PDA

View Full Version : Should Marriage Be Up To The Government To Decide?



Silverbackman
07-04-06, 09:21
I am semi-against same-sex marriage because to me it isn't marriage. But I do think if we do legalize marriage for homosexuals we should do the same for members of the same family to be fair, although many people would be against this (I opinion they are hypocrites).

Actually, with that said I am sort of neutral to same-sex marriage issue but one thing from pondering such an issue one should realize is that it really isn't in there place to decide.

I mean to some people marriage should only be between a members of the same sex. Marriage seems like such a relative issue.

So why does government have to endorse or be in the business of marriage at all? Why can't government just stop with all the unfair tax benefits married couples have that say a group of people wouldn't have?

Marriage should not be up to the government to decide and they shouldn't deal with marriage at all. By promoting one believed way of marriage is like promoting people to live a certain lifestyle.

Therefore the people should decide for themselves about marriage and not the government. Unless the government wants use a totally different word for all forms of adult consensual unions.

nice gaijin
07-04-06, 09:59
I would like you to elaborate on your contention that people who think same-sex marriage should be legalized but not incestuous relationships are hypocritical. Are you saying that all consentual adult relationships are equal?

I mean to some people marriage should only be between a members of the same sex. Marriage seems like such a relative issue.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying here.

Part of the reason there are benefits to marriage is because an important step on the traditional to raising a family. Taking away the benefits of marriage would serve to hurt American families, and would be an extremely unpopular solution.

The government is supposed to be a forum for the people to govern themselves, and many states have followed the majority rule and listened to their consituents about same-sex marriage, which is a resounding "no." The problem with democratic rule in a society such as America, the individuals do not think of the rights of others nearly as highly as their own rights, comforts, and benefits. The majority rule produces rules that benefit the majority.

If you don't have any state or federal laws about marriage, how else do you expect it to be regulated? When you say that people should "decide for themselves," is that to say that anyone should get married if they want to, or that mob rule decides who has the right to get married?

Tokis-Phoenix
07-04-06, 11:45
When most people start talking about marriage, i assume they are talking about a christian marriage? Marriage is not just confined to christianity, practically all religeons out there have some form of marriage and different ideals and situations concerning it.
As far as christian marriage is concerned and gay people, this is the way i see it- i have observed that the vast bulk of american christians(and lesser so the english christians) are against gays because they believe that;
a. The bible is against gays(i have tried to ask many anti-gay christians "where does it day that?" but they are feel that somewhere in there it speaks out loudly against gays), and that
b. Being gay is a "sin".
As long as the vast bulk of christian continue to believe that the bible is against gays or that being gay is a sin etc, gay people cannot argue that they should change their religeon so it allows gay people to get married in a house of god/i.e. church. If gay people want to be christian they should just accept that the religeon is against them on the whole in many countries- i don't personally think this is right, but then again i cannot argue with what the religeon and its followers preach.

I think that nice gaijin raises a good point about the benefets of marriage and bringing up a family. I have nothing against gay people, what they do is their own buisness, but i do not agree a child should be brought up by same sex parents- it simply isn't natural or normal for that matter. So taking into account i disagree with same sex couples bringing children into the world or bringing them up, i think same sex couples getting married in the sense of the benefets or ideals that marriage brings into raising a family may be complicated or messed up.
If the couple don't want to have children, fine, but then again, a big part or purpose of the christian ideal of getting married seems to be in the interests of raising families. I think that "ideal" is changing now days, or at least it certainly is over here in England.

Most people over here still recognise the benefets in parents getting married for the sake of the child as so to help create a more secure family enviroment for the child to be raised up in, but its not really veiwed as a big part of raising a child anymore. Most people view marriage as a pact recognising the love between a couple rather than taking a step in the intention of bringing up children.
I know loads of people who have got married and have no intention of bringing up children at all. On the other hand i know plenty of parents who are raising a child or more, and are not married because the money spent on such a thing could actually go towards the child, and they are already confident their relationship together.

Many marriages in other countries though are not for love or children, but for security and money, almost like making a buisness or family pact to help get through and thrive whatever the future throws at them etc...Some people even get married just because they don't want to die alone.
So on the subject of legalising marriages between same sex couples, i think a major thing you have to take into consideration is the religeon the form of marriage is connected to and its ideals or "laws", and the purpose of that marriage.

nice gaijin
07-04-06, 12:06
tokis: for clarity's sake, could you please put line breaks between your paragraphs? it's very difficult to read in its current form...

Tokis-Phoenix
07-04-06, 12:31
tokis: for clarity's sake, could you please put line breaks between your paragraphs? it's very difficult to read in its current form...

Sorry :bluush: ! Hope thats a little bit better.

Mars Man
07-04-06, 19:11
Without going into detail; no. Governments, in my opinion, should not be messing around in this 'nature of marriage' thing, and neither should religion, anymore. (now can anyone really believe that I could have made it that short?--as many know, I'm sure, I'm usually in favor of many words.):-)

nice gaijin
07-04-06, 20:10
Sorry :bluush: ! Hope thats a little bit better.
Thanks, that makes a huge difference :cool:

sl0thmachin3
09-04-06, 09:52
Marriage is a valuable resource.

Governments, religious groups and society in general confine marriage to the male-female configuration simply because alternatives do not benefit them as much.

By benefit I mean producing children.

For any group to perpetuate, its members have to procreate otherwise they go extinct. Converting people from other groups could help some but this cannot substitute for procreation.

It is for this reason that alternatives to male-female partnerships draw serious flak from various sectors in society; mainly governments and religious groups.

The usual line of attack are that any alternative to the accepted male-female marriage is a threat to family values, moral corruption, degrades society, against the will of god yadda yadda. Bottomline is these groups cannot condone the alternatives simply because they fear loosing members or not gaining new ones.

Of course science has a way around this problem with procreation but that is an entirely different story.

BTW I am neutral regarding whether governments should control the nature of marriage. Though I believe that every person has the right to choose for themselves; the impact of each person's choice must be considered.

nurizeko
09-04-06, 10:46
I woulda liked to get married, still do, but the fact the legal system effectively allows a wife to divorce you and f*** you over here in europe and america puts me off.....

I dont like the whole deal with someone you marry for love possibly just doing it so in the end they can take you for every penny.

And if they do marry for love if the marriage goes sour she can end up doing the same thing.

And if we have kids she could just f*** off with them and then i have no access to my kids, because the law doesnt come down on her for disobeying court orders for access.

Modern western marriages have been greatly degraded, still, im sure theres still alot of successful solid marriages, but the rise in divorces and stuff and general attitudes towards marriage is a concern.

No-name
09-04-06, 17:56
nurizeko--
you seem to have had some personal experience with this one.

I don't see the sense however in having laws that keep women legally bound to bad marriages. Although I dislike divorce, I can't see keeping women (and is it just women you are worried about?) from pursuing relief from bad situations.

moffeltoff
22-04-06, 01:24
I think gay people should have an equivalent to marriage but it shouldn´t be exactly the same as a hethero marriage.