Should same sex marriage be legal?

[Sha'irullah]

This is tricky but as to my personal opinions regarding same-sex marriage I find it suited for a man and woman. It is hard for adopted children to be able to be cared for yet alone same sex couples. The lack of bonding is genuine care for a child is still a biological production of birthing.
Homosexuals only wish to have marriage to indulge in fantasies that are not naturally given so they can indulged in a fantasy of union. Marriage has been about procreation and the ensuring of society that a child will have proper uprearing and be of a benefit to society. Now these things are gone in many part of the world and you have hooligans with IQs so low if you put their brain in a lion's head they would eat their own selves for food with a bucket of steak sitting in front of them.

Marriage is not even a state matter, it is a civil matter and should remain so as a contractual affair. No government has a right to see who you marry and how you inseminate your spouse at night under any conditions. Religions institutions should not be forced to engage in such unions as well, it is a matter of the clergy and the religious tradition to decide if it is willing.

Marriage will never hold the same value with homosexuals as it does heterosexuals, so I will not deluded myself into thinking otherwise. On the other hand I personally would not give a care about who marries who though. Consent is more important than the choice of genitals

 

[Kirran]

Loving versus Virginia, 1972 (Google it).

Given the existence of marriage, would you rather it included multi-racial couples, rather than be purely for those belonging to the same racial demographic?

I aware of the Loving vs Virginia case - shockingly recent! I of course support interracial marriage, as I do the marriage of any consenting adults who love each other.

 

[David1967]

So you don't care about same-sex marriage while still caring so much about it that you're on the fence about banning it?

I hope you see the contradiction here.

No. Respectfully, I think your reading more into my suggestion for the third option than is there. Notice, I didn't say I didn't care. I suggested a third option of "Don't care", because I thought it would broaden the discussion. Not everyone has a yes or no opinion on a sensitive matter such as this. That's all, nothing more or less.

 

[Underhill]

People keep trying to complicate this when it is very simple. There is no reason it should be illegal. It harms nobody. It is a personal choice. Even if you don't agree with it for religious reasons, that does not justify you stopping other people from doing it.

There are a great many things people do every day that I do not agree with but that are legal. Why should I be able to impose my code of conduct on anyone else? It's arrogance and fear, nothing more.

 

[Shad]

There are rights associated with marriage that no contract could give.

Nonsense. Marriage itself is a contract.

If that's what you want for yourself, nothing's stopping you from going that route, regardless of whether civil marriage is a thing or not.

Same could be applied to same-sex advocate. How rather than ignoring a key issue I try to point it out and put forward a solution

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nonsense. Marriage itself is a contract.

Please describe how a contract - and not a marriage - can give one person the right to sponsor another for immigration purposes.

Same could be applied to same-sex advocate.

No, it can't.

How rather than ignoring a key issue I try to point it out and put forward a solution

To come up with a solution, you first need a problem. What's the problem you're trying to solve?

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

I believe it should be made illegal

 

[Kirran]

I believe it should be made illegal

Who's shocked?

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Who's shocked?

Shocked from what?

 

[Kirran]

Shocked from what?

I was expressing for the benefit of the general membership that this is the opinion which one would expect from you

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

I was expressing for the benefit of the general membership that this is the opinion which one would expect from you

LOL
Well Kiran, the good hearted people of RF knows i cannot support something that is made forbidden by the Creator. No bribe can change my opinion.


If Christians. Jews,Hindus and Ahmadis wants to embrace same sex marriage. Thats up to them.

 

[Jainarayan]

Marriage has been about procreation and the ensuring of society that a child will have proper uprearing and be of a benefit to society.

People past reproductive age can't marry? Fertility tests before marrying for younger couples?

Marriage will never hold the same value with homosexuals as it does heterosexuals

That's true only inasmuch as one couple's marriage does not have the same value as another couple's marriage. Each one is different from another. Otherwise I don't see how anyone can make that judgement.

 

[Kirran]

To throw in something different, my parents refuse to get married. They disagree with the institution and so are holding out for the extension of civil unions to opposite-sex couples (currently they are available for same-sex couples only). If that was made available, they'd go for it.

Personally I would rather that than keeping things as they are, but would rather abolish civil unions altogether.

 

[Shad]

Then do exactly what we're all arguing for, and kick religion out of marriage. You're literally just arguing for not calling marriage marriage at this point and calling it a civil union instead.

I am arguing for getting government out of marriage and defining marriage for us. For a Catholic marriage has a certain meaning. For a Muslim marriage has a certain meaning. Let the individual decides what it means to them rather than waiting for the government to legitimatize and validate it for them. If the people are citizens and adults why should government dictate whom they can have a relationship with and recognition of said relationships.

Consenting people signing a contract to share assets and whatnot is all marriage is!

No it isn't as people that are married can sign prenuptial.

That's really all there is to it. All the fluff is just put in to make people feel better, all the wedding stuff is just formality, it doesn't do anything legally.

Which is part of my point. Let people have their fluff rather than waiting for government to validate their fluff

So, then what is the difference between marriage as it is and the civic unions as you want them?

One is a contract between individuals. One is a contract between individuals and the state.

Restrictions. Marriage now is restricted... because of religious groups... which is exactly what me and @9-10ths_Penguin are advocating to ditch.

No you want government to dictate and validate what marriage is for you.

 

[Shad]

Please describe how a contract - and not a marriage - can give one person the right to sponsor another for immigration purposes.

In Canada we have sponsorship programs which is a contract between a sponsor, immigrant and government that has nothing to do with marriage. People do not even need to be related... The sponsor agrees to terms stipulated by the government, the requirements they must meet like food, shelter, etc. The immigrant agrees with terms they must fulfill.

No, it can't.

Yes it can as it can apply to any individual. Sorry but your narrative is just a narrative. Lovely to tell yourself but has no value otherwise.

To come up with a solution, you first need a problem. What's the problem you're trying to solve?

Government dictating what marriage is. Government dictating how consenting adult conduct their personal relationship. As long as government is empowered to do both the door is open for view your oppose getting their foot in the door.

 

[Shad]

"Getting government out of marriage" means doing away with civil marriage.

Yes. Hence why just replace it with a legal contract that is not based on who government says you can or can not enter an agreement with. You can get married all you want with whatever ceremony you want.

And marriage would convey no legal rights, responsibilities, or protections. No thanks.

These protection were added long after marriage was already being controlled by government. These same things can be moved to any contract as part of said contract. None require marriage itself.

No, civil marriage is a legal relationship with real ramifications.

Which can still exist within another framework

You can still do that while keeping civil marriage.

Not when the topic is turned over to a popular vote like Prop 8 and members of governments with their own conviction are deciding what rights you have or do not have. Which is part of my point. If you remove the ability of government to dictate such rights you also remove the ability of the religious from using government for their purpose as much as you use government for your own.

... and this is fine by me.

Yet the rest of your post demonstrates otherwise as you seem to require government to validate your relationships for you.

 

[Sha'irullah]

People past reproductive age can't marry? Fertility tests before marrying for younger couples?

I am referring to the archaic notion of marriage, elderly marriage was not even a thing years ago. Marriage has never been about love or romantic feelings. It has always been a contractual agreement with ownership, lineage and family powers.

What you are bringing up is pointless.

That's true only inasmuch as one couple's marriage does not have the same value as another couple's marriage. Each one is different from another. Otherwise I don't see how anyone can make that judgement.

But there are still universal values that bind the definition of marriage. Most of these are not even shared to this day, truthfully many "marriages" in the united states are merely civil unions. This is primarily a result of urban living and the heightened value for privacy.

 

[lovesong]

I am arguing for getting government out of marriage and defining marriage for us. For a Catholic marriage has a certain meaning. For a Muslim marriage has a certain meaning. Let the individual decides what it means to them rather than waiting for the government to legitimatize and validate it for them. If the people are citizens and adults why should government dictate whom they can have a relationship with and recognition of said relationships.



No it isn't as people that are married can sign prenuptial.



Which is part of my point. Let people have their fluff rather than waiting for government to validate their fluff



One is a contract between individuals. One is a contract between individuals and the state.




No you want government to dictate and validate what marriage is for you.

Just... never mind...

 

[Drolefille]

I support polyamorous marriage, as well as same-sex, non-binary, and any other form of adult, consensual (with real informed consent) relationships*.

*Please don't pull the incest argument here. Another thread, another time. Comparing LGBTQ people to incest is offensive.

 

[Jainarayan]

I am referring to the archaic notion of marriage, elderly marriage was not even a thing years ago. Marriage has never been about love or romantic feelings. It has always been a contractual agreement with ownership, lineage and family powers.

What you are bringing up is pointless.

It's not pointless, because marriage today is not what it was in biblical times, which by the way never applied to 99% of the world's cultures. We're not in archaic times. Elderly marriage is a thing today, marriage for love is a thing today. We live in today. Many things have changed over the millennia. Marriage is one of them, and rightly so. Nothing exists or changes in a vacuum.

But there are still universal values that bind the definition of marriage. Most of these are not even shared to this day,

Like "until death do us part" and no divorce?

truthfully many "marriages" in the united states are merely civil unions. This is primarily a result of urban living and the heightened value for privacy.

That's not the reason at all. It's the evolution of society that requires contractual protections. A marriage license guarantees incontestable spousal right of survivorship. Will, powers-of-attorney, guardianship or any other paper work can be challenged and overturned in court. A marriage license trumps everything, as well as conferring almost 1,100 legal and societal benefits and protections. Marriage is not, never was, never will be "God-instituted".