Heterosexual Same sex Marriage

[john5746]

Some of the threads concerning Gay marriage got me thinking about this topic.

 

I support gay marriage and can easily distinguish this from polygomy, bestiality, etc.

 

What about two heterosexual men(women) who want to be married? Is a profession of love a requirement for marriage? Monogomy?

 

What's your opinion?

[MolecularMan14]

Whoa, Ive never thought of something like that. I suppose instead of a proclamation of love, and loyalty, that would be a bond of frendship or something of that sort. Though I dont really think that a ceremony or (something like a permit) should be necessary. Plus what sould be the bond between the 2 people? If they were hederosexual, they could date, and possibly marry other people, so I dont think that it would really work.

[Phi for All]

Why are two heterosexual people of the same sex marrying? If they love each other as spouses then they would be having sex. If they are not having sexual relations why are they monogamous? If they are having sex then they aren't heterosexual.

 

You've lost me on this one.

[MolecularMan14]

Yea, I really dont understand the point b/c I always thought of marriage of a union between spouses, and that cant happen between heterosexuals of the same gender...so why would they get married???

[john5746]

Possible two single mothers decide to be celibate and want to declare their bond to be a family.

 

I can't see this happening either, but sounds like sex is the basis of marriage?

[DreamLord]

I don't believe sex is the basis of marriage, but love is. So why would two heterosexuals of the same sex want to be married. They wouldn't be in love or anything if they were both heterosexual.

[Severian]

Why are two heterosexual people of the same sex marrying? If they love each other as spouses then they would be having sex. If they are not having sexual relations why are they monogamous? If they are having sex then they aren't heterosexual.

 

You've lost me on this one.

 

What a bigot! What business is it of yours what they do or don't get up to in their bedroom? Why do you want to force people to have sex? Surely that have as much right to happiness in their lives as anyone else.

 

I have been advocating this for some time. Marriage should be completely divorced (no pun intended) from sex. People who are not married have sex and plenty of married couples don't anymore, so why should we assume that sex is normal in a marriage. In fact, if too best friends want to have the same rights and tax breaks as a married couple, why shouldn't they be able to withour the requirement that they are sleeping together.

 

Why not take it further too, and allow more than one peron to join this union? We could have marrieges more like clubs of like minded people - a sort of mini-communism in action. I think that would be quite cool.

[Sayonara]

Accusing Phi of bigottry is a bit unrealistic.

[Severian]

Accusing Phi of bigottry is a bit unrealistic.

 

There was a touch of irony in there....

 

...but also a grain of truth. I don't understand why two men would want to get married but I have to conceed that my lack of comprehension is of no consequence. Phi's response reminded me very much of the anti-gay lobby's response to gay marriage, willing to define marriage on their own terms only. It is only a matter of degree.

[Phi for All]

What a bigot! What business is it of yours what they do or don't get up to in their bedroom? Why do you want to force people to have sex?

Mwa ha ha!

 

Seriously, I hope I see your intentions here, Severian. I'm certainly not trying to impose a prejudged personal view on anyone. I was only trying to coax some further information about this thread's intention from it's author.

 

I'm currently reading Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and in the story he's got various marriage contracts ranging from troika's to line families where several generations are "bundling" together. In fact, no one I've read about so far has a simple man-wife marriage. But even in this story, having sex within the marriage does seem to be one of the contractual agreements involved.

 

I'm not saying that sex is the only prerequisite for a marriage of any kind, but I do think that a certain agreement ABOUT sex is a prerequisite. Whether you agree to monogamy within the marriage or at least agree to make your extra-marital affairs known to your partner(s), I do think a certain amount of negotiation is implicit in a marriage of any kind. Vows ranging from "forsaking all others" to "let's be open & honest about who we're sexing-up" would almost always be included by anyone wanting a long-term relationship protected by a marriage contract.

[Severian]

Mwa ha ha!

 

Seriously' date=' I hope I see your intentions here, Severian.

[/quote']

 

I hope you realise that I wasn't being serious.....

 

I'm currently reading Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and in the story he's got various marriage contracts ranging from troika's to line families where several generations are "bundling" together. In fact, no one I've read about so far has a simple man-wife marriage. But even in this story, having sex within the marriage does seem to be one of the contractual agreements involved.

 

I have never read it but it sounds interesting.

 

I'm not saying that sex is the only prerequisite for a marriage of any kind, but I do think that a certain agreement ABOUT sex is a prerequisite. Whether you agree to monogamy within the marriage or at least agree to make your extra-marital affairs known to your partner(s), I do think a certain amount of negotiation is implicit in a marriage of any kind. Vows ranging from "forsaking all others" to "let's be open & honest about who we're sexing-up" would almost always be included by anyone wanting a long-term relationship protected by a marriage contract.

 

I think this is the key: how do we define 'marriage'. This is obviously a bone of contention because it is the definition of marriage which all the fuss of gay marriage is about. You clearly define it as being based on a vow of sex behaviour, but is these really true? Why should sex have anything to do with it? Isn't this just another artificial restriction (like 'between a man and a woman')?

[Sayonara]

You clearly define it as being based on a vow of sex behaviour, but is these really true? Why should sex have anything to do with it? Isn't this just another artificial restriction (like 'between a man and a woman')?

No, he is not defining it as that at all.

 

What he is saying is that for two people in a commited relationship or marriage of any sort, the issue of sex is going to be an important one that could make or break them as a couple. Entering a marriage agreement with someone is, more often than not, going to involve some discussion of sex, in the same way that marriage is an advance agreement of anything that is of concern to people in a relationship.

[Phi for All]

You clearly define it as being based on a vow of sex behaviour, but is these really true? Why should sex have anything to do with it?

No, I said that sexual definition is NOT the only prerequisite but merely one of them. Marriage, like most anything in life, is not as simple as you'd like it to be for argument's sake.

 

Marriage is sought by people for many reasons, but not all occur in every marriage. To list a few (certainly not a comprehensive list) I would say regular "secure" sexual gratification, cohabitation, legal benefits like insurance, family access (hospital regulations, etc), long-term commitment to a relationship, and stability for raising children.

 

I'm grateful for everyone's views because I honestly never looked at the hypocrisy of having a religious ceremony (in many cases but not all) be regulated by the state. I think we need to examine the need for broader approaches to this institution to include the many adaptations of a modern lifestyle. There will always be those stick-in-the-muds who view change as a diminishing of what they already have, but I say to them that what you have is personal and it's only YOUR feelings and attitudes that can diminish it.

[Severian]

What he is saying is that for two people in a commited relationship or marriage of any sort' date=' the issue of sex is going to be an important one that could make or break them as a couple. [/quote']

 

That is true for many other factors too. Which friends they hang out with, what house they buy, which job they have etc, can all make or break a marriage, but we don't place conditions on these things before marriage. The difficulty is that our stereotype of society and a 'partner' relationship says that couples should have a monogomous sexual relationship with each other, and we balk at the idea of them not having this, and consequently dislike the idea. But this is exactly the same feeling (and reasoning) that the 'traditionalists' have in their opposition to gay marriage.

[Severian]

I think we need to examine the need for broader approaches to this institution to include the many adaptations of a modern lifestyle. There will always be those stick-in-the-muds who view change as a diminishing of what they already have' date=' but I say to them that what you have is personal and it's only YOUR feelings and attitudes that can diminish it.[/quote']

 

I agree with this. There is no reason why Christians (or whomever) cannot still have a religious ceremony of their own which holds great significance for them, but it should have nothing to do with the state. In fact, I think associating religious vows of love with the state's recognition of marriage somehow cheapens the act (but I realise I am in the minority here).

[Phi for All]

The difficulty is that our stereotype of society and a 'partner' relationship says that couples should have a monogomous sexual relationship with each other, and we balk at the idea of them not having this, and consequently dislike the idea.

Ah, I begin to see. You think the practice of monogamy is barbaric and you'd like to "have your cake and eat it too", as it were. Open marriages abound, but very few last very long. I know one couple who is still together but their open marriage only operated for about five years. They eventually realized why they married each other in the first place and agreed to stop seeing anybody else sexually.

 

I'm not against non-monogamous marriages, but I don't see them being very successful. There's a lot of our psychological makeup involved in our sexuality and our image of attractiveness to our spouses. Many people would find it very very easy to imagine themselves with another sexual partner while within a marriage but find it difficult to allow their spouses the same privelege.

[Sayonara]

That is true for many other factors too. Which friends they hang out with, what house they buy, which job they have etc, can all make or break a marriage, but we don't place conditions on these things before marriage.

The pre-nuptial agreement is becoming more and more common these days, and it's pretty much totally customisable, so I'd contend that we do (or at the very least, we can).

In a marriage that was not intended to make a man/wife pair, it's even more likely that such an agreement would exist, because there is little legal recourse for people wishing to leave such an arrangement.

 

What I am saying is that, even if you had this hypothetical marriage dealy with your best friend (male or female, doesn't matter for this example), and you weren't sexually involved ("I love X but I'm not in love with X" kind of thing, if this were a TV movie), it would still be a good idea to have some kind of mutual agreement regarding sexual behaviour. This is because sexual tension and jealousy are two of the most destructive human forces both in terms of the degree of damage that can be done, and the range of people they affect. The other examples you mentioned don't come anywhere close, and are more easily discussed or compromised on for the majority of people.

[LucidDreamer]

I think that heterosexual same-sex marriage is a bad idea. I don't know all of the tax laws but I do know some real-estate laws give certain benefits to a married couple. So if we allow this then I can see roommates or business partners getting married to receive benefits and then getting a divorce when someone moves out or the partnership outlives its usefulness. I think if this becomes common then marriage will loose all significance. And do we really need to have state-recognized friendship?

[YT2095]

or "State Recognised" financial exploitation?

[5614]

its all a no-no in my book, that is homosexual marriages, but im fine with heterosexual, [who isn't!]

 

but i think that it all comes down to your personal views, there is no right or wrong, just your view, and the opposite view!

[Sayonara]

its all a no-no in my book, that is homosexual marriages, but im fine with heterosexual, [who isn't!]

You're in the wrong thread then.

[Phi for All]

I think if this becomes common then marriage will loose all significance.

This is the heart of the fallacy. The significance of marriage CANNOT be determined by anyone other than the people involved in it. Otherwise you leave your own version of happiness to the whims of others. The state or the church can merely sanction a union. What that union signifies is up to you and your spouse, regardless of any other factors.

[LucidDreamer]

This is the heart of the fallacy. The significance of marriage CANNOT be determined by anyone other than the people involved in it. Otherwise you leave your own version of happiness to the whims of others. The state or the church can merely sanction a union. What that union signifies is up to you and your spouse, regardless of any other factors.

I disagree. If you are just talking about people and their happiness then they are free to make any kind of relationship. If you wanted to make a religion or just have your own ceremony then you are free to set your own rules. However when you are talking about something that is state-recognized then you are involving the government. Then it is up to other people who make up the state to decide. After all would you want to allow an entire town to marry itself or real-estate business parners to receive some kind of benefit intended for another purpose? Then you would have to make up the difference in money that they avoided with your own taxes.

[Phi for All]

After all would you want to allow an entire town to marry itself or real-estate business parners to receive some kind of benefit intended for another purpose?

The former is illegal and the latter is legal anyway if the partners are marriageable under current laws.

 

But you were talking about the significance of the institution being diminished by allowing non-traditional arrangements. Do you believe that marriage as an institution is diminshed by the divorce rate and how easy it is to dissolve a marriage? I may not like how easy it has become to break solemn vows, but it does NOT diminish MY marriage one iota. My feelings, my vow and my relationship to my wife are not dependent on others for their validity.

[Severian]

I think that heterosexual same-sex marriage is a bad idea. I don't know all of the tax laws but I do know some real-estate laws give certain benefits to a married couple. So if we allow this then I can see roommates or business partners getting married to receive benefits and then getting a divorce when someone moves out or the partnership outlives its usefulness.

 

What is wrong with that? You are making moral judgements on other people's behaviours.

 

I think if this becomes common then marriage will loose all significance. And do we really need to have state-recognized friendship?

 

Hasn't it already?

 

After all would you want to allow an entire town to marry itself ...?

 

Why not?

 

Then you would have to make up the difference in money that they avoided with your own taxes.

 

Then do away with tax breaks for marriages. You are already paying extra taxes to make up the taxes which married couples avoid.