RPGWatch Forums
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 Last »

RPGWatch Forums (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics & Religion (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Should there be love and marriage for all people (over legal age)? (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2632)

Kayla September 3rd, 2007 08:58

Should there be love and marriage for all people (over legal age)?
 
Should love, whether same sex or opposite sex be recognised? Whether you want to call it marriage, union, bonding ceremony or anthing else, should a union between people of the same sex be recognised and the same legal standing given to same sex unions and opposite sex unions?
If the main argument for marriage to only be between a man and woman so they can bear offspring, does that mean people with no intention to have children should not be able to marry?
If marriage is a legal right for opposite sex couples, should there be restrictions? For example, if someone is in jail for rape/murder, should they be able to marry during the term of their imprisionment? Should they have to wait until they get out of jail to enjoy marriage as they have been put in jail for ruining someone elses life?
Should there be a waiting period (eg. have to be dating for a certain period, or living together for a certain period) to be able to marry?
I hope other people have questions (or answers) about love and marriage.
Obviously the responses could centre around the church, religion, ethics, personal beliefs, cultural beliefs and other things that people feel very strongly about, so please be considerate of other people's opinions and be nice when posting.

MasterLich September 3rd, 2007 11:29

My, we're up early with serious matters on a Monday morning!

OK, my take on this: the marriage is an institution created by humans so from my ethical point of view they can do with it what they wish. In other words, I'm not against same-sex marriages. It's a bit sad that all this fuss is anyway about money and heritages.

Adoption is OK as long as there is some sort of criteria for adoption rights (the same as for others). Also, the possibility of one person having a custody of a child before entering a gay marriage makes it a bit impossible to prevent kids from living with same-sex couples, if those marriages are allowed.

For people in jail, the sentence itself is a punishment, not what happens outside the context of serving it. It was not clear from your question if you ment 2 inmates marrying or someone marrying with a person outside the jail; not sure if I'd have anything against it either way. But I probably would question the reasons why the 'good citizen' would want to marry an inmate.

Should there be a waiting period? Sure, many say. But does it really change the odds of a marriage being what you'd consider successful (e.g. long and prospering)? People want different things. I'd take just 4 months of honeymoon over 30 years of marriage any day, if I was still young. If I had kids, I would probably think otherwise.

But it's just my 2 cents, to the question on subject line, yes, there should be love for all people, and marriage sometimes for all as well.

Prime Junta September 3rd, 2007 11:33

Historically, marriage was first and foremost a civil contract. All this romantic nonsense around it has appeared over the past century, tops. If we took marriage back to this old definition, I think most of the debate would evaporate. Just define the legal rights and obligations that it involves, and make it possible for any two (or more?) adults enter into it. Call it a "civil solidarity contract" (a bit like the French PACS).

If somebody wants to have a religious ceremony on top of that, that's cool too, and it would allow different religious communities to set different standards on who's eligible for it and who isn't.

I certainly think it's wrong if a homosexual couple can't get the legal status that a heterosexual couple can. If a couple has lived together for thirty years and one of them dies, it's just plain wrong if the survivor is treated legally as a stranger when it comes to inheritance or with regards to children the two have reared together.

Corwin September 3rd, 2007 12:10

Given who/what I am, obviously I have STRONG opinions on this issue!! Marriage is originally a religious, not a civil institution. The Bible, for example, clearly states that!! Non-religious people probably couldn't care less, so nothing I say would matter. Even non-Christian/Jewish/Muslim religions have fairly strong views on this topic, while for those mentioned, the very thought of same-sex marriages would be an abomination!!

Prime Junta September 3rd, 2007 12:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corwin (Post 43487)
Given who/what I am, obviously I have STRONG opinions on this issue!! Marriage is originally a religious, not a civil institution. The Bible, for example, clearly states that!! Non-religious people probably couldn't care less, so nothing I say would matter. Even non-Christian/Jewish/Muslim religions have fairly strong views on this topic, while for those mentioned, the very thought of same-sex marriages would be an abomination!!

So, are you saying that, say, the pagan Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, or Assyrians didn't have the institution of marriage? If so, you're mistaken.

woges September 3rd, 2007 12:36

St. Paul turned marriage from a contract to a sacrament I believe. The troubadours (bards to most of you ^^) pretty much invented romance as we know it.

Kayla September 3rd, 2007 13:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corwin (Post 43487)
Given who/what I am, obviously I have STRONG opinions on this issue!! Marriage is originally a religious, not a civil institution. The Bible, for example, clearly states that!! Non-religious people probably couldn't care less, so nothing I say would matter. Even non-Christian/Jewish/Muslim religions have fairly strong views on this topic, while for those mentioned, the very thought of same-sex marriages would be an abomination!!

I understand being such an important part of the church your would have very strong opinions. The pagans has very similar ceremonies to marriage ceremonies, just with different name, as did other civilisations (as pointed out by Prime Junta).

The bible does state marriage is a religious institution, but a lot in the bible has changed over time, and while the 10 Commandment remain the most important ways to live a good life, some of the other instructions in the bible have been "modernised". Women are allowed to "talk in church" (although the original meaning of this was misinterpreted), you are allowed to have sideburns, you are allowed to plant multiple crops in the one field, you are not allowed to sell your children into slavery, people don't just eat fish on Friday. Even though this is the new testiment, the Church does budge on it's fundamental principles, even a male should not lay with another male. When Catholic priests (and other religious leaders) have been charged/found guilty/suspected of paedophilia, the Church has covered up, transferred the offender to a new area and tried not to deal with the issue. If the fundamental principle that being homosexual is wrong is adhered to surely these priests would be kicked out of the church and not defended by church funded lawyers when the cases go to court.

The bible has messages of love and intolerance, and while a lot of intolerance has been overcome in the modern age, the homophobic attitude towards people who are not employees of the church seems a little sad.

I was very religious years ago, but now I see the bible as a story written by a group of men and someone sat down and said "this one goes in, this one stays out" and created a book to try and give people a little bit of hope, and a feeling they are not alone, and to promote community spirit. I do not see the bible as the definitive word on society or something that should intervene with laws to create and enforce equality (allegorical not literal to cut a long story short).

Corwin, I hope this does not offend you, I have nothing but respect for you and I hope this thread is a conversation and not an attack and does not make you uncomfortable. The same goes for people both sides of the conversation. These are just my views and are not meant to insult anyone.

Prime Junta September 3rd, 2007 15:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by woges (Post 43492)
St. Paul turned marriage from a contract to a sacrament I believe. The troubadours (bards to most of you ^^) pretty much invented romance as we know it.

That they did, and for them, romance was (almost) invariably *outside* marriage.

woges September 3rd, 2007 16:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime Junta (Post 43510)
That they did, and for them, romance was (almost) invariably *outside* marriage.

Yes but thats probably for social reasons. Hard to get a bunk up when all the girls have been married off from the age of 12.

edit:

Or not as the case maybe ^^.

Prime Junta September 3rd, 2007 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by woges (Post 43513)
Yes but thats probably for social reasons. Hard to get a bunk up when all the girls have been married off from the age of 12.

Indeed. Which, basically, strengthens my point that romance in marriage is a recent invention, and formerly marriage was first and foremost a civil contract. Still is, in many places.

Did you know that the bride doesn't even have to be present when the contract is signed in an Islamic marriage?

fatBastard() September 3rd, 2007 17:53

Considering all the arranged marriages that take place all around the world I think the "love contract" is actually a minority.

Don't get me wrong: I'm all for marriage by love. I don't care if you're black, white, yellow, brown or purple, nor do I care if you're straight or gay - when it comes to the civil standing and/or rights then there should be no difference between same sex vs. opposite sex marriages.

However, there is a line of logic, somewhere, that needs to be drawn in my opinion. In my country the public health care system finances large parts, if not all, of the treatment for childlessness. While this may be argued to be an offer that should be available to all citizens I just can't see the logic of offering said treatment for same sex couples - I mean, it is not as if they are having trouble procreating due to low sperm count or other common issues in that department - it is simply a physical impossibility.

I'm not saying that said treatment should be denied same sex couples, but I simply can't justify that is should be funded by the public/government.

Okayyy, getting a bit off topic now. At any rate, having expressed my views on religion in the thread about Global Warming I'll stay clear of that for now.

magerette September 3rd, 2007 18:05

Kayla wrote:
Quote:

… now I see the bible as a story written by a group of men and someone sat down and said "this one goes in, this one stays out" and created a book to try and give people a little bit of hope, and a feeling they are not alone, and to promote community spirit. I do not see the bible as the definitive word on society or something that should intervene with laws to create and enforce equality (allegorical not literal to cut a long story short).
You've expressed my own feelings very well with those observations.

As for same sex marriages, I say let everyone enjoy the thrills of divorce court. :)

Seriously, marriage is a contract involving property and inheritance first, social acceptance by one's peers second—or else everyone would just live together. Recognizing the union legally protects people, especially children, from the hardships of a non-connected life(lack of spousal/family insurance, loss of income, inheritance, etc.) I draw the line, though, at limiting the definition to only a contract. Prime Junta's factoid about Islamic women is blood-chilling to me.

For a marriage to be a true union there has to be some strong emotional content. I think everyone, regardless of sexual alignment, has a need to experience intimacy and trust, and to have those feelings as well as their contractual obligations to the other party validated in some socially significant manner. Marriage seems the most sensible vehicle for this.

Lucky Day September 3rd, 2007 18:14

There's very little to quibble over here.

Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman and is the only grounds in which people can legitimately have sex.

Anything else is immoral and illegitimate: "shacking up", one night stands, homosexuality, group marriages, plural marriages, you name it. You can take great pains to justify it but such things aren't right.

Jaz September 3rd, 2007 18:46

There's nothing I could add to the discussion because I share Prime Junta's view. And I consider myself religious.

Squeek September 3rd, 2007 18:47

The way I see it this issue is going to keep looming larger as more folks everywhere accept the idea that all people are created equally. If that's true, it means there's absolutely nothing wrong with any of those "other people." It means there's equity for mixed unions.

Prime Junta September 3rd, 2007 19:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by magerette (Post 43535)
I draw the line, though, at limiting the definition to only a contract. Prime Junta's factoid about Islamic women is blood-chilling to me.

For a marriage to be a true union there has to be some strong emotional content. I think everyone, regardless of sexual alignment, has a need to experience intimacy and trust, and to have those feelings as well as their contractual obligations to the other party validated in some socially significant manner. Marriage seems the most sensible vehicle for this.

There's a subtle distinction you may have missed: my point is that the state should stay out of the business of defining what marriage should mean subjectively and emotionally, and stick to defining what it means contractually. There's no good test for "strong emotional content," or even "intimacy and trust," so there's no point in looking for one either.

I would be totally fine with calling it something else, if it makes people feel better — call civil marriage "pact of civil solidarity," and leave "spiritual marriage" out of the legal/public sphere. That way, the Strictboro Baptist church could choose to only marry Anglo-Saxon heterosexuals between the ages of 18 and 33 1/2, while the Pinko Universal Oneness Rainbow Church could conduct group weddings for all ages, sexes, colors, and species (not including lemmings, because they're anathema).

And, yes, I find that particular Islamic practice rather chilling too. But then, some people would find a tortured corpse nailed to a gibbet a somewhat chilling object of worship as well, no?

Prime Junta September 3rd, 2007 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky Day (Post 43536)
Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman and is the only grounds in which people can legitimately have sex.

Sez who? And why should I care?

JemyM September 3rd, 2007 19:44

"Suit yourself, stay out of others business."

Some people believe they have the right to guide other people's lives. I suggest they shut up or move to Iran. When it comes to "marriage", the whole idea outdated and the laws about it may as well be abolished. If people live together they should have some protection, on top of that, what ceremonies people hold is their own business. Church should have no authority and the only authority state should have over church is to lock people up if they break the law.

Prime Junta September 3rd, 2007 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by JemyM (Post 43551)
When it comes to "marriage", the whole idea outdated and the laws about it may as well be abolished. If people live together they should have some protection, on top of that, what ceremonies people hold is their own business.

I disagree. People live together for any number of reasons. If a bunch of students share a flat to split the rent, it should not imply that they inherit each other or automatically share parenthood should one of them have a baby. Marriage has pretty deep legal implications, most of which are there for a good reason. I feel very strongly that it's the kind of contract that needs to be entered into explicitly and consciously, whatever the reasons.

That said, I can't see any reason why a contract of civil solidarity should be limited to two people.

JemyM September 3rd, 2007 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky Day (Post 43536)
I believe There's very little to quibble over here.
According to my opinion Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman and is the only grounds in which people can legitimately have sex.
Also I feel that Anything else is immoral and illegitimate: "shacking up", one night stands, homosexuality, group marriages, plural marriages, you name it. You can take great pains to justify it for me but such things aren't right in my opinion.

Remember that your opinions are yours alone. Also remember that absolutism and extremism go hand in hand, it's good to be openminded and accept that not everyone lives and thinks the same. This is especially important when you live in a civilization where freedom is essential to your culture.


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 20:36.
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 Last »

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch