Your beliefs on marrage.

ríomhaire

ríomhaire

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
20,876
Reaction score
435
No debate, just state your beliefs.
I think marrage should be mainly about love, I see no nead in the 50/50 split of proberties thing. Any person can marry anyome else as long as they are in love with eachother. I don't mind polygamy as long as all parties are willing to accept it and that the man loves all the women/the woman loves all the men and they all don't mind. Marrage should not be a privilage, it should be a right.
 
I agree totally.

Oh and on polygamy - you might want to add 'and as long as all the men love the man or the woman loves all the women.' :p
 
Sulkdodds said:
I agree totally.

Oh and on polygamy - you might want to add 'and as long as all the men love the man or the woman loves all the women.' :p
Click to expand...
Good point, but I'm too lazy.
 
marriage is a right for everyone ...you dont debate human rights ..it's just a given

marriage IS a right because most constitutional governments have provisions that say something to the effect that "no law shall be made to discriminate based sex, race, creed" ...sex meaning gender but also sexual orientation
 
My belief about marrage is that it should only be between people that are truly dedicated to eachother and not a heat of the moment kind of thing. Also I think it should be only between compatable genders, namely a man and a woman. there is usually a responsibility for hetrosexual couples to stay together due to children, but with same sex couples there are usually no children and thus no responsibility to stay together.
 
Although it could be argued, Dude, that the purpose of marriage is not to create a family but to show dedication between a couple. If two people love eachother enough, they feel that getting married is the next step in their relationship. Thus, gays should be able to marry (but that's a debate for another thread...several other threads in fact).
 
Sulkdodds said:
Although it could be argued, Dude, that the purpose of marriage is not to create a family but to show dedication between a couple. If two people love eachother enough, they feel that getting married is the next step in their relationship. Thus, gays should be able to marry (but that's a debate for another thread...several other threads in fact).
Click to expand...
thanks for setting me straight, but i still hold this belief.
 
you didnt just sign up just to participate in this thread did you?
 
CptStern said:
you didnt just sign up just to participate in this thread did you?
Click to expand...
No, I signed up so I could be an active member of the halflife2.net community.:sniper:
 
I don't agree with polygamy, but I support gay marriage fully. It's between two people who love each other enough to commit to a long term partnership, financially, emotionally and in terms of family too. I don't like the current level of divorce in western society, and I think people need to think more before they ever go through with marriage.
 
In all honesty i believe marraige is a waste of time, most marraiges i know have ended up in divorce, but hey thats my opinion and i am entitled to it :p lol out of curiosity why is this in politics ?
 
^^
Agreed with to a degree. Aside from the material benefits, I don't see much of a purpose in marriage. I don't think a serious relationship necessitates one. Although I guess I can understand how people appreciate what it means in most cultures. Devotion, love, yadda yadda.

My personal views aside, I think marriage is a right that should be available to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. As for polygamy, I'm okay with it so long as all parties involved are willing.
 
Sorry can someone fill me in here (might be sounding a bit retarded i apologise if i am) but what is polygamy ??
 
Polygamy is having multiple wives and/or husbands.

Personally, I can't think of any reason why marriage is regulated to the degree that it is. It's basically a religious belief.

You don't see any government laws telling you how to follow any other aspect of a scripture, yet marriage is so tightly defined.
The only reason why the government should be involved is in the realm of their benefit payments to married couples.
As long as the couples aren't breaking any REAL laws, or exploiting the financial system, there is no problem with polygamy/gay marriage/etc.

So really, banning any form of marriage is plain illogical.
 
Kangy said:
I don't agree with polygamy, but I support gay marriage fully. It's between two people who love each other enough to commit to a long term partnership, financially, emotionally and in terms of family too. I don't like the current level of divorce in western society, and I think people need to think more before they ever go through with marriage.
Click to expand...

That's how I feel. I believe that if two people are truly in love, they should get married, whether straight or homosexual. I believe that anyone should be able to marry anyone else, but I don't agree with having more than one spouse.
I also don't like the divorce rate in this country (I believe it's 60% in CA). I think people really need to understand what they're getting into, and be absolutely committed to the person they're with.
 
I don't think high divorce rates are a completely bad thing.
Sure, they can get messy, but I'd prefer a divorce over a lifetime of living with someone I've grown to dislike.
 
Divorce just proves that the couple was too hasty in making decisions. They obviously based their choice on lust/sexual desire and not real love. Love is seperating lust and being able to put up with the actual person, not just the hot chick you come home to every night, have her cook dinner, then bang her (on the dinner table to boot :p). Then don't get married if that's how you're life is. Just live together until you get bored of each other and split. Divorce shouldn't happen unless the couple absolutely hates each other - then how were they a couple in the first place?

I'm definitely with gay marriage. I don't care what the Pope in the Vatican says (I'm Catholic, if you didn't catch that), because I have no problems with gay marriage - gay or lesbian.

I'm against polygamy though. Only monogamy.
 
While I do believe that marriage should be between a man and woman, I think that gay marriage should be legal. This doesn't make me change my mind about how it's disgusting.
 
I believe marriage is when a man and a woman become one. It's a promise between God and them. I think they should have a friendship love, a loyalty love and a passion love for a healthy marriage. When someone has an affair I think they might be trying to fill a void. They still have a commitment to their partner yet they start another relationship with another and without any real meaning. If break your loyalty then how will you know that you can keep it. While having sex with your parnter is great, lust is about sexual desire and not about showing your love.
I don't believe marriage between the same sex is right. It doesn't work like God intended marriage to be. It's perverted.

Then there is the legal side of marriage...
 
God really has nothing to do with marriage imo. Religion yes, but God no.

In the end marriage is about love and commitment. Religion adds rules to it, then on top of that the state adds rules to it. The only thing that will stay true with time is the love and commitment required for a marriage to survive.
 
That one dude said:
No, I signed up so I could be an active member of the halflife2.net community.:sniper:
Click to expand...

Too bad you're banned.
 
MjM said:
God really has nothing to do with marriage imo. Religion yes, but God no.
Click to expand...
you don't know that

MjM said:
In the end marriage is about love and commitment. Religion adds rules to it, then on top of that the state adds rules to it. The only thing that will stay true with time is the love and commitment required for a marriage to survive.
Click to expand...
marriage is two people tie their lives together in sake of love and trust
gay people love and trust too, however, i'm a little skeptical about rasing children in a gay marriage
 
Divorce just proves that the couple was too hasty in making decisions. They obviously based their choice on lust/sexual desire and not real love. Love is seperating lust and being able to put up with the actual person, not just the hot chick you come home to every night, have her cook dinner, then bang her (on the dinner table to boot ). Then don't get married if that's how you're life is. Just live together until you get bored of each other and split. Divorce shouldn't happen unless the couple absolutely hates each other - then how were they a couple in the first place?
Click to expand...

Not exactly true, there are, like in most instances, divorce due to one cheating on the other so its not always a hasty decision just the stupidity of the other half.
 
Government joins two people in a civil union if they are consenting adults.

Marriage is no longer a legal/government term.

Best solution. The religious people are happy because the sanctity of marriage was protected, gays are happy because they have achieved equal rights. Win-win.
 
would never work ..how do you define "marriage" as a religious ceremony if there are literally hundreds of different relgions? not too mention that some already perform same sex marriages. The government (at least in canada) cannot legislate or force a religion to do anything, unless that is, the religion in question abuses the charter of rights

not to mention that it's dicriminatory which is again against universal human rights




btw Spain legalised same sex marriages today ...Yay! Spain
 
To clarify on my earlier point, marriage is just a simple word associated with financial benefits provided for such things as homeownership and other expenses of living life with another person.
If you'd like to put your beliefs or spirituality into the mix, as Asus does, then more power to you. Also, if you choose to leave out spirituality altogether, as i do, that's plenty okay.
But, inherently, marriage is so arbitrary that it can hardly be logically governed outside the basic financial level.

Example:
A man and a woman live together, share expenses and have sex on a regular basis.
Perfectly legal.

A man and a man live together, share expenses and have sex on a regular basis.
Again, every aspect of this is legal.
Living together, pooling money and sex aren't illegal activities, nor should they be.

A man lives with three women, shares the expenses with them, and sleeps has sex with them all.
There's no law against four adults living in the same house, or against them sharing their money. There is also no law preventing a man or women from having more than one simultaneous sexual partner, especially when all parties consent.

Yet, only one of those groups is allowed to legitimately call itself a marriage, and only one recieves government benefits.

In essence, it's the government paying people to be straight and monogamous for no logical reason. Or, more specifically, it's needless economic punishment against types of marriage that the government arbitrarilly deems 'non-traditional'.

Example 2:
Two couples are identical in every way. They love each other, they've been living together for two years and they don't want to have kids, but they might adopt one someday once they're more financially secure. They both work full-time jobs.
For all intents and purposes, they are identical, with identical financial needs, identical beliefs, love and lives.
Except one couple is homosexual.
Because of that, the government does not give them money, while they do give money to the straight couple.

Treating two identical groups differently for reasons that are purely superficial is frankly tantamount to state-sponsored discrimination.
And by discrimination, I do mean the 'racism' sort.
Both equal groups should have equal rights and equal treatment by the government, as there is no logical reason for identical groups to get different treatment.

Now, for polygamy, the situation can also fit that identical scenario, with the only difference being more than two people in the relationship.
This case is only legally unique in the fact that different numbers of people logically require different amounts of benefit dollars.
Therefore, the only logical response to polygamy is not to ban it, but to find a system through which a marriage between more than one person gets an amount of government funds that is equivalent in benefit to what a two-person marriage would recieve. Neither excessive nor inadequate.
Also, there would need to be measures to prevent people from insincerely "marrying" large amounts of husbands/wives simply to get the presumably enhanced benefits.
So, I propose that, at least until such a system is devised, A polygamous marriage should recieve equal benefits as a monogamous couple would.

----------------

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.

The only other possible argument(s) are those based in spirituality or simply being irrational.
Some people might consider being gay or being polygamous a 'sin' or 'un-natural'. But for every belief that disgusts you, or is sacreligious to you, there are, literally, a million people or more who find you equally reprehensible.
There are gays who follow the bible and believe that christianity allows them to marry. And there are plenty of cultures that not only allow polygamy, but reward it.
Without any logical line of reasoning, what right do we have to declare one practice "right" and another "wrong", let alone enforce that declaration through law?

If baseless prejudices and inherently unprovable religious beliefs were allowed to influence (and continue to influence) the domain of law, then that sets up the threat of a real slippery slope:
That any cultural practice, religious belief, or even simply logical thought can, and often will be, outlawed for no reason whatsoever - with the approval and support of the majority populace.
Hence the gay marriages being revoked, evolution being replaced with creationism, movements to outlaw M-rated videogames, etc.
 
Thank you my sulky friend!

You avatar is also 'Radica'. For a second there I thought it was Dizzy Lenin, but it wasn't. :p
 
CptStern said:
would never work ..how do you define "marriage" as a religious ceremony if there are literally hundreds of different relgions? not too mention that some already perform same sex marriages. The government (at least in canada) cannot legislate or force a religion to do anything, unless that is, the religion in question abuses the charter of rights

not to mention that it's dicriminatory which is again against universal human rights




btw Spain legalised same sex marriages today ...Yay! Spain
Click to expand...
Marriage wouldn't be a legal term. Anybody could claim they're 'married' with no consequence.

Think about it- the ONLY thing the government does is join two people in a civil union (the only reason the government is involved is for financial purposes and other legal things like wills, inheritance, etc.)

Marriage wouldn't be a term used by the state.. at all.
 
Sgt.Murray said:
Not exactly true, there are, like in most instances, divorce due to one cheating on the other so its not always a hasty decision just the stupidity of the other half.
Click to expand...

Close to what I said. Either partner (or even both) have grown tired of their spouse, because someone else can satisfy their sexual lust. Thought it may take a long time to grow, you're right on that part. And they lack commitment (or at least, total commitment).
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Marriage wouldn't be a legal term. Anybody could claim they're 'married' with no consequence.

Think about it- the ONLY thing the government does is join two people in a civil union (the only reason the government is involved is for financial purposes and other legal things like wills, inheritance, etc.)

Marriage wouldn't be a term used by the state.. at all.
Click to expand...

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

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

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.

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.
 
hmm..this is kind of a complicated issue for me and i will try and explain it as best i could...but if i don't, please don't burn me at the stake k? :p

okay...personally, i don't have any problems with a gay couple getting married.. its not my business who dates who and i don't mind either way.

the complications arise when said gay couple decides that they want children via adoption or via other methods.

i believe, men and women bring a special uniqueness into a family which i don't believe a child can get from two men or two women. (and im not trying to offend anyone here, im sorry if i did)
anyway when u think of the every day pressures of life that young people now have, its hard enough to grow up in a traditional family, but i can only assume the difficulty of all the normal stuff and then on top of that having to figure out parents who happen to be gay in said situation.

having had a single parent myself, i can say without a doubt life is harder and i don't see how life gets any easier for a child who has gay parents.

bascially if people here don't understand my view of the special uniqueness a man and a woman bring to a family, then really there was no point in reading my post...anyway think i better scurry back to the off topic forum before Stern catches me here ;)
 
Well actually, that was a very nicely put-forward argument. And with no hate-mongering. :)

Personally, I disagree. Personally I think that the difficulties in being raised by a single parent are more due to resources (ie, less of them, parent has to spend more time with child etc) than the fact that it's only one gender.
 
Sulkdodds said:
He was Locust in another guise, I believe.
Click to expand...


Ok, just making sure :hmph:. You may go about your business Bliink. :hmph: :dozey:


;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Community Interviews: Tony Newton, co-creator of Redemption
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
ColonelSanders
[Help Wanted] OctoShark Studios Presents...
Replies
0
Views
3K
ColonelSanders
ColonelSanders
tomemozok
The Genius Behind Valve and their actions
Replies
9
Views
2K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
Laivasse
Film Noir
Replies
11
Views
2K
Yorick
Y
Back
Top