 |
Your views on Marriage (foreigners select elsewhere answers only please)
This poll is closed. |
| I live in USA: Heterosexual Marriage Only |
   |
13 |
7.22% |
| I live in USA: Homosexual Civil Unions Only |
   |
9 |
5.00% |
| I live in USA: Full Homosexual Marriage Rights |
   |
45 |
25.00% |
| I live in USA: #3 + Further Extend Rights to Polygamy |
   |
17 |
9.44% |
| I live in USA: #1 only and extending rights to Polygamy |
   |
0 |
0% |
| I live in USA: Extend Marriage to Bannanas |
   |
4 |
2.22% |
| Elsewhere: Heterosexual Marriage Only |
|
16 |
8.89% |
| Elsewhere: Homosexual Civil Unions Only |
|
11 |
6.11% |
| Elsewhere: Full Homosexual Marriage Rights |
|
46 |
25.56% |
| Elsewhere: #9 + Further Extend Rights to Polygamy |
|
13 |
7.22% |
| Elsewhere: #7 only and extending rights to Polygamy |
|
1 |
0.56% |
| Elsewhere: Extend Marriage to Bannanas |
|
5 |
2.78% |
| Total: |
180 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yavoon
why just 2? I hardly think the number 2 is less arbitrary than "man and women" |
Actually, it's easy to make an arguement that two is not less arbitrary.
In today's society, despite what some may believe, we strive for equality. In a marriage, the two spouses are looked upon as equal partners, sharing each others commitment with no one else. It's what allows for the default 50% ownership of assets, decisions rights (eg:for medical procedures), implied POA, etc. When you start splitting the same issues among various people, you potentially run into problems. Some examples:
A spouse has been in an accident and needs contsent for a certain procedure. One spouse is fully willing to proceed, another disagrees - who's opinion takes priority?
Divorce. Let's say there are five spouses in total. One files for divorce from the other four (which, in and of itself would likely cause another problem), how do you deem the assets to be divided up? Does everyone own a one-fifth share? Most likely, not everyone got married at the same time, so how do you justify that spouse #5 that wants a divorce is entitled to the same amount as spouse number one who entered the union 10 years before? With two person marriages, it's simple because everyone (both) concerned entered the union at the same time.
Having said that, I'm not adamently against polygamy, as long as everyone consents. I think it makes more sense to not allow it, but I wouldn't actively fight it or have an aneurysm if they were allowed. It might, however, cause me to love my wife less. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Big Crunch
Let me put it another way, if you don't limit the number of people you can marry you essentially reduce the value of the institution from a legal sense. I would suggest therefore that you remove the legal institution and replace it with electable rights, which you can elect to anyone you choose whether you are romantically, physically or otherwise involved with them or not. Where rights are not exclusive there would be no limit on how many people you choose to give them to. |
so ur going to deny people a right based upon the legal convenience of the consequence?
I think legal convenience arguments are hard to stretch into this arena.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by pchang
What I really want is for marriage to be a religious thing and completely removed from the political arena. I want marriage laws to be rewritten in a gender neutral civil union type of way. That way, religions can say to gays "no, you cannot be married within our church", but gays would still get the same legal rights and benefits that married people get today (tax, insurance, decision making, survivor stuff, etc.). |
Sounds like a very good Idea to me.
Let the Civil Union grant the full rights, which are nowadays granted by a marriage
and separate the Marriage in a church from this,
so that you aren´t entitled any rights from a marriage in church, but it is just a religious ceremony.
This way you could probably also solve a problem with Polygamy.
Allow people like Mormons and the like to have a religious marriage with as many people they want. But they are, as all other people, just allowed to form a civil union with one other person.
Maybe with one exception:
People with a religious marriage are considered relatives, regardless of wether they also form a Civil Union or not (important for visiting their partners in Hospital and the like).
But any financial advantages (taxes, insurances) are only granted by a Civil Union (which you, as I said, can only have with one person [regardless of wether he/she is of the same or of the opposite sex])
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
I believe, because Marriages where first religious motivated.
To connect the purely religious marriage with some other Benefits besides receiving some kind of Blessing from God for the relationship, was something which evolved much later (at least I think so).
So Religions have the right of the Inventor, to claim the term "Marriages" for themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
Are you sure?
After all there were probably a lot of Religions which had some form of marriage before the christians and jews and not all were patriarchates.
The Jewish or christian Religion probably just took the ritual of Marriage from other religions (and altered it for their own use), as they did with so much other things.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-02-2004 12:33
Looks like BK and PA aren't alone.
|