If homosexuals can marry each other, - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13560741
If homosexuals can marry each other, should asexuals be allowed to marry themselves?? Don't all people of all orientations deserve certain rights and freedoms?? The creator of the thread entitled "Should sex be banned" is a self admitted asexual. His name is Whathastobedone. Should he be allowed to marry himself and demand tax exemptions because of his way of expressing his love? Asexuals love themselves, not others. If homos can marry legally, why can't asexuals express their right to marry themselves in the same fashion??

Why or why not???
User avatar
By Philby
#13560750
A marriage is between two people...

Is this a personal vendetta?
User avatar
By Suska
#13560754
I agree, as long as a person likes sex they should get a tax break.

maaaaan... you're really coming late to the party, this topic has been talked to death here.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#13560755
Marriage is between two(+) people. One person, whatever their sexuality and identity, is still one person.
User avatar
By Suska
#13560757
marriage is between two people...

That's a value judgement and if those are admissible then marriage is between a man and a woman.
By Agent Steel
#13560776
Marriage is between two(+) people. One person, whatever their sexuality and identity, is still one person.


Marriage has always technically been between a man and a woman. Who are you to define marriage as between any two consenting adults? Wouldn't this be unfair to asexuals who wish to marry themselves? If you're gonna say it's unfair to deny gay rights, then you can't not allow asexual rights.
By Lensky1917
#13560793
Thunderhawk wrote:Marriage is between two(+) people. One person, whatever their sexuality and identity, is still one person.


Okay, what if you're asexual and also have a split personality?

:?:

And just for a bonus, let's say they have both sets of sexual organs.
By inquisitu
#13560801
I think the word marriage could be hyphenated to accomodate all unions .. hetero-marriage, homo-marriage .. and so on.

What I do not understand, is why two individuals who decide to form a union .. should be given more rights or benefits than those who prefer to stay single ?
By Zyx
#13560809
One alone can not marry. Moreover why would an asexual need to marry or marry itself? Do you mean a narcissist?

On the question of whether a narcissist should be allowed to marry itself? As long as it can't get a divorce!
User avatar
By Godstud
#13560821
Marry yourself? :knife:
Are you seriously suggesting such an absurdly stupid thing as a legitimate discussion? :eh: That's just fucking retarded!

Lensky1917 wrote:And just for a bonus, let's say they have both sets of sexual organs.
You could tell them to go fuck themselves. :lol:

What I do not understand, is why two individuals who decide to form a union .. should be given more rights or benefits than those who prefer to stay single ?
They shouldn't. People who get married should get NO benefits, or rights, that people who don't get married don't get. Aren't we past rewarding people for getting married yet? Having kids isn't something people should be rewarded for either. I'd suggest penalizing families (tax-wise) who have more than 1 child.
User avatar
By Lightman
#13560824
Stupidest homophobic analogy ever. That's really quite impressive, Agent Steel.
By Agent Steel
#13560868
What is homophobic about it? If an asexual wanted to marry himself why not? Marriage is already being redefined - why would homosexuals care if asexuals got married? They obviously don't care about the sanctity of marriage, so why not spread its definition to all forms of love?? Even NO love...as in an asexual person.

Asexuals would be left out if they couldn't marry themselves. No one would be getting hurt, the marriage would be mutual, and an asexual would be allowed the freedom to express his LACK of sexuality through marrying himself. I say make it legal. If you don't agree, you must be an asexualphobe!!!
User avatar
By Godstud
#13560899
Agent Steel wrote:They obviously don't care about the sanctity of marriage, so why not spread its definition to all forms of love??
Because what you suggest is idiotic, and you're only doing this to make a stupid(sadly lame) point about homosexuals, as pointed out already.

As for the sanctity of marriage... :roll: It's already something that you don't need a priest to "sanctify". A Justice of the Peace, Ship's Capt., etc. can marry two people already. It's hardly a purely religious union, as you'd like to suggest.

When asexuals take up @10%+ of the population we can start talking about them marrying themselves... although I am sure the divorce proceedings would be as absurd as the marriage. Perhaps they should team up with those priests who marry God, which is pretty much the same thing as you're suggesting and yet you don't hear the priests complaining.

You already can "express yourself" by not having sex. You don't need to marry yourself to NOT have sex. :knife:

Agent Steel wrote:If you don't agree, you must be an asexualphobe!!!
Then arguing in favour of asexual marriage must mean that you're retarded. :p
By Zyx
#13560926
Agent Steel wrote:Aren't we past rewarding people for getting married yet?


Theoretically "No." If you can believe David Duke that is.

To be honest, marriage is supposed to be an institution for child rearing. In this respect, maybe encouraging marriages, at least for the sake of the child, is better: children born out of wedlock isn't that awesome.

Still, the point on asexuals marrying themselves isn't insightful or sensible. One would think that an asexual simply wouldn't marry.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#13560949
Agent Steel wrote:Marriage has always technically been between a man and a woman.

Incorrect. Historically there have been marriages between people of the same sex. There are even cases of marriages between a person and an animal.

Wouldn't this be unfair to asexuals who wish to marry themselves?

Are you talking about a person marrying them self, or a person marrying another person?
Sexuality or lack of it is irrelevent.
By Tekumze
#13561012
All the posts above just prove that Marriage as it is understood(perceived) is a broken concept since it is so unclear in its meaning.
That's probably because marriage in real life is a mix between ideology (religion in this case) and practical application in a certain state/country.

A marriage in religious terms is well defined. It always was and is. State took that concept and adopted it to promote having children (by introducing certain tax cuts and other benefits). They called it civilian marriage.

If you look at it that way then Marriage of gay people (or any other marriage where offspring is not possible) is not something the state wants to promote.
Having said that some other benefits that come from Marriage (but were later tied to it) have no connection to offspring but rather to the fact that two people are close enough to be able to do stuff for each other that is otherwise legally or practically not allowed. A simple example would be visiting hours in a hospital where only spouses and direct relatives are allowed. In such cases being "a friend" won't get you anywhere.

That's why we have such a clash of opinions.

IMO marriage should be redefined. It should essentially be left to religion (which invented marriage) to marry people.
Civilian marriage should be renamed to something like "Union of two or more people with common interest" (If you can find a better word go ahead. I can't find one atm)

That way everybody can get into a "union" getting union related benefits while benefits tied to children are tied to children themselves and would go to people listed as their supporter (doesn't matter if they are parents or not).

This way you separate religion from state and both can do what they want without mixing up something that is essentially different in concept.
By inquisitu
#13561028
Quote:
What I do not understand, is why two individuals who decide to form a union .. should be given more rights or benefits than those who prefer to stay single ?
They shouldn't. People who get married should get NO benefits, or rights, that people who don't get married don't get. Aren't we past rewarding people for getting married yet? Having kids isn't something people should be rewarded for either. I'd suggest penalizing families (tax-wise) who have more than 1 child.


Glad you are in agreement on the initial point - married people should not receive more benefits than single- Why is it that the govornment does not understand this.

Kids is a different issue. .. it takes a fair amount of money to raise a child .. and it is in societies best interest to see that children are not raised in disfunctional environments .. So " neither agreeing nor disagreeing" at least I can see the point .. or rational behind providing some support for those who have children.

Completely illogical and discriminatory to give benefits to folk on the basis of marriage though ..
By Tekumze
#13561030
inquisitu wrote:Completely illogical and discriminatory to give benefits to folk on the basis of marriage though ..

Not entirely. There are some benefits (not directly financial) that are a result of marriage (or union or whatever you call it). I mentioned one in my post (like being considered a relative to the other person).
By Zyx
#13561031
Also, if a couple is to have four children, giving them immediate tax breaks as opposed to significant breaks at the time of the fourth child's birth may be too slow.

If one wants to encourage child rearing, one wants to encourage marriages financially. Especially since children are very, very expensive.
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13561033
For those of you talking about the benefits that married people get upon marriage...can you please back your shit up with some examples of what you're referring to?

There are many, many legal issues that are automatically resolved upon marriage, such as right to inheritance, the right to visit your spouse in the hospital, etc. Are these rights that single people need?

If these are not the sorts of things you are referring to, then please be specific so the 'benefits' you speak of can be examined.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 37
Trump and Russiagate

Tell that to Duncan Hunter. They do prosecute me[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

They should also save money by stopping governmen[…]

Over decades the fossil fuel industry has hijacke[…]

@Hindsite Don't use me in your conversation the[…]