Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only reason government is even involved is because they figured out that they can make money from the people (fees and taxing structures). It really isn't any of their business,
The laws and programs created by governments are a reflection of the ethics and values of society and of the people. If the people view the family as an extremely important segment of our society, then the people would see to it that their government supported and endorsed marriage. This is why government got involved.
Thousands of years ago, societies all over the world realized the important role that marriage and family play in the success or failure of them as a people. The emotional and moral bond in family units is important to any functioning society. Family members will take care of each other during the good times and the bad, thus alleviating the need for government to step in and take care of its citizens.
It's all about creating the best possible environment for that next generation of citizens. Marriage is not about tax breaks, wedding dresses, and public declarations of love. Marriage is two people creating and raising the children who will one day be running our nation. The reason government promotes, endorses and in some cases even subsidies families, is because society is acting thru government to do these things.
If you want to get married, find a church, minister, or just stand in a field, and say WE'RE MARRIED. Done. Ignore the state.
Except that this method of getting "married" does not provide the same benefits, privileges, and even risks that a government-approved union comes with.
If you want to get married, find a church, minister, or just stand in a field, and say WE'RE MARRIED. Done. Ignore the state.
That is quite the assertion there... by such logic I could walk out into my yard, scream I am rich... and then expect money to come my way.
The issue at hand is the benefit and legal rights of marriage, as well as those in the atypical unions currently risking or being presented with criminal charges because of the current segregation of groups without any real logical basis to do so.
Assertion will not solve it any more than the current Appeal to Emotion justifies it
The problem would still remain, and it would still be illogical and unfair action based on what one portion of the populace is comfortable with... without a logical or medical reasoning to justify it.
Many people have said that gays should be allowed to be marry since as consenting adults who love each other they should have the same equal rights as heterosexual couples.
But with that logic, then shouldn't other non-traditional couples also be allowed to marry as well?
Here are some examples of couples who are not allowed to marry in any U.S. state but are nonetheless consenting adults who are in love and want to be together: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3
And then there are these couples who want to marry but it is illegal in about half the U.S. states: Example 4
(Some Law makers in the states where it is illegal are already attempting to legalize it.)
If the criteria is that any two people who love each other and are consenting adults can marry then there is no logical reason the above couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
(Note that I am not saying that I endorse or condone such relationships. I am merely stating that the logic which supports gay marriage would also support these other non-traditional marriages as well if one is consistent.)
No.
Should all consenting adults be allowed to create a contract of legal binding that establishes responsibility and ownership between? Absolutely.
Shouldn't all consenting adults be allowed to marry?
Yes, they should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunucu Beach
Legalizing same-sex marriage will open the door to ALL non-traditional marriages--not just close relative marriages--including polygamy, polyandry and group marriage.
And this is bad? Sounds like the 'traditionalists' need to mind their own business, and let others live their lives as they see fit. What happens between consenting adults is their business alone.
Marriage, pre-socialism, was a compact. It was a legal joining of two families' property for the benefit of progeny emitted from said marriage. It had nothing to do with "two people in love", contrary to popular belief. Two people 'in love' do not need a lifelong binding contract to keep them together (or do they?).
Post-socialism, marriage has been granted special entitlements and benefits to placate opposition.
Those who seek to contract marriage but cannot produce progeny from that union are using the WRONG contract.
People who did not have property rights (i.e., slaves, socialists) were required to get government permission (marriage license), in order to deal with the disposition of family property due to the mixed legal standing.
Look up the legislative history on "Common law marriage", which did not require government permission to enter (or leave). Coincidentally, it was no longer recognized, post 1935 - because most Americans ceased to have common law property rights to join via marriage. Which is why the State can now intrude upon marriage and children of licensed marriage.
Frankly, unless you have property rights you wish to pass to your progeny, a marriage compact is moot. The State has first claim upon all property now.
Those who seek to contract marriage but cannot produce progeny from that union are using the WRONG contract.
It bears mentioning however that all the examples in the OP can in fact produce progeny.... and that due to medical advancement it could also be argued that even same sex couples could not produce progeny if so inclined via surrogate or other means.
Likewise property is not limited only to that which is subject to reversion to the state... assets both liquid and physical are also classified as personal property and upon death pass via estate to progeny. I am in fact at this very moment overseeing such assets on behalf of the executor of my grandfathers estate. I am being compensated to stay here and keep an eye on said property and assets until such a time as they can be properly liquidated and divided.
So on both the case of progeny and property... the question of marriage is still technically valid.
I don't see incest and polyandry as perversions. Just different tastes.
And honestly, after incest and polyandry, there is no legal foothold to go any further. Bestiality, pedophilia, sex with objects, none of these can ever be legalized.
Why does that not surprise me. Perverse never recognizes perversity. That is the symptom of their mental health issues.
If the left had their way people would be rutting in the streets like animals.
Interesting responses. It seems that people here who support gay marriage also recognize that other "non-traditional" "non-conventional" relationships should also be legally accepted as long as they are between consenting adults. It is a logical and consistent position if nothing else and admirable in that sense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
