Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by mazzz, Jun 5, 2006.
What do you think marriage should be in your country?
Please ignore the other thread.
The fourth choice should read "Both Option 2 and 3"
Choice six should read "One woman and one woman only"
Choice seven has marriage spelled wrong.
Could a mod fix all this? thanks
Marriage should be left up to the individuals involved. If that means a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or a group of individuals, more power to them.
I chose the last choice, but more as a protest against omitting the reasonable solution.
Get rid of marriage as a legal institution. No one is married legally. Offer civil unions to every couple. Marriage then becomes strictly a religious institution and carries no legal weight outside of religion.
For me, marrage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.
Um, missing is another obvious option: Marriage between one man and one woman, or between one man and another man, or between one woman and another woman. So I can't vote.
Marriage should be available to any two individuals, whether they are man-woman, man-man, or woman-woman.
Moderator Action: Fixed, again.
I can only endorse male homosexual marriages, but not lesbian marriages? Decisions decisions...
I would say the options for this poll would be more appropreate with these options:
Views on Marrage
Between a man and a woman
Polygamous Marrage between a man and many women (and vice versa)
Marriage is an obsolete institution
I think marriage in this day and age sucks.
Too many people divorce.
Too many step families.
Too many people marry on a whim.
Marriage is too frivolous nowadays.
If any two people, or rather, any group of people want to get married and can avoid making it an exercise in stupidity, then more power to them.
I think that marriage as an institution should be defined by the individuals involved. Getting rid of legal definition, making civil unions of some sort available to any two or more people who so desire, and then letting them decide what is a marriage, fits my political views. In a sense, this is already the case; say, two women who hold a commitment ceremony with their familes, win a church with wedding dresses and everything, and consider themselves married are just as married in reality as a heterosexual couple, they just don't receive the same benefits from the government.
In my religious views, I think that God views marriage as between a man and a woman only (occasionally allowing a man to have mutliple marriages, only on His authorization) but it is not like my religious views are the basis of any legal system, nor should they be.
I say that legally, marriage should be between any two people or group of humans (all consenting of course.) Morally, I say marriage should be herteosexual only.
Exactly what I think. I also think that a constitutional amendment to define marriage is about as good an idea as a constitutional amendment outlawing alcohol in this country. But it is very unlikely that it will get passed.
Man and woman, there is no other way.
You could instead choose to skip marriage and go for the concubines instead...
Marriage is a bond with whomever I may marry and that's it. Why should I worry about the affairs of someone down the street?
Honestly, perhaps I'd limit it to two people, but that might be just me trying to figure out exactly what the benefit of polygamy would be. Still, I'm not going to waste my time getting angry at someone, especially if I've never even met them in my life.
Chose the last option. Civilly unionize people for the tax purposes and legal benefits, let the people worry about trying to find a religious institution to host a wedding, if they wish.
I am quite fuzzy on this.
Secuarly I feel that the Government should have no involvement in marrage, hetero or homosexual. While Moraly and religiously I feel that marrage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman.
There you go again, imposing your morals on someone else. What difference does it make to you that someone else decides to marry two woman? Or a woman and a man? Or whomever?
Yes, but as long as we live in a secular society with true religious freedom, what any person feels about marriage from a moral perspective is irrelevant no matter how right they may be.
My church has made a rare foray into politics to support the proposed amendment, but this is something with which I cannot agree. I have every right to think that the hypothetical lesbian couple down the street is doing something wrong, but I don't really think a constitutional amendment - or any government involvemnet is the answer. On the other hand, because of my religious beliefs I cannot support government recognition of their union. In essence, I have to sit out this whole debate not out of apathy but because I can't agree with either side, entirely.
Separate names with a comma.