Gay Marriage - Page 11 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Pants-of-dog
#14781763
One Degree wrote: I fall back on this issue because both sides of arguments such as gay marriage have very strong opinions and feel the quality of their life is diminished if the other side is dominant. ...


How is anyone's life diminsihed by gay marriage?
User avatar
By Godstud
#14781771
Pants-of-dog wrote:How is anyone's life diminished by gay marriage?
The fact of the matter is that is isn't. It's just a point of contention for religious people who want to impose their views on other people.

The only thing that truly diminishes marriage is divorce, and the ease of people marrying and divorcing, while taking this commitment lightly.

Truly, the only person who can diminish your marriage, is you and your spouse.

The argument against gay marriage is as logical as saying that you engaging in oral sex with your wife, diminishes my sex life. :lol:
User avatar
By Know It All
#14783361
My argument is based on definition. The definition of marriage is the union of a man and woman, not a man and a dog, a woman and a camel, a goldfish and a lemon, or a man and a man. It's as simple as that. Civil partnerships are fine, but not marriage, FULL STOP
By Decky
#14783362
Marriage used to include the union of a man and many women, the traditional definition then changed to the new non traditional one of man one woman one you now use and I expect it will change again. Sorry know it all, the world is not static.
#14783461
Know It All wrote:My argument is based on definition. The definition of marriage is the union of a man and woman, not a man and a dog, a woman and a camel, a goldfish and a lemon, or a man and a man. It's as simple as that. Civil partnerships are fine, but not marriage, FULL STOP

If you look in the Oxford English Dictionary, you find its first definition (and they list definitions in the order they have appeared historically) is "The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony". And for "marry": " To enter into the state of matrimony; to take a husband or wife". For "matrimony": " the joining of two people in marriage" . They do not talk about "a man and woman", or "the opposite sex".

Have you found out yet about Graham Chapman's gay rights activism?
By mikema63
#14783481
Definitions are social constructions and change over time. Marriage used to be defined as between 1 man and as many wives as his wealth and status could afford. There was a time when marriage was a purely political affair of the upper classes and being in love with your wife was heavily frowned upon and extramarital affairs were encouraged. There was a time when there was no marriage at all.

Crying bitter tears over a dictionary isn't an argument.
By anasawad
#14783489
^This is actually a good point.
Why not just abolish marriage all together and everyone can fuck whom ever they want and end with it.


It seems a waste of time to keep this thing going, not just gay marriage, but the entire topic. Every while there will be a huge chaos and disputes over some sort of marriage or anther. Whethers it between different races, genders, classes, orientations, etc. The topic will always rise up. Heck i think a while back even marriage to animals became an issue of debate.
Why not just make marriage a social construct purely rather than a political and legal one.
It'd be much better for everyone, and much less wasteful of resources spent both by the government and the people on it.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14783490
Why not just make marriage a social construct purely rather than a political and legal one.
It'd be much better for everyone, and much less wasteful of resources spent both by the government and the people on it.

That's how it was for most people before the 19th century. Most people would just get together, decide to raise a family together, and then inform all their relatives and friends that they were a couple from now on. And that would be that. This is where the British phrase "living over the brush" comes from - if they wanted to formalise the event, they would gather some friends and relatives together, lay a broom on the ground and jump over it. That was their 'marriage ceremony'. Lol.
By mikema63
#14783492
Well, there are certain legal things that end up being necessary. They can be done by other means as well but marriage formalizes a certain type of legal relation that many want to promote.

Also, you try stripping people's legal privileges and see how they react come elections day.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14783493
Why the broom ? LoL :p

Damfino. Probably something to do with pre-Christian religion or something. Brooms seem to have been important back then, which is why witches are supposed to fly around on broomsticks. :lol:
User avatar
By Vlerchan
#14783496
I have no issue with same-sex marraige.

anadawad wrote:Why not just abolish marriage all together and everyone can fuck whom ever they want and end with it.

1. It makes exit from the relationship more costly - in both social and financial terms - which encourages greater household stability and, resultingly, better outcomes for children.

2. The level at which people already engage in uncommitted fucking is probably already suboptimal.

anadwad wrote:The topic will always rise up.

If you eliminate it, the debate will just shift towards whether men should have sex, or white and black people should have sex.
By anasawad
#14783504
@Vlerchan
1. It makes exit from the relationship more costly - in both social and financial terms - which encourages greater household stability and, resultingly, better outcomes for children.

Looking at the divorce rates, i don't think thats relevant at all, people who want to leave their relationships already do regardless.

If you eliminate it, the debate will just shift towards whether men should have sex, or white and black people should have sex.

Aren't SJWs and feminists already putting up this craziness with marriage being an official legal condition.


@mikema63
Well, there are certain legal things that end up being necessary. They can be done by other means as well


Like statistics ? thats already gathered up by statistics firms and censuses.
but marriage formalizes a certain type of legal relation that many want to promote.

Sure, but if its costing more than its producing why should it be a legal process ?
Having the legal institutions for marriage is wasteful for resources since there are other parts of the community that should have priority. Like housing for the homeless or social welfare for the poor. The money spent on all these processes can be better used in other issues.
On the other hand, married people get tax breaks in most if not all countries.
Why ? tax breaks should be given to those who needs it, not to everyone.
Those taxes that middle class and upper middle class people get cuts from because of marriage could well be spent on improving life for the poor, and if you want to just make cuts, cut the income tax on working class people who do need the extra income instead.
By mikema63
#14783505
I mean like inheritance, visitation rights, social security, pensions, parental rights, etc. Etc.

Many people feel that marriage has social utility that makes up for whatever costs you perceive. Ultimately it doesn't make much difference either way but it is a convenient legal relationship. I think you overstate the costs. Marriage doesn't cost the state enough that it could end poverty if it weren't for marriage laws.
By anasawad
#14783511
Sure, but all these things could be done without legal insitutions for marriage.


The cost is actually rather huge, think not only of whats paid for it, but what income is lost from it.
Mainly tax breaks for both high income populations due to marriage status, the costs of hiring special state representatives for conducting marriage, and further more, tax breaks for religious entities which its prime legal function is marriage with no other legal or official authority in any other field.

Removing all of those can save a considerable amount of money and resources.
By Decky
#14783512
As long as people have a pure love for the party is there anything else they need?
By mikema63
#14783513
If we are talking about tax income we have more serious tax policy issues than joint filling. Idk about other states but any notary can legalize a marriage, it's not a special position. Tax breaks for religious institutions isn't rooted in marriage law it's a separate part of the tax code.
User avatar
By Vlerchan
#14783514
anaswad wrote:Looking at the divorce rates, i don't think thats relevant at all, people who want to leave their relationships already do regardless.

Families in which parents are cohabiting, rather than married, are much more likely to see a separation. I imagine a large part of this is down to the characteristics of people that choose to cohabitate rather than marry - them being less prone to commitment, for example - but I would still be skeptical that increasing the costs of leaving a relationship doesn't induce people to try harder when push comes to shove.

I will add that I come from the country with the lowest rate of divorce in Europe - it's ~15% - so perhaps I'm bringing a perspective that's irrelevant in everyone else's culture.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]