Thread: Where did the "right" to marriage come from?

I was discussing gay marriage with a liberal friend of mine. The discussion made me think about the subject a bit more, and I came to a conclusion that doesn't seem to be brought up very often. Here's my reasoning:

I'm a Christian who believes that homosexual marriage is not right. It doesn't mean that I hate homosexuals, it's just that it violates my conscience to be forced to subsidise it through the governmental system. But as my liberal friend pointed out, homosexuals have to support straight marriages. Why should it not be the other way around? This is a logical argument.

But still, I shouldn't be forced to violate my conscience. Meanwhile, there are unattractive people and people with emotional problems who can't get married. Why should they be forced to support a system that gives financial breaks to people who are luckier than them? It's like a tax on the socially crippled.

Also, if we officially approve of straight marriage and in some states gay marriage, why stop there? Why can't I marry my brother, or my dog? Am I supposed to be "in love" to get married, or can I start a business and marry my business partner? Why can't groups of people get married?

See, once the government starts legally sanctioning love, it stirs up a whole mess of issues. Gay marriage is just the tip of the iceberg, and ought to point out the giant flaw in a system that is regulating morality. Whether you are pro-gay marriage or not, surely this should be obvious. Why is the government even involved in this?

That is a good point, the government should either not recognize any marriages or should recognize all marriages.

As it stands now the government really has no right to give special privileges to some people and deny them to other based off cultural, or religious reasons. When the government makes decisions like that they are basically telling gay people they are a lesser class of citizen and that is just wrong.

First of all, marriage isn't a right, it's a privilege. There are very few financial benefits that married couples get directly from the government, although there are social, court, and job benefits on a much less grand scale (other than the marriage itself, I guess :S). Plus, civil unions/domestic partnerships are essentially the exact same thing (same benefits, no joke) as a marriage, except labeled with a different term. If we outlaw gay marriage, there are still civil unions available (which likely won't be ever removed), which are again essentially synonymous and there really isn't a point as having three terms for the same thing.

Unfortunately, the ban on gay marriage in California also bans polygamy and marriage with 'non-human'-kind, and the whole 'revoke Prop 8' commotion is really nonsensical if you ask me. Civil unions are there for a reason, but this whole thing shouldn't really be a problem in the first place. Although I would love to have a dog as a father, how cool would that be?

All joking aside, not unattractive people won't necessarily not get married, they would just have much more of a difficult time to find someone who 'clicks'. I would go all scienc-y on this, but there really isn't a point.

So, I guess what I am saying is, why not make all marriages civil unions, and outlaw beastiality/non-human partnership? It's much easier for the government to handle basically what is a binding social contract under one name instead of juggling three controversial ones. I do agree with your point that the government shouldn't get tangled up in marriage, so that means that it should be up to the spouses' mutual agreement on whether they want to sign this 'contract'.

Originally Posted by mikeac

First of all, marriage isn't a right, it's a privilege. There are very few financial benefits that married couples get directly from the government, although there are social, court, and job benefits on a much less grand scale (other than the marriage itself, I guess :S). Plus, civil unions/domestic partnerships are essentially the exact same thing (same benefits, no joke) as a marriage, except labeled with a different term. If we outlaw gay marriage, there are still civil unions available (which likely won't be ever removed), which are again essentially synonymous and there really isn't a point as having three terms for the same thing.

So, I guess what I am saying is, why not make all marriages civil unions, and outlaw beastiality/non-human partnership? It's much easier for the government to handle basically what is a binding social contract under one name instead of juggling three controversial ones. I do agree with your point that the government shouldn't get tangled up in marriage, so that means that it should be up to the spouses' mutual agreement on whether they want to sign this 'contract'.

WHy is marriage a privelege? Do people who believe in God more deserve the privelege of marriage more? Do we test the love of people before we allow them to marry? Is it really okay to allow people of every faith (or those without faith) to marry but deny it to couples simply because they can't ever possibly make babies?

The one part of marriage I have trouble with is that historically marriage was a pact made before God, announcing the love between two people for all who care to see. This concept is somewhat outdated as people who don't believe in God can still be married. So, why do we give federal benefits to people who don't believe in God yet deny marriage (and the rights that come with it) to same-sex couples on the basis that it goes against the word of (God/the Bible) ?

Why is marriage a privelege?

I have been in a civil union before, and I can tell you right out that they are not the same as marriage in any form. There are a number of federal benefits that married people (man and woman) benefit from that people in civil unions are not allowed, including benefits related to taxes and health insurance, probably the two biggest financial issues that affect people while alive.

This is something you can find plenty of information on if you do the research.

The government gives financial priveleges to married couples and denies them to any other type of relationship. Even atheists, who don't believe in God, can get married and receive benefits that are denied couples who truly love each other, but don't fit the one man-one woman description.

Some states allow gay marriage, but this still does not entitle them to federal benefits. Similarly, civil unions are not recognized by every state, and priveleges in one state are not recognized in another state, and certainly not by the federal government.

Marriage, as it is currently recognized by the federal government, denies the basic civil rights of millions of people in this country. Marriage, being a human concept and designed to recognize a loving bond between two people, should be allowed between any two people who make the oath to be true to each other, regardless of faith, gender, or race.

If civil unions were equal to marriage they would just call it marriage. They are not however, because they are a lesser form for marriage. The civil union debate is basically the segregation debate all over again. The claim that they are separate from one another but still equal is the excuse people gave for why blacks shouldn't have access to the same buildings white has.

We all know where that gets you though and its anything but fair and equal.

Originally Posted by Alric

If civil unions were equal to marriage they would just call it marriage. They are not however, because they are a lesser form for marriage. The civil union debate is basically the segregation debate all over again. The claim that they are separate from one another but still equal is the excuse people gave for why blacks shouldn't have access to the same buildings white has.

We all know where that gets you though and its anything but fair and equal.

Quoted for truth. This is exactly that. "Separate But Equal". These are different circumstances, but in essence, when someone says that "Civil Unions exist so why let them get married? They're the same!" Not only are they using the Separate but Equal argument... they are saying that gays deserve all the privileges of marriage, but not the title "marriage".

And I just want to point this out... A lot of times when I see christians arguing against gay marriage, they act like the concept of marriage is a christian thing, to be done by a minister to marry a man and a woman. The only thing protecting me as an atheist from being cut out of marriage is the first amendment to the constitution. I can see it easily being accepted widely that "Atheists don't believe in the bible, or marriage, so why let them get married?". I've heard ignorant banter like that before. My favorite is when I talk about biblical concepts and I hear "But you're an atheist so why should you care"... God help me... "You're an atheist, ask a monkey to help you haaaa".

But back on topic...

Let people get married, and mind your own business. Like Xei said... Why isn't this common sense?

Originally Posted by cedward1

I was discussing gay marriage with a liberal friend of mine. The discussion made me think about the subject a bit more, and I came to a conclusion that doesn't seem to be brought up very often. Here's my reasoning:

I'm a Christian who believes that homosexual marriage is not right. It doesn't mean that I hate homosexuals, it's just that it violates my conscience to be forced to subsidise it through the governmental system. But as my liberal friend pointed out, homosexuals have to support straight marriages. Why should it not be the other way around? This is a logical argument.

But still, I shouldn't be forced to violate my conscience.

How does your conscience feel about divorce?

Meanwhile, there are unattractive people and people with emotional problems who can't get married. Why should they be forced to support a system that gives financial breaks to people who are luckier than them? It's like a tax on the socially crippled.

The ugly and emotionally disturbed still have the capacity to get married and often do. An uggo can lower their standards and find love and an emotionally damaged person can work through their problems and find love. Meanwhile two emotionally healthy homosexuals are still forbidden to be married.

Also, if we officially approve of straight marriage and in some states gay marriage, why stop there? Why can't I marry my brother, or my dog? Am I supposed to be "in love" to get married, or can I start a business and marry my business partner? Why can't groups of people get married?

Same reason dogs can't vote even though women can.

See, once the government starts legally sanctioning love, it stirs up a whole mess of issues. Gay marriage is just the tip of the iceberg, and ought to point out the giant flaw in a system that is regulating morality. Whether you are pro-gay marriage or not, surely this should be obvious. Why is the government even involved in this?

Because marriage is a legal issue and there's all sorts of privileges we have in this country for people that are family, such as joint income tax returns, hospital visitation rights and decisions regarding what do with a person in a coma. And that fails to recognize the biggest reason of all, adoption. Or is it against your conscience for homosexuals to raise children, too? If so, I think your conscience requires some deeper introspection so you can figure out why you are actually against gay marriage.

If you're trying to protect the sanctity of marriage, I'm pretty sure straights already destroyed it, from Newt Gingrich to Bill Clinton. The way to protect the sanctity of marriage is to marry the person you love, if two people love each other they should be allowed to get married and if you want to protect marriage then focus on protecting your own marriage, not disabling others from doing what makes them happy.

And as far as civil unions are concerned, that's like saying a christian grave marker can have a cross but a jewish grave marker must be completely secular.

Government should not be in the business of marriage. The end. It is a religious and/or personal matter. As long as what you do isn't violating the will of another (so, forced marriages should be illegal), go ahead and do it. Declare whatever bonds you will, perform whatever ceremonies. Straight marriage, gay marriage, polygamy, polyandry, no marriage, whatever the hell you want. It's your business. How is this not obvious?

If you think gay marriage, or any type of marriage, is a 'privilege', you fail to understand the basic principle of liberty upon which the USA and other modern states are (supposed to be) based. Where the hell do you think you derive a power to bestow 'privileges' from in the first place? Nobody was asking you for permission, it is an inalienable right to do whatever the hell you want in your personal life, screw you for thinking otherwise.

Originally Posted by Xei

Government should not be in the business of marriage. The end. It is a religious and/or personal matter. As long as what you do isn't violating the will of another (so, forced marriages should be illegal), go ahead and do it. Declare whatever bonds you will, perform whatever ceremonies. Straight marriage, gay marriage, polygamy, polyandry, no marriage, whatever the hell you want. It's your business. How is this not obvious?

If you think gay marriage, or any type of marriage, is a 'privilege', you fail to understand the basic principle of liberty upon which the USA and other modern states are (supposed to be) based. Where the hell do you think you derive a power to bestow 'privileges' from in the first place? Nobody was asking you for permission, it is an inalienable right to do whatever the hell you want in your personal life, screw you for thinking otherwise.

The problem with this is there's still legal issues to figure out. Eliminating marriage from the government would mean no one can file joint income taxes meaning either one parent or the other would have to declare dependents and they couldn't share dependents. It would also screw up their insurance (though because insurance companies are private they can still determine for themselves what they constitute as a marriage), it would put hospitals and other institutions in a pickle as far as whether or not the parents or significant other can act as caretaker, and I don't even know enough about the process of adoption to comment but I assume it would screw that up too.

A marriage is, from the government's viewpoint, simply a legal contract that's suitable between people who wants to have a family. All it accomplishes could also be accomplished with a dedicated contract, but since this is such a common situation there's an easy opt-in.
At least, that is what I think marriage - from the government's viewpoint - should be.

They don't really sound like legal issues, just bureaucratic issues. Maybe I'm being naive but I don't see any inherent problems in the taxation of dependants.

Originally Posted by Xei

They don't really sound like legal issues, just bureaucratic issues. Maybe I'm being naive but I don't see any inherent problems in the taxation of dependants.

There's kind of a gargantuan overlap there.

Why would should anyone care weather or not two guys (or girls) get married? Why would you try to stop it? What is the point? Grow the fuck up and find something that is actually important to try and worry about. Fuck what the bible says. It makes no sense and contradicts itself. If you actually look at it from an objective standpoint, you would realize that it is the biggest load of horseshit. Why it influences government, when there is supposed to be "separation of church and state" is beyond me. Who the fuck are you to tell two people they can't be married? Grow the fuck up, you fucking bigot.

First off you need to understand being homosexual doesn't mean love comes differently for us or we're trying to stand out. In fact I shall say it's rather awkward to admit that you like someone of the same gender, and I believe some would have even hoped they are a heterosexual and most of their life problems will be solved. Imagine yourself being single all your life and when you meet your relatives for gathering, how does it feel to reply them that you don't have a girlfriend because you don't like girls but you find it too socially awkward to tell anyone, especially your crush that you like him?

Anyway, that's not my point.

I have no idea how allowing gay marriages led to other possible marriages when in most cases, doesn't involve love.

Also, if we officially approve of straight marriage and in some states gay marriage, why stop there? Why can't I marry my brother, or my dog? Am I supposed to be "in love" to get married, or can I start a business and marry my business partner? Why can't groups of people get married?

Q. Marrying your brother?
A. If you are sexually attracted to your brother and you felt that your love for your brother is so strong that in fact it's normal to be sexually attracted to him, go ahead.

Q. Marrying your dog?
A. If you are sexually attracted to your dog and wishes to have sex with it, go ahead.

Q. Am I supposed to be "in love" to get married, or can I start a business and marry my business partner?
A. I'm disappointed to find out that homosexual relationship gives people the impression that we're not truly in love if we decided to get married. How is feeling attracted to another being wrong in the first place? Just because it's against the norm? Just because the parts don't fit if we have sex? With our human intelligence, we will find ways to make parts fit. A thread on DV for reference on "http://www.dreamviews.com/f16/what-d...raight-129940/ for homosexuals"

Q. Why can't groups of people get married?
A. Homosexuality has in no way encouraged people to be unfaithful. I have no idea where you get that idea from.

You have your rights to believe that homosexuals are unnatural. But I believe Jesus will not condemn us for trying to be ourselves instead of trying to force ourselves to fit in with the "trend". If we burn in hell because of that, I will like to see a couple of unfaithful Christians burning in hell with us too.

If women have the right to give birth, why can't men have the right to give birth?

Originally Posted by Carrot

Q. Marrying your brother?
A. If you are sexually attracted to your brother and you felt that your love for your brother is so strong that in fact it's normal to be sexually attracted to him, go ahead.

Q. Marrying your dog?
A. If you are sexually attracted to your dog and wishes to have sex with it, go ahead.

You somehow forgot the entire concept of consent.

Originally Posted by Xei

You somehow forgot the entire concept of consent.

Ah yes. I forgot about it. I was reading it as "Relationship with your brother/dog" when I type those. Thanks for correcting!

Originally Posted by Xei

If women have the right to give birth, why can't men have the right to give birth?

There is nothing banning men from giving birth. In fact it is possible for people classified as men to give birth. Either post surgery woman who are now men, or even people born 'male' with female reproductive organs. People are always classified male or female, so people can be classified into being male if they have genetic or reproductive disorders and have some female anatomy. In fact if you are born with both sets of sexual organs people don't think twice if you have children, even if you decided to be male.

You might claim that it is due to poor classification of people, however we are talking about the legal classifications of people, and what the government claims people can or can not do. Legally, it is possible to be male and give birth and doing such is legal under the law.

Originally Posted by Xei

If women have the right to give birth, why can't men have the right to give birth?

That's a terrible analogy.

Originally Posted by Marvo

That's a terrible analogy.

Well the point is that your argument wasn't fully developed, 'gender equality' doesn't work as an axiom.

Originally Posted by Marvo

That's a terrible analogy.

Men can have the right to give birth if they want to!
Just because they can't give birth doesn't mean they can't have the right to give birth.

Originally Posted by tommo

Men can have the right to give birth if they want to!
Just because they can't give birth doesn't mean they can't have the right to give birth.

I didn't deny that, I just said it was a terrible analogy.

Originally Posted by Xei

You somehow forgot the entire concept of consent.

Can animals give their consent whether they get killed or not for our consumption?

Originally Posted by mooseantlers

Can animals give their consent whether they get killed or not for our consumption?

Killing an animal is not the same as having sex with it, please don't confuse the two.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Killing an animal is not the same as having sex with it, please don't confuse the two.

Killing a human isn't the same as having sex with one either, and you can't rape or kill a human. Animals have less rights. (okay, seriously, we need direct notifications for quotes)

Originally Posted by Marvo

Killing an animal is not the same as having sex with it, please don't confuse the two.

I'd say that killing an animal is a more serious thing to do than having sex with it, therefore consent should be more relevant when it comes to killing than when it comes to sex.
And killing animals isn't completely necessary for us. Even if it was, intentions and necessity shouldn't change the importance of consent.

EDIT:

Wow, that was so off-topic.
To make up for that, I'll type out my opinion on marriage, and by extension gay marriage, I guess.

I don't think there should be a "right" to marriage. Marriage is a service provided by a religious institution. Or at least it should be. As it is now, it has way too much importance in society, which pollutes legal matters with religious bullshit. The fact that marriage is linked to christianity is the sole reason, I think, that gay marriage could possibly be objectionable.

And to be honest, I think the objections should be considered. I look at it like this; since it's a service that comes from the church, the church should be in charge of it. Thus, they get to say who can and who can't get married, no matter how ridiculous their reasons are. No wall-eyed marriages in this church, bitches.

That should be fair. They should have the freedom to be assholes of whatever level they please.
All those legal advantages that comes from marriage should just be severed from marriage and applied somewhere else. Don't we already have a version of marriage that isn't religious? Civil unions? Take all the advantages from regular marriage, put it in civil unions. This way, gay people can have their marriage with all the advantages while not having to enter a church that basically wants to condemn them to hell. And at the same time, the church doesn't have to be forced to marry people they don't want married.