|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Should there be love and marriage for all people (over legal age)?

Default Should there be love and marriage for all people (over legal age)?

September 3rd, 2007, 20:11
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
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.
Actually this have been discussed here already, including thoose who live temporarily together (three students living together was used as example). It was kind of a dynamic law depending who's involved and naturally students do not inherit eachothers belongings but there were other advantages that would benefit them. The party that introduced the idea dissolved but the idea lives on.
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#21

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,027
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

September 3rd, 2007, 21:00
Why should the state determine a religious institution? I don't think that the state should have any right but to acknowledge a civil contract between two people to do various things, raise children, share medical expenses and similar things. The justice of the peace thing and the ships captain bit are ludicrous.

I think the actual religious aspect of marriage should be made separate from the state, and should be done through churches and other houses of worship. The requirements for religious recognition would be based on the rules of the particular church a couple belonged to. Being married should be a licensed process but should be in addition to civil union.

The state is not a religious institution unless it is a theocracy.
mytgroo is offline

mytgroo

Watcher

#22

Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 64

Default 

September 3rd, 2007, 22:13
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
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.
No argument there, from me anyway. I don't know that I missed the nuance you alude to, I was just putting the other piece of the equation—relationship—into the puzzle. The reasons why persons of the same sex are asking for equal treatment in a legally recognized union are manifold, but I think the emotional ones are if not paramount, equally driving. It's a validation, of themselves as who/what they are, and of the legitimacy of their relationship to the other person.

The state can only deal with the legality, at least that's my feeling. But even a civil contract can be an emotional validation, and many seek it for that reason.

(not including lemmings, because they're anathema).
More of a prerequisite, I'd say.

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?
Have you read Memnoch the Devil by Ann Rice? She propounds a very similar question. Like all lapsed Catholic girls, she can really whang down on the guilt factor.

Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
magerette is offline

magerette

magerette's Avatar
Hedgewitch
RPGWatch Team

#23

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,929

Default 

September 3rd, 2007, 22:40
(Speaking from an American point of view)
As far as I see it, this is very similar to the black rights movement. People used to KNOW that black people shouldn't have rights equal to whites despite what the founding fathers wrote (all men are created equal). Now, we are at the verge of when people realize that marriage isn't just for men and women exclusively. Paradigms shift over time, and we can only hope that they shift with the use of reason. Why shouldn't two men or two women be able to share their lives and wealth together? There is no purpose to limit it. Nobody should dictate what an individual does with their life, so long as it doesn't harm others.

Hopefully this makes sense.
Korplem is offline

Korplem

Korplem's Avatar
Shipwreck

#24

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Pearl Harbor, HI
Posts: 798

Default 

September 4th, 2007, 01:56
It does, except for the fact that a limit should be set.

Can I marry a duck If I chose to? If I loved it with all my heart and share every moment of my life with it? Why shouldn't I? There is no purpose to limit it. Nobody should dictate what an individual does with their life, so long it doesn't harm others (If I can add something, or oneself).

Yes, the norm is that a human being shouldn't marry a duck. Why ? Because it isn't natural. The same, I believe that homosexuality isn't natural. I don't believe people who are gay should be shunned by the community, but I also don't believe they should get married, at least not in the traditional sense.
A civil contract is fine, but a marriage is not.

What I mean is that, I took that as an extreme example, but norms do change and I would have no trouble with someone living with a duck as long as they don't marry I don't care what they do behind closed doors. (and as long as they don't harm the animals)

Disclaimer : No ducks were hurt or harmed in any during the writing of this text.
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#25

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,038
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

September 4th, 2007, 02:58
simple
the duck doesn't have a choice
so as much as people can love their pets
or love their pets
the notion of marrying an animal
is nothing more than a ridiculous topic
often used as an example or excuse
for that person's displeasure with
same sex marriages.
curiously undead is offline

curiously undead

curiously undead's Avatar
tuned to a different freq

#26

Join Date: May 2007
Location: standing under everyone
Posts: 812

Default 

September 4th, 2007, 03:44
So you mean to say love between an animal and a human doesn't exist ?
I've seen it. Even yesterday I saw it on National Geographic. A man raised wolves and even decided to live with them all day. He gave up his work and family for them. They treated him as one of their own. Yes it's in a protected park, but they still treated him as one of their own. They played with him and listened to him, not to the words he said but to the way he howled and growled and his actions.
Yes, and like I said it's ridiculous now, but it doesn't mean it will always be.
Someone else said about everyone knowing that blacks were inferior to others and shouldn't even have the right to speak. Norms change, people change that's the way the world goes.
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#27

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,038
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

September 4th, 2007, 04:51
Originally Posted by Pladio View Post
Yes, and like I said it's ridiculous now, but it doesn't mean it will always be.
I know I'm looking forward to the day when humans and animals can express their love for each other without fear of rejection and scorn.

Oh, I wish I had a river I could skate away on. But it don't snow here. It stays pretty green. I'm going to make a lot of money, then I'm going to quit this crazy scene. — [Joni Mitchell]
Squeek is offline

Squeek

Squeek's Avatar
connoisseur of tidbits

#28

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 1,807

Default 

September 4th, 2007, 05:06
As a hamster, that's completely appropriate.

Anyone for a chorus of Muskrat Love?

Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
Last edited by magerette; September 4th, 2007 at 05:15.
magerette is offline

magerette

magerette's Avatar
Hedgewitch
RPGWatch Team

#29

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,929

Default 

September 4th, 2007, 05:19
As someone who has been in a ~15 year, loving, faithful - but unmarried - relationship, I feel pretty comfortable dismissing any religion that dismisses me without second thought.

So, from a civil perspective I can see no reason the state should discriminate and the religious perspective is a matter for the adherents but is irrelevant to me.

-= RPGWatch =-
Dhruin is offline

Dhruin

Dhruin's Avatar
Watcher
Super Moderator
RPGWatch Team

#30

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 11,964

Default 

September 4th, 2007, 05:39
@Pladio-if you referrening to my comment you didn't read it very well. i think love for animals can be a great thing. i have the utmost respect for all life. but when you are talking about non-sentient beings they can't make a "choice" to be married. most people even though they love their pets still think of them as their property not a being that has the right to exist. monkeys might be a grey area or even dolphins excetera. if they could somehow prove the link was based on choice and not need i suppose its possible. but next someone will bring up aliens. i think any sane person would have to set the limit at homo sapiens for the time being, and that is in no way predujice or devaluing other life. i haven't eaten mammals in over four years, but thats a whole 'nother story
curiously undead is offline

curiously undead

curiously undead's Avatar
tuned to a different freq

#31

Join Date: May 2007
Location: standing under everyone
Posts: 812

Default 

September 4th, 2007, 08:07
Hey, there is a precedent!
Korplem is offline

Korplem

Korplem's Avatar
Shipwreck

#32

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Pearl Harbor, HI
Posts: 798

Default 

September 4th, 2007, 08:19
i'm aware of that but she must be good in bed otherwise the dolphin will wise up and file for divorce since they are the only other species that has sex for pleasure.
curiously undead is offline

curiously undead

curiously undead's Avatar
tuned to a different freq

#33

Join Date: May 2007
Location: standing under everyone
Posts: 812

Default 

September 4th, 2007, 08:26
I cannot believe someone just compared consenting human adults with ducks. It reminds me of the tenth commandment that equals women to cattle. I really think humans have more value than that.
Last edited by JemyM; September 4th, 2007 at 08:44.
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#34

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,027
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

September 4th, 2007, 08:33
Originally Posted by magerette View Post
No argument there, from me anyway. I don't know that I missed the nuance you alude to, I was just putting the other piece of the equation—relationship—into the puzzle. The reasons why persons of the same sex are asking for equal treatment in a legally recognized union are manifold, but I think the emotional ones are if not paramount, equally driving. It's a validation, of themselves as who/what they are, and of the legitimacy of their relationship to the other person.

The state can only deal with the legality, at least that's my feeling. But even a civil contract can be an emotional validation, and many seek it for that reason.
Absolutely. I believe most of the acrimony around the issue would go away if the bit about emotional validation and meaning was simply left out of the discussion, to be decided by the individuals concerned.

Have you read Memnoch the Devil by Ann Rice? She propounds a very similar question. Like all lapsed Catholic girls, she can really whang down on the guilt factor.
No, I haven't; I've only read one or two of her short stories.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#35

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

September 4th, 2007, 08:38
Originally Posted by Pladio View Post
It does, except for the fact that a limit should be set.

Can I marry a duck If I chose to? If I loved it with all my heart and share every moment of my life with it? Why shouldn't I? There is no purpose to limit it. Nobody should dictate what an individual does with their life, so long it doesn't harm others (If I can add something, or oneself).

Yes, the norm is that a human being shouldn't marry a duck. Why ? Because it isn't natural. The same, I believe that homosexuality isn't natural. I don't believe people who are gay should be shunned by the community, but I also don't believe they should get married, at least not in the traditional sense.
A civil contract is fine, but a marriage is not.
No, Pladio. If we look at marriage from the legal/contractual point of view, we define it is a binding contract freely and knowingly entered into by all parties concerned. A duck is not a rational being, and therefore not capable of forming contracts. Therefore, you can't marry a duck (or, to be precise, a duck can't marry you).

Second, "because it isn't natural" isn't a reason; it's a cop-out (cf. "Goddidit.")
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#36

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

September 4th, 2007, 08:39
Originally Posted by curiously undead View Post
i'm aware of that but she must be good in bed otherwise the dolphin will wise up and file for divorce since they are the only other species that has sex for pleasure.
There are plenty of species that have sex for pleasure. Bonobos are probably the most famous example.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#37

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

September 4th, 2007, 09:31
Should there be love and marriage for all people
This is a two part question, because love and marriage are two different things.

1) Should there be love for all people ?
Yes - but everyone has work on that very hard, love yourself, love the people (and animals) around you (= be there, listen, help whereever you can, be nice, have fun) and then you have a good basis for a partnership with a single person.

2a) Should there be marriage for all people ?
There should be a legal way for all people to stay together for life within the framework of existing legislation with all rights and duties of a marriage.

2b) It would be nice if this legal contract could be sealed in all the different churches in the world.



PS:
according to Erich Fromm every human has 5 basic needs:

1. Relatedness - relationships with others, care, respect, knowledge;
2. Transcendence - creativity, develop a loving and interesting life;
3. Rootedness - feeling of belonging;
4. Sense of Identity - see ourselves as a unique person and part of a social group.
5. A frame of orientation- the need to understand the world and our place in it.

A good start to read is his book The Art of Loving (1956).

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. - HL Mencken
Last edited by HiddenX; September 4th, 2007 at 09:41.
HiddenX is online now

HiddenX

HiddenX's Avatar
The Elder Spy
RPGWatch Donor

#38

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NRW/Germany
Posts: 3,581

Default 

September 4th, 2007, 09:40
Marriage is open to any combination of sexes in my country (as long as there are only 2). The same goes for adoption.
Marriage is a legal contract. People who want to get married in church got to have two ceremonies. A legal marriage and the one in church. A religious marriage gives you no legal rights at all.
You are required by law to take care of each other once you are married, and a default situation dealing with ownership of goods is described as well (from which you can deviate with a document before you get married).
That is basically it. It's easy to get married and easy to get divorced (although a bit expensive).
Unmarried people that are living together would need a lot of paperwork to get to the same legal position as married people do, so getting married to make things easier is a common thing to do.
Love has nothing to do with marriage as love is not a legal issue.

Computer n. A machine which flawlessly performs the instructions it is given, no matter how flawed those instructions may be.
Myrthos is offline

Myrthos

Myrthos's Avatar
Cave Canem
Super Moderator
RPGWatch Team

#39

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,047

Default 

September 4th, 2007, 10:41
Originally Posted by Lucky Day View Post
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.
I guess the reason I haven't had a ceremony is that I want to do it "properly" and it would probably cost about $10K, which is don't have. We are saving for the house and then when we are settled in we will save for a ceremony. I figure it makes more sense to get a house and start paying it off before spending money on a ceremony and a piece of paper. I want to do the ceremony, but I don't think it will change my feelings about my partner or our relationship. I will not love him more, feel more secure, feel happier or feel more complete for having a piece of paper that states we have made a committment to each other. We have stood by each other though a lot. My father died, my nanna died, my dog died, he started his own business and we pumped as much money as we could into it but it still failed. We have spent a long time together and I cannot see how we are less than Brittany Spears who has a quickie Vegas wedding and then has it annulled, or any of the thousands of young people who decide they are in love, get married and separate within a year. I may be a harpie and immoral, but I think it is good to live with your partner before getting married to ensure you are compatible as lifemates not just in love and blinded to each others faults and ideosyncracies. I know some of the things I do my other half finds bizarre, and some of the things he does I cannot comprehend how anyone from our solar system could rationalise. We do love each other, but committment is stronger than love.

Myrthos, the Netherlands sounds excellent. Everything I ever hear about the laws and attitudes are open but based on facts and not sentiment or fear. A very forward thinking country that I think a lot of governments could learn a lot from.

Eagles may soar but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

The journey of a thousand miles sometimes ends very, very badly.

When you earnestly believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do.

When I have had a bad day, I only have to think of chicken cat and I can put my problems in perspective
.
Kayla is offline

Kayla

Kayla's Avatar
Watchdog

#40

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 229
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Should there be love and marriage for all people (over legal age)?
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 22:15.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch