Who should be allowed to marry?

[Matt1970]

It's not that I am against gay marriage, I am against all marriage.

All kidding aside two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.

 

[gevorg]

All kidding aside two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.

Only two? Bigot!

 

[soulcougher73]

I went with option 3. Marrying family just seems icky lol And im sure has other consequences when reproducing. Im no incest expert though.

Waiting for "Mr. What about marrying my toaster" to reply....

Edit: ok he did..and he replied about his toaster..shocking i know.

 

[Painman]

Everyone. If Gays and Lesbians want to be exposed to the living hell that is modern-day marriage, well shit... LET THEM BE.

If they really think heterosexuality is some walk in the park... let them play at it.

 

[Broheim]

Arguably the government should only issue a legal status without concern of the genders involved.

Leave "marriage" to the religious institutions.

this is how I feel aswell.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I'd like those in support of extra-traditional marriage to explain why they stop at gay/les and don't support multiples or close family? I know SOME posters probably have no problem with #4 either, but the question still stands.

My objection to multiple partner marriages is more practical than ethical. We provide a set of legal benefits for people with a single partner, and those can become massively unbalanced with more partners. Imagine someone with 5 husbands demanding a family health plan. An alternative would be to have "primary" and "secondary" spousal agreements with different levels of benefits, but that's just going to be a hugely complicated mess that makes no one happy.

If someone could suggest a practical way to extend multiple partner marriages that doesn't create a mess (complicated bureaucracy, unequal benefits, etc.), I'd be all for considering it.

 

[nehalem256]

I went with option 3. Marrying family just seems icky lol And im sure has other consequences when reproducing. Im no incest expert though.

Pretty sure the "icky" argument is not considered a valid legal argument.

As for the reproduction one. It seems like you are suggesting that reproduction is an important part of marriage. If we accept that, doesn't that kinda suggest that same-sex marriage doesn't make sense?

Waiting for "Mr. What about marrying my toaster" to reply....

Edit: ok he did..and he replied about his toaster..shocking i know.

Please leave your objectphobia out the thread

And why do you assume I want to marry my toaster? Is everyone who supports gay marriage a homosexual?

 

[Murloc]

incest and multiple marriage would open up the field to a world of abuse and loopholes.
Don't want your inheritance to be taxed (if applicable)? Marry your parents.
You live with a relative and want the house directly when he dies? Marry.
Want to create a communist hippie community? Marry everyone.
You're an immigrant and want to bring in people not in your strict family? Marry.
Plus it would screw up all stuff like family healthcare plans etc.


I think the debate about words will die when gays get full adoption rights. When that happens, there will be no need for separate words anymore because legally it's the same. At that point, if marriage clearly means religious marriage, then call it civil union anywhere in the law.

 

[zsdersw]

Arguably the government should only issue a legal status without concern of the genders involved.

Leave "marriage" to the religious institutions.

This is ideal, but will never happen. Too many of the heterosexual majority either don't care enough to do anything or are against this idea.

 

[K1052]

This is ideal, but will never happen. Too many of the heterosexual majority either don't care enough to do anything or are against this idea.

Yes, realistically it's not likely. I support the ongoing legal actions in the absence of any superior alternative.

 

[glenn1]

Arguably the government should only issue a legal status without concern of the genders involved.

Leave "marriage" to the religious institutions.

Ironic how the libertarian position has become the fallback for many who opposed gay marriage in the past. But this is still the correct approach if the government insists on maintaining its role of unofficial arbiter of personal relationships under the guise of collecting "vital statistics." The goverment can require a fee to issue a "civil union license" for any two consenting adults, and churches can perform marriages using whatever criteria they might choose. The framework is already in place with governments issuing birth certificates and the church performing baptisms if desired.

 

[soulcougher73]

Pretty sure the "icky" argument is not considered a valid legal argument.

As for the reproduction one. It seems like you are suggesting that reproduction is an important part of marriage. If we accept that, doesn't that kinda suggest that same-sex marriage doesn't make sense?



Please leave your objectphobia out the thread

And why do you assume I want to marry my toaster? Is everyone who supports gay marriage a homosexual?

I never said it was a legal argument. I was just asked my opinion on it.

I dont view reproduction as an important part of marriage. Marriage is not needed to reproduce. I was more worried about defects due to incest. And as i said, im no incest expert. Maybe its not an issue. I dont know.

 

[nehalem256]

Ironic how the libertarian position has become the fallback for many who opposed gay marriage in the past. But this is still the correct approach if the government insists on maintaining its role of unofficial arbiter of personal relationships under the guise of collecting "vital statistics." The goverment can require a fee to issue a "civil union license" for any two consenting adults, and churches can perform marriages using whatever criteria they might choose. The framework is already in place with governments issuing birth certificates and the church performing baptisms if desired.

Marriage (or civil unions) are not about collecting "vital statistics". If it was gay people would not care about it so much.

It is about society saying that certain relationships are special. In essence the purpose of marriage is to discriminate against single people.

If you have a problem with this discrimination this is an argument not for same-sex marriage, but for the complete elimination of marriage (or whatever you want to call it).

 

[nehalem256]

I dont view reproduction as an important part of marriage. Marriage is not needed to reproduce. I was more worried about defects due to incest. And as i said, im no incest expert. Maybe its not an issue. I dont know.

Then there is no reason to deny marriage to related people. If marriage is not about reproduction then why deny marriage to a group of people because they might produce defective offspring?

 

[soulcougher73]

Then there is no reason to deny marriage to related people. If marriage is not about reproduction then why deny marriage to a group of people because they might produce defective offspring?

I think you answered your own question. Its about limiting defective offspring. And since most tards in the world seem to associate marriage with reproducing, its why the laws are they way the currently are.

If push came to shove i dont really care that much. Not enough that id vote against someones right to chose. If you want to marry a toaster so be it, if a two 1st cousins want to marry so be it.

I have my opinions on things, but they are mine. So if i had to vote, id vote freedom and not try to impose my beliefs on others.

 

[nehalem256]

I have my opinions on things, but they are mine. So if i had to vote, id vote freedom and not try to impose my beliefs on others.

Then you should be voting for eliminating marriage (or any similar concept).

Marriage IS about getting other people (or society) to recognize your relationship. This would seem to inherently be imposing your beliefs on others.

 

[soulcougher73]

Then you should be voting for eliminating marriage (or any similar concept).

Marriage IS about getting other people (or society) to recognize your relationship. This would seem to inherently be imposing your beliefs on others.

Id be down for voting away marriage in the governments eye if that came up for vote. Let me know when it does and ill be there.

 

[SaurusX]

Can my cats get married to each other?

 

[zsdersw]

Can my cats get married to each other?

The Constitution doesn't recognize cats' inalienable rights... like the right to associate and to give consent.

 

[nehalem256]

Can my cats get married to each other?

No. Marriage must involve at least one person.

 

[SaurusX]

No. Marriage must involve at least one person.

Can I marry myself for the tax benefits?

 

[nehalem256]

Can I marry myself for the tax benefits?

Yes. Otherwise we would be discriminating against asexual people.

 

[K1052]

Can my cats get married to each other?

That depends. How cute are they?

 

[SaurusX]

That depends. How cute are they?

One is extremely cute and the other is just ok.

 

[nehalem256]

One is extremely cute and the other is just ok.

While your cats cannot marry each other no matter their cuteness.

You should be free to marry one or both of the cats as your sexual orientation dictates.