It’s an expression of an union of two persons
As such it should be open to any two persons agreeable to such a union…with age restrictions of course
The beach or the nuclear power plant? Like with microwaves, you have to be careful, sometimes it’s too little and then a bit more is too much.
The problem is that, in Australia at least, a couple of the same sex being in a recognised civil union did not actually grant them the same legal rights as married couples. For example, hospitals have the right to only allow close family members to visit gravely ill patients. There were several cases of Catholic-run hospitals refusing to allow de facto same-gender spouses from visiting their partners in hospital, and unfortunately they were within their legal right to do so. This is rendered null and void with a valid marriage certificate. There were also cases of one member of a heterosexual marriage becoming transgendered, and they could not get a passport that reflected their new status without first divorcing their spouse. These are just some of the reasons why there was such a big push for same-sex couples to be allowed to marry in this country and it actually solved a lot more paperwork headaches than you might think.
That could still be normal.
That’s not OK.
Hmmmmm… yeah, I guess that’s not a pity. Would like to hear the argument from them, but I guess that in the end hospitals don’t want crowds but a person should have the right to define who’s in the closets (not closet) circle.
Or with other regulations, like “civil union partners will have X or Y rights”.
Not sure about that one but it sounds about bureaucracy rather than discrimination. Indeed, TBH, I’m not sure if I totally agree with the transgender thing (I mean, calling them men or women depending on what they “feel” they are).
I guess I get it, but again there could be other easier solutions like granting those rights to civil unions.
If one was to believe in a orderly and rational god. You can reason why things are the way they are. In this Thai village, is their marriage between a man and a women?
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that marriage is defined as between a man and a women with my point earlier that only a man and a women can convince by principle.
And I’m sure they wouldn’t like it if the government can in and said they must now do it for Ssm.
Does a legal binding contract have to be called marriage?
Definitions if we are to live in a reasonable society had to have certain confines. Completely changing it is more irrational. The original game of basketball is very different than today’s game. Even in today’s game, the rules are slightly different at different levels and places like Europe and Asia. But we can still reasonably call it basketball. We change the game and the rules all the time, but at a certain point some changes would make it not the game of basketball anymore. And that’s just a game, the definition of marriage seems way more important.
Listen, I don’t go thumping the Bible around quoting it. Stop making it like that’s my issue. I’m saying let me live my life and let others live theirs with their values. The less anyone including the government has a say on value systems. The better.
But just in case you didn’t know, at least in the Christian doctrines, when a man and a women becomes one flesh, aka sex. They are married in the eye of god.
I don’t know how others view it.
Do you do this on purpose or are you just incapable of reading comprehension? I’m sick of you slithering around adjusting my words and points just slightly to fit your arguments. Where did I say they claimed to be married? They don’t claim to be married.
No, but that’s what the government is offering as a legal, non-religious arrangement to the bulk of people, and it’s exactly that arrangement that the rest of the people who have been left out want. It’s the same exact ball and the same exact game.
Go ahead, no one is stopping you, so why stop them? The government is not making a statement on your “value system” (which certainly does seem to be the problem here, and presumably it is based on the Bible). It should maintain the value of treating all people fairly without reference to anyone’s particular values.
That’s the whole point. Why does anyone have to bogged down in how they interact legally with society by your religious views?
I’ve given plenty of non religious reasons.
Definitely a different game when procreation isn’t possible ever. Why put the basketball in the hoop if you can’t get points?
You keep talking about your values which are religious as if they are germane.
Procreation isn’t even worth talking about for obvious reasons. The government doesn’t require people to procreate to get married, in any sense. Same game.
And I mentioned other religious and none religious values.
So what was the reason for the government granting marriages. No purpose at all? Or is it based on values of that country possibly religious and non religious. Or maybe because it’s reasonable to assume marriage between a man and women will result in children which the government has an incentive to encourage.
Non-religious values? Like what?
It’s a chicken and egg question. People wanting to get married precedes modern legal regulatory systems. People do it everywhere. Any person’s values are connected to their decision in most cases. Barring some deleterious situation, which the government does have to get involved in, it shouldn’t be picking and choosing between those values. People will be procreating with or without marriage so I don’t think it has anything to do with encouraging children, no.
Are religious people the only ones who place social responsibilities on a marriage? Having children, being a father, mother, husband, wife.
People want to do a lot of things. Why not just allow people to be married and by title only? Why give so many incentives to be married?
Also, we don’t fully know the social Consequences of ssm in terms of how changing the obligations of marriage will be. As I said before, marriage more or less domesticate men when it makes more sense to spread dna.
We don’t fully know the consequences of ssm couples raising children. The ones that say it’s the same are all pretty biased advocates for it with bad methodology. We know children without fathers have more anti social behaviors. Mothers help give emotional stability in children. We can’t just pretend that it’s going to be the same.
No. So, what’s the issue there?
How about because having people in stable relationships encourages a stable social situation, both for rearing children and for the people involved and in general?
More slippery-slope arguments. What’s going to happen?
All kinds of people can raise children married or not. Is it better having single-parent families? Is it better having orphans or other unwanted children?
Of course not, but don’t pretend like it’s going to be the same when heterosexual couple and ssm couple have children. And it doesn’t take a couple to adopt children.
Families are the building block of society. Changing what marriage is has consequences.
What’s changed? Lots of children are born outside of stable families. Are SSM couples going to be ripping children away from stable families? Are SSM couples raising children somehow going to outweigh people in male-female marriages rasing children, much less (much much less) children living outside of stable family situations?
What we consider as a marriage and family unit, incentivizing ssm marriage and family units.
There are consequences to changing it, if you think it’s for the better I can understand why. Things like adopting, I place that as a benefit of ssm as well. But ultimately, I believe there will be negative consequences, and I think some of them wouldn’t be so bad if people would be reasonable about it instead of believing it’s just the same.
For example, we know that children without fathers display anti social behaviors at a significantly higher rate. We curve this by incentivizing marriage and hopefully make it more difficult for one party to just take off and leave.
To say a lesbian couple raising children will be the same instead of looking at how to prevent what o said above is going to be problematic imo.
True, but what’s the problem?
I do think it’s better. You haven’t explained how any child is going to be negatively affected, just for a start. How is any child’s situation going to be worsened? I see things being improved. More caring families to take care of children.
Which is always spectacularly successful right? Years of honing of the institution of marriage have eliminated that problem, eh?
They can do that anyway. Maybe being in a stable legal situation would be better?
I don’t see why it is problematic, plenty of heterosexual asshole parents out there. Asshole parents raising little asshole kids.
Different, sure. But different to the point of being problematic? Only if those around the family in question are extremely homophobic. Might get some stares in the bible belt of USA, I doubt anyone in New York or Los Angeles would bat an eyelid.
So because there are bad heterosexual parents we should lower the bar? We’ve placed many laws that protect children from parents that will harm them. We try our best to not have situations that are bad for children. Not perfect but the goal is clear.
If the data shows same sex couples raising children are statistically problematic would you still feel the same way? It has nothing to do with stares from people.
This study and many others show that heterosexuals marriages on average last longer. One of the signs of stability in a marriage.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01000.x
So what. Any stability is better than no stability