cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
What do you think the intention of marriage is, as an institution? And how do you think this should affect the gay marriage debate or the financial benefits to marriage?
The Intention of Marriage.
- Thread starter cgannon64
- Start date
shadowdude
cynic in training
Marriage should be the union of a man and woman as a bond of love for the purpose of procreation.
Mise
isle of lucy
When two people love each other very much and want to spend the rest of their lives together, they get married.
I'm not sure what financial benefits should be given (if any, though I'm sure I'm missing something), but it means that, unless gay people are incapable of love, gays should be allowed to get married.
I'm not sure what financial benefits should be given (if any, though I'm sure I'm missing something), but it means that, unless gay people are incapable of love, gays should be allowed to get married.
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
I agree with you here Mise.
I was going to add in my first post that financial benefits should be given because there are children, not just because they are married.
I was going to add in my first post that financial benefits should be given because there are children, not just because they are married.
Marriage is an instution originally designed to ensure that mates would stay together to raise at least one child, to ensure that the child would be ready for life as a part of a society (as opposed to just one parent, which would mean that the child would not as easily be ready for society).
Of course, this is different from the modern definition or interpretation of marriage. Nowadays it's simply an affirmation of love.
With the modern possibility of adoption (and sperm donation), both should allow gay couples to marry.
Of course, this is different from the modern definition or interpretation of marriage. Nowadays it's simply an affirmation of love.
With the modern possibility of adoption (and sperm donation), both should allow gay couples to marry.
I don't see why marriage is at all desirable to non-religious people. I see its value for religious people as a Sacrament binding themselves together with their preferred God for the purpose of raising children, but why do atheists or secularists value marriage at all?
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
Because, they've still got a little sentimentalism in them, no matter how hard they try to beat it out with Logic. They're human; they've got to.
Trotskij
Chieftain
Its their life...if a man and a man or a women and a women wants to get married, why not!?!? Its their life, its called FREEDOM. When you can decide how you want your life to be...
Scuffer
Scuffer says...
It is a declaration of devotion.
It has a specific religious meaning, to religious types.
As a civil institution, it should be independent of sexuality, including any financial benefits.
It has a specific religious meaning, to religious types.
As a civil institution, it should be independent of sexuality, including any financial benefits.
The intention of marriage depend on the culture from which people come from. Here in the West, we believe that the marriage is to unite two people in love. Other cultures see it only as a way of forming ties between families and to produce children, like in China and India. In the first sense, gays should be allowed to marry; the second defenition does not.
However, the legacy of 500 years of Euro-American domination over the world has ment that Western culture (or portions of it) has some currency throughout the world. So I say that gay should be allow to marry, since the second definition is growing out of favor.
However, the legacy of 500 years of Euro-American domination over the world has ment that Western culture (or portions of it) has some currency throughout the world. So I say that gay should be allow to marry, since the second definition is growing out of favor.
Scuffer
Scuffer says...
To provide some definitive structures in society. Or why the financial incentives?Keirador said:
People like to show and prove their devotion, to themselves and others. It's like buying a luxury car when a economy on will do just as well. Call it human nature maybe.
I think everyone should be able to agree that the financial incentives make no sense whatsoever. I don't see why marriage as a non-religious institution has any merit whatsoever. Its not as if being married makes your relationship permanent, and its not as if you can't have a permanent relationship without being married.
Shadylookin
master debater
the intention of marriage is to oppress man, he became a slave to the institution he created.
marriage used to be a bond of a male and female/s that their parents choose for them. After that it was a union of a male and a female(that for some reason wanted to get married willingly) of the same race.
now it's an insitution of a male and a female that willingly want to get married but will be in a divorce court in 5-7 years after they have had 2 or 3 kids and finally realize they have nothing in common. then they'll get remarried to other people so their kids can have 2 sets of parents, and when they become teenagers when the step-parent tries to correct them they can yell "Your not my Father/Mother." Then they'll all end up in group therapy. Let the homosexuals have marriage as far as I'm concerned.
marriage used to be a bond of a male and female/s that their parents choose for them. After that it was a union of a male and a female(that for some reason wanted to get married willingly) of the same race.
now it's an insitution of a male and a female that willingly want to get married but will be in a divorce court in 5-7 years after they have had 2 or 3 kids and finally realize they have nothing in common. then they'll get remarried to other people so their kids can have 2 sets of parents, and when they become teenagers when the step-parent tries to correct them they can yell "Your not my Father/Mother." Then they'll all end up in group therapy. Let the homosexuals have marriage as far as I'm concerned.
Scuffer
Scuffer says...
AgreedKeirador said:
Absolutely correct also. But people like to be believe that their relationship will last forever. Getting married to someone is supposed to prove that both parties aren't going to change their minds at the next opportunity. Essentially, it provides the relationship with an obligation that means you have to try to make it work.
It is a commitment to each other rather than to God or the State.
Scuffer
Scuffer says...
Because you stand there in front of friends and family, on an occasion you have organsed with you partner, at not considerable expense. You get up there, and exchange vows with someone you love. You look them in the eye, and tell them of your commitment to them. It is psychological as much as anything else. It's a promise you don't mean to break, and you are telling the world.
Are you a Civ player? Ever played PBEM with a friend? Consider it a ROP made with a person rather than an AI.
Are you a Civ player? Ever played PBEM with a friend? Consider it a ROP made with a person rather than an AI.
King Alexander
Universe explorer
For me, there's no other reason to get married than make children and 'declare' officially to the society that anyone trying to flirt with my wife, better watches out!cgannon64 said:
Here, IMHO, the state gives a small benefit to married couples without children to support their marriage more*, because, sooner or later, the couple will make children and the state will also benefit from it's 'new' citizens after some years(and of course, the couple will be further supported by the state, with more and better benefits, once it has children).
*Of course, the married couple may not want to have kids ever, or may be incapable of having kids(medical reasons), but the small benefit from the state won't stop ever, as the state can't force a couple to have chidren or won't mess with the private life of it's citizens - we're not talking about the majority now -
--
--Taken this into consideration, homosexuals should also get the small benefit from being married, if the marriage will be allowed.
The thing is that, the whole debate, IMHO, is more about the homosexuals' acceptance from the society, because, a married heterosexual/homosexual couple won't benefit too much without children, and frankly speaking, there's no logical explanation to why the state shouldn't stop giving benefits to couples without children.
As for me, I wouldn't marry just for 'being' married, if I didn't want to have children: love, understanding and respect for my partner, would be enough to keep us together.
