Human Right and Gay Marriage

Post by **bobtheenchantedone** » Thu May 22, 2008 7:54 am

Imogen wrote:oh and i never answered yellow!

i don't really know what marriage is for, honestly. some would say it's for procreating, but then people who are infertile or don't want kids shouldn't get married.
i think marriage is for companionship. it's to make a solid commitment to someone you love.

We believe that marriage isn't just for this earth, but to seal us together for eternity. We cannot achieve the highest place in the celestial kingdom without being sealed to our eternal companion.

Yellow · Post by **Yellow** » Thu May 22, 2008 9:23 am

bobtheenchantedone wrote:
Imogen wrote:oh and i never answered yellow!

i don't really know what marriage is for, honestly. some would say it's for procreating, but then people who are infertile or don't want kids shouldn't get married.
i think marriage is for companionship. it's to make a solid commitment to someone you love.
We believe that marriage isn't just for this earth, but to seal us together for eternity. We cannot achieve the highest place in the celestial kingdom without being sealed to our eternal companion.

Right, and I certainly agree, but we're more talking about why the government should care about marriage, apart from it being a religious rite.

Nanti-SARRMM · Post by **Nanti-SARRMM** » Thu May 22, 2008 9:50 am

Imogen wrote:oh and i never answered yellow!

i don't really know what marriage is for, honestly. some would say it's for procreating, but then people who are infertile or don't want kids shouldn't get married.
i think marriage is for companionship. it's to make a solid commitment to someone you love.

number of dependents in the home for taxes? Welfare? Inheritance stuff? Legal Custody? Divorce stuff? Stuff mentioned above?

As far as infertility goes, my aunt is unable to have kids, but they have adopted a few kids. As far as purposes for marriage, I do agree that companionship and commitment, dedication, expression of selflessness, etc, are valid reasons, as well as stability for children.

Benvolio · Post by **Benvolio** » Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am

Imogen wrote:i don't really know what marriage is for, honestly. some would say it's for procreating, but then people who are infertile or don't want kids shouldn't get married.
i think marriage is for companionship. it's to make a solid commitment to someone you love.

I would submit that determining the purpose of the institution of marriage is vital to establishing the requirements and standards of marriage. These types of definitional ambiguities are the sort of problems that have to be hammered out before you start setting the rules. Even if there are substantial differences of opinion, those differences must at least be identified before any rational scheme or theory can be advanced.

I support Imogen's points of companionship and commitment as defining characteristics of marriage, particularly the latter. Without a significant and permanent level of commitment, marriage differs little from a dating relationship. I would also include the creation and care of children as a primary purpose of marriage. While there are plenty of exceptions, the marriage relationship is essentially designed for having kids. The commitment element reinforces this purpose, as a lasting commitment is necessary for child rearing.

Post by **bobtheenchantedone** » Thu May 22, 2008 12:54 pm

Yellow wrote:
bobtheenchantedone wrote:
Imogen wrote:oh and i never answered yellow!

i don't really know what marriage is for, honestly. some would say it's for procreating, but then people who are infertile or don't want kids shouldn't get married.
i think marriage is for companionship. it's to make a solid commitment to someone you love.
We believe that marriage isn't just for this earth, but to seal us together for eternity. We cannot achieve the highest place in the celestial kingdom without being sealed to our eternal companion.
Right, and I certainly agree, but we're more talking about why the government should care about marriage, apart from it being a religious rite.

This proves that I should not try to join a conversation I have only been somewhat following.

Fredjikrang · Post by **Fredjikrang** » Thu May 22, 2008 1:03 pm

Benvolio wrote: I would submit that determining the purpose of the institution of marriage is vital to establishing the requirements and standards of marriage. These types of definitional ambiguities are the sort of problems that have to be hammered out before you start setting the rules. Even if there are substantial differences of opinion, those differences must at least be identified before any rational scheme or theory can be advanced.

Very well put. I agree. I think this is what all of this debate is dependent on. Does anyone know much about the secular history of marriage? Perhaps that is a good place to start.

Imogen · Post by **Imogen** » Thu May 22, 2008 1:29 pm

Fredjikrang wrote:
Benvolio wrote: I would submit that determining the purpose of the institution of marriage is vital to establishing the requirements and standards of marriage. These types of definitional ambiguities are the sort of problems that have to be hammered out before you start setting the rules. Even if there are substantial differences of opinion, those differences must at least be identified before any rational scheme or theory can be advanced.
Very well put. I agree. I think this is what all of this debate is dependent on. Does anyone know much about the secular history of marriage? Perhaps that is a good place to start.

is there much of a secular history? marriage is so tied up in the trappings of religion that it may be difficult to separate the two.

i think france has the right idea in making people get a civil marriage and then having the religious aspect be a personal decision. i really do think that's the solution: everyone can and MUST get a civil union, and then they can get a separate religious marriage if that's part of their personal beliefs.

Werf_Must · Post by **Werf_Must** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:30 am

This discussion has been amazing! I mean there have been some holes, but unlike most political discussion, I don't feel like I am reading a LSAT question (filled with flawed logic and ad hominem attacks).

Author Message Imogen
Picky Interloper

Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 144

indeed nanti. can't disagree with you there.

i think humans naturally want to place others in different categories and discriminate because of that. i think it's an innate human instinct.

_________________
freedom is irrelevant. strength is irrelevant. resistance is futile.-the borg

A friend of mine once commented on these preconceived notions in a way that really made me think. Her statement was "It isn't about the categories that you decide that people belong in when you first see them. It is about your continued involvement, and how you treat them based on your thought process" or something along those lines. So yes, as humans we have the instinct to separate those who are different or stereotype their behavior, but if society as a whole would give everyone fair chances, then... if nothing else Earth would be a better place to live!