise your chances of divorce are high.

 

[FieryGoose]

I think it's pretty obvious who is supposed to marry who, i mean the guys got the babymaker and the girls got the egg... I don't understand how anyone can justify same-sex marrages, its just wrong and immoral. Just thinking about gay marrage's and their relationship makes me throw up in my mouth. Gays should not be allowed to be married, this sort of thing is much different than say, womens rights, black rights, this has been intollerable since the beggining of time. Anyways it appears that Gays are constantly trying to push their rights to the limits, why can't they just settle with being able to have a relationship without being shot?:flame:

Kind of off topic but does anyone actually know for sure what makes gay people gay? But am i mostly correct by saying something is mentally wrong with them?

 

[Nat Turner]

I think it's pretty obvious who is supposed to marry who, i mean the guys got the babymaker and the girls got the egg... I don't understand how anyone can justify same-sex marrages, its just wrong and immoral. Just thinking about gay marrage's and their relationship makes me throw up in my mouth. Gays should not be allowed to be married, this sort of thing is much different than say, womens rights, black rights, this has been intollerable since the beggining of time. Anyways it appears that Gays are constantly trying to push their rights to the limits, why can't they just settle with being able to have a relationship without being shot?:flame:

Kind of off topic but does anyone actually know for sure what makes gay people gay? But am i mostly correct by saying something is mentally wrong with them?

If people want to marry the same gender, let them. Let them make their own choices.

There's nothing mentally wrong with them, just different. Everyone in the medical field pretty much agrees that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

 

[Adabiviak]

Who cares if two people of the same sex marry? If one's definition of marriage is for the production of children, same sex marriage may pose problems, but I think this is the minority. If one's definition of marriage is a lifelong commitment to a loved one, more power to 'em. Seriously, other than triggering a 'phobe's gag reflex and irritating right-wing conservatives 'values', what's the issue?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Neither children nor animals have the legal ability to consent [...] Thus, the only restriction on marriage should be that it is between consenting adults. As long as this logical system is maintained, the "slippery slope" argument is a fallacy.

If you believe that people should be free to have any sexual orientation of their choice, then why should we be discriminating between hetero, homo, pedophilic, necrophilic or bestial sexual preferences?

Read what you quoted and then read what you wrote.

If, after reading, you don't feel intensely stupid, you are reading it wrong and should try again.

Relationships aren't about happiness.

Hahaha, awesome.
I'm glad you'll settle for just the life out of life, liberty and happiness.
That should be good practice, because something tells me you'll be settling for a lot of things - if you get my drift.

 

[Steve]

I think marriage should be about two people wanting to share their lives with one another. Whether or not they're of the same sex or not is their business.