Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 106

Thread: Marriage

  1. #1

    Default Marriage

    I'm not opposed to same sex marriage per se but I am a little disappointed with the way we seem to be rushing into making laws allowing it without a lot of rational discussion about it. It's such an emotional issue that it may be impossible to have a rational discussion on it, but, if that's the case, maybe we should wait until we have a clearer picture of the situation before we codify things into law. It's important for lawmakers to take human emotions into account when drafting legislation but the laws themselves should be written with reason rather than emotion.

    It's my opinion that emotions are causing us to overlook an important concept in this issue. Now that traditional marriage is being challenged in a fundamental way, rather than simply changing marriage laws to accommodate current whims, it might be good to ask some questions regarding the need for, or purpose of, marriage laws in the current culture.

    Specifically: What purpose does it serve, what do we hope to accomplish, by having government (re)establish and maintain a legal entity called "marriage"?

  2. #2

    Default

    In what way is the "traditional marriage" "challenged" in any way by allowing homosexual couples to marry?

    What is there to discuss rationally anymore?
    Honestly, I am to this day amazed that it is such an issue within a secular, democratic, humanistic country / society.

    Whilst I personally don't really see a reason for marriage at ALL - but that is my personal view - I frankly believe that it should not matter whether the couple is homo- or hetero-sexual.
    Equal marriage rights should be absolutely the most natural thing in this regard.


    And to answer your final question:
    Well I guess it's a bit of a mixed thing - for one part a marriage (and that is the only part I can personally see value in) is an "easy" way to take care of a LOT of complex legal issues with family / long term ("for life") partnerships. Without getting married there's a ton of legal crap you'd need to take into account as a couple...
    For example when buying a house, or when your partner gets terminally ill at a hospital (like the right to make decisions in that case) or genera financial aspects, etc etc.
    It's also often a tad easier with children ... So this is one part...
    The other is an emotional personal aspect - that many couples find that by going the marriage way, their commitment to each other is stronger.
    This is the one (also the family, etc. aspect) that I personally full heartedly disagree with (and luckily so does my SO).
    I've been with my SO for 12+ years now and hopefully it will be many many more years (till death do us part ). But I have never felt compelled to marry her.
    We're together - we live together, we care for each other - we are 100% committed. we're family. And I don't believe marrying her would change any of that or strengthen anything... and I guess all the years have proven me right in our case.
    Also marriages these days are in my book horribly overdone gatherings, f*cking too expensive, and all the pomp and ceremony is simply not floating my boat.
    The need for wedding planners, wedding photographers, a 5k+ dress you wear once, wedding events, rehearsals (why on earth?), ...
    And why it is regarded as the most special day, etc... I simply fail to understand it - both on an emotional and logical level.
    Me and my SO preferably take all the money it takes and go on a round the world trip (done so thrice so far and it still didn't cost 80% of what my best friends wedding did cost).

    But my point aside from my PERSONAL VIEW is simply this: an awful lot of people seem to be really into marriage and the entire stuff and it seems something they aspire to experience, etc... So why deny them? why deny them based on their sexual orientation?
    Isn't it what a democratic, secular society is all about? equality? Equal rights & freedom for everyone?

    Really hearing people who are against or on the fence about allowing homosexual couples to marry... can't understand.

  3. #3

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    What purpose does it serve, what do we hope to accomplish, by having government (re)establish and maintain a legal entity called "marriage"?
    I would add that part of this, besides all the legal rights this entity grants, is the terminology. As far as I understand, the term "marriage" has much stronger legal status than "civil union" or "domestic partnership". Portability is a big issue when you use a second-class term like "civil union" or "domestic partnership", as it is recognized/interpreted differently depending on where you are.

    Say, for instance, your wife/husband ends up in the hospital while traveling somewhere...wherever that "somewhere" is, you might end up in hot water depending on how this "somewhere" recognized a "civil union" or "domestic partnership". Ironically, it's also an issue for same-sex couples that want ot divorce after moving to different states--due to the differences in laws, it can be more difficult and expensive to sever the union than a traditional divorce would be. See this article here.

    So, if you want some more background, educate yourself below. There's tons more if you Google it.
    It's not just a social or religious thing. It's a huge legal thing, too.

    Marriage vs. Civil Union or Domestic Partnership | Freedom to Marry

    http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/pub...s-marriage.pdf

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_...uments_against

    On a personal note, I think it's silly to even consider the whole moral/religious argument anymore. This has been argued to death many times over, and it has been repeatedly discredited. If you want the arguments, google them; it's 2014, and we should be over that.

  4. #4

    Default

    I am not quite sure I would agree that we are "rushing into" changing the law.

    As I see it this has been going on for at least three decades and the marriage "right" is just one of the final steps to making the homosexual lifestyle a "recognized culture".

    As I see it the tradition of marriage is not being challenged but is being strengthen by two people that are willing to commit to becoming a "single couple" until death do us part.

  5. #5

    Default

    Are we proposing that marriage ans divorce be placed back in the hands of the church and leave the government out of it? Then if you have no church you have no need of marriage?
    My wedding cost about $600 for dress, photographer, decor and all. That is because the church was free and I got a used dress. It was very nice though.
    My divorce on the other hand was cheaper, but took a lot longer than any engagement I have had and was handled by complete strangers while my pastor stood by helpless to do anything. I feel the pastor would be better to have done it since he knows the kids and I better, but a lot of laws would need to change.
    Fascinating

  6. #6

    Default

    I've said it before and I'll say it again; I'm so proud to live in Canada where same sex marriage was made legal across the country more than ten years ago. This just seems like a very old, outdated discussion to me.

    As a person who was involved in the movement, I can assure you the process was a lot more onerous and rigorous than simply taking it to the courts out of whimsy. The courts wound up having to make the decision after decades of politicians who were using our lives as political leverage, with some parties decrying that same sex marriages would result in the fall and decay of civilization, while even the more progressive parties were afraid of falling out of favour by supporting equality for gays and lesbians. In the end, we won, and the sky did not fall in.

    Every group that had a position got a chance to voice their opinion, including civil rights groups, the churches, humanists, and representatives of the gay and lesbian community. In the end, the courts recognized their role of protecting the minority from laws that wrongfully discriminate against them, applying reason over emotion.

  7. #7

    Smile



    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    I'm not opposed to same sex marriage per se but I am a little disappointed with the way we seem to be rushing into making laws allowing it without a lot of rational discussion about it. It's such an emotional issue that it may be impossible to have a rational discussion on it, but, if that's the case, maybe we should wait until we have a clearer picture of the situation before we codify things into law. It's important for lawmakers to take human emotions into account when drafting legislation but the laws themselves should be written with reason rather than emotion.

    It's my opinion that emotions are causing us to overlook an important concept in this issue. Now that traditional marriage is being challenged in a fundamental way, rather than simply changing marriage laws to accommodate current whims, it might be good to ask some questions regarding the need for, or purpose of, marriage laws in the current culture.

    Specifically: What purpose does it serve, what do we hope to accomplish, by having government (re)establish and maintain a legal entity called "marriage"?
    It's a legal recognition of the concept of "lifelong bonding" that is an instinctively natural part of normal human social behaviour.

    Legality is only functionally required to reflect the general ideals that married people might have. So if someone dies without leaving a will, their spouse will automatically inherit everything; married couples living together pay less tax than two friends living together (although I don't see myself how that's right); the hospital notifies them if their partner is seriously injured, and respects the seriousness of their relationship enough to allow priority access and visiting rights. Etc., etc.

    But legality also servers a psychologically (i.e. culturally) as a form of official social status. There is a big difference in introducing someone as your girlfriend, and introducing someone as your wife.

    The introduction of "civil partnerships" in the UK resolved the functional legal differences between "lifelong" gay and straight couples. But the idea that romantic (and/or erotic) love are so different between straight and gay couples that we should have different legal terms for them is just bizarre. Anyone can see that two gay men (or women) expressing their lifelong commitment to each other in a public ritual encapsulates exactly the same ideas as in heterosexual marriage. Using the terms "marriage" and "civil partnership" only draws attention to the sexuality of the couple. And why would anyone want to publicly and officially differentiate between straight and gay couples... unless it's an acknowledgement of (and incitement towards) institutional homophobia?

    The only reason not to allow gay marriage must surely be some relic of indoctrinated (religious) belief that mistakenly sees only heterosexuality as moral. We need to question more whether religious "insight" is useful to us any more, rather than whether people's social arrangements might (or might not) be seen as "legitimate".

    The law should be used to ban things that are bad. Not to disallow those that are good.

  8. #8

    Default

    In what possible way could you ever discuss the rationality of same-sex marriage beyond:

    -Will they be happy married? If so, yes. If not, then they won't marry.

    There, that's literally the only rational argument you need. There's nothing rational about not having same-sex marriage. People are people and people should have the right to agree to be eternally bonded through law and spiritually if they so desire, thus combining their lives into one. Their gender or sexuality has nothing to do with if they should get married or not. The only thing that matters is if the people will be happy when they do get married.

    No one is rushing anything. People are trying to become as equal as everyone else, which just about everyone will (or should) agree that people have a right to be treated like everyone else regardless of background, sex, creed, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and any other word you may think of. Gay people have a right to be pissed off about still not being allowed to marry one another in most of the States, and people are just now finally understanding what homosexuality actually is and that same-sex marriage should have been a thing a very long time ago.

    There is LITERALLY zero reason not to allow same-sex marriage. Literally.

  9. #9

    Default

    From a legal stand point, traditional marriage has always been between a man and a woman; not because the lawmakers felt the need to enhance the romantic feelings between heterosexual couples but because these unions most often resulted in the birth of children. The marriage laws were enacted to assign rights and responsibilities not just to the couple but to their offspring and descendants as well. Census records, prohibitions against adultery, parental rights and obligations, tax considerations, medical issues, inheritance rights, and other things are directly tied to marriage laws based on the idea that these sexual unions would produce children.

    I disagree with Tiny that "It's a legal recognition of the concept of 'lifelong bonding' that is an instinctively natural part of normal human social behavior". If anything it's just the opposite. People fall in love and think they will feel that way for the rest of their lives when, in fact, feelings of love tend to ebb and flow. Marriage laws were created to attempt to force heterosexual couples into life long commitments for the sake of their offspring for the stability of society.

    For thousands of years exclusive heterosexual union formed the foundation for special legal and social considerations given to the basic social unit: the family. Have we really gotten so wise in the last 30 years that we can say we no longer need any laws that deal specifically with heterosexual unions and the resulting childbirth? This is what marriage laws deal with. Heterosexuality has always been assumed in marriage laws. If this is to be eliminated as a condition of marriage then the marriage laws would be essentially gutted and marriages would simply become civil unions. I'm not saying this would be wrong. I'm just saying we should talk about this first before we eliminate marriage laws in favor of civil union laws.

    In our "enlightened" times laws should not be based on magic. Marriages are about a union between one man and one woman, ie. two people. Here the number 2 is not magic but is based on the physical reality that it takes 2 to produce a new human being. If we replace marriages with civil unions then the number 2 has no special meaning unless we give it one. What reasons would we have for limiting civil unions to two people?

    - - - Updated - - -



    Quote Originally Posted by EPO1 View Post
    I've been with my SO for 12+ years now and hopefully it will be many many more years (till death do us part ). But I have never felt compelled to marry her.
    Better watch out. In some areas you may already be legally married via common law.


    Quote Originally Posted by EPO1 View Post
    Also marriages these days are in my book horribly overdone gatherings, f*cking too expensive, and all the pomp and ceremony is simply not floating my boat.
    I agree. But this is a personal consideration, not a legal one.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Quote Originally Posted by tiny View Post
    But the idea that romantic (and/or erotic) love are so different between straight and gay couples that we should have different legal terms for them is just bizarre.
    I personally believe responsible sex between consenting adults should not be government regulated beyond defining those terms. Traditionally though, marriage laws have concerned themselves with heterosexual unions for the obvious reason that such unions are likely to produce children. If we remove heterosexuality as a condition this fundamentally alters the concept of marriage to the point that "marriage" outside of the context of civil unions is meaningless. As noted above the number 2 would no longer have any special meaning.

  10. #10

    Default

    So... Your entire counter-argument against same sex marriage is 'Because marriage is just for making babies'?

    I always find these threads on ADISC rather amusing. You just wouldn't expect that on a forum where adults wet and mess in diapers that you would find people going 'But guys marrying other guys or girls marrying other girls, that's just not right'.

Similar Threads

  1. Same Sex Marriage
    By BabyJessi in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 429
    Last Post: 19-Mar-2012, 09:27
  2. Gay Marriage...
    By Baby Nikki in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 27-Jul-2011, 07:56
  3. The Marriage Ref
    By Bokeh in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-Aug-2010, 03:34
  4. Gay Marriage
    By MyLastWords in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 24-Jun-2009, 00:09
  5. gay marriage
    By Target in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-Feb-2008, 18:22

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.