Heterosexual Same sex Marriage

[LucidDreamer]

I don't think that either one of you really tried to understand my posts. .(Actually I suspect that severian might be joking a little?)

I am not making any moral judgements on anyone. I am simply referring to state-recognized marriage. If I were referring simply to same sex marriage then I would most likely be making moral judgements. I am referring to marriages, that might include heterosexual same sex marriages, between people who have no real interest in forming a loving union but who are looking to get benefits through the explotaion of marriage

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 diminished 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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

This doesn't have much to do with my argument. I am not making moral judgements about divorce or anything else. I am happy you have a good relationship with your wife.

 

My arguments are purely directed towards the disallowance of marriage for the purposes of benefit exploitation. There are already state-controlled business partnership laws that are intended to specifically address their concerns.

 

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

 

 

If you reread my post you will see that I make no mention of moral judgement and it should not be interpreted that way. You have misinterpreted my argument.

 

Hasn't it already?

 

 

I have several friends and have had several roommates and I don't feel that I should be allowed to marry them so that we might in some way exploit the system.

 

 

Why not?

 

 

There is any number of silly circumstances that could arise by a whole town marrying. In Texas there is a law that prevents debtors from taking away your house, land, and automobiles. This amount gets bigger when you get married. If this got bigger by the same amount per person for a whole town you could have a real problem situation. If you allowed a town to get married it could just stack up millions in debt to other towns and then declare bankruptcy. No one could take anything back because of the laws and they could just drive around in their town-owned sports cars, play golf on their town-owned golf course. You could make Jim’s house into a nice country club. Etc.

 

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

 

There is a difference between the two. I am single but I am willing to pay extra taxes to allow a married couple to form a loving union. I am not willing to pay extra taxes to allow two real-estate tycoons to get married so that they can each have a second yacht.

[Severian]

Actually I suspect that severian might be joking a little?

 

Its a fair cop!

 

But I still think it would be a good idea to separate marriage from the state. I don't believe that marriage should give you tax breaks (it doesn't in the UK), and all the extra rights you are supposed to have could very easily be set up with a simple state registration system. (And I would like to see this registration devoid of any assumptions like who you are sleeping with.)

 

That would then leave 'marriage' to whatever church or social group you belong. There would be no discrimination and no reason for the right-wing or left-wing to complain.

[Sayonara]

I understand what you mean, Lucid. Your concerns are for the integrity of society as a whole (whether this is financial integrity, based on taxes, or whatever).

 

It is in the nature of societies to change over time. Society is not a single entity that we serve, it is made from us - as our behaviours and lifestyles change, so must our society. A society that is incapable of reflecting the nature of its constituent members is doomed to failure.

[newbie]

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

 

I support gay marriage and can easily distinguish this from polygomy' date=' 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?[/quote'] I think Lucid made a strong argument against the heterosexual samesex marriages. The love in marriage though. I think at first it seems hard to deny that marriage is about love, but if you look deep enough we see love and marriage don’t always go together. In fact, they seldom do. If marriage were about love then imagine all the people in the history of the world who thought they were married when they were not. Most marriages have been arranged. Love may percolate later, but only as a result of marriage, not the reason for it. If love were the reason for marriage there would be no "“for better or for worse” promises. Vows don't sustain love they are meant to sustain the union when love wanes. A pledge keeps a family intact not for love, but for the sake of children.

 

Oh well, just my opinion; good thread John. Never thought about that before, got me thinking.

[Skye]

The legal basis of marriage has alot to do with the closeness of church and state (especially so in the past), and a little social engineering. The point of having marriage partly controlled by the state was to allow the state to control marriage, and the religion of the nation. So when we look to change these laws in an age of religious and sexual liberty, it is confusing and makes our head hurt.