Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ShotgunGold

Could Britain ever legalise 2 women-1 man marriage?

142 posts in this topic

Yep.  I just don't see what the deal is and would really like someone to explain it to me.

God botherers bothering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the government: -

 - abolished divorce

 - decreed that all married partners had to pool pension funds in perpetuity

 - would only pay state benefits into joint accounts

 - would only pay unemployment  benefits for a fixed total period of ten years in a lifetime

 

then, nowadays, the odds are that, no-one would want to get married or enter into a civil partnership unless they had lived together for many years.

 

Prior to the First World War, those caveats were effectively in place but people did get married because of convention and god-fearing religion.

 

We've got to accept that, for most people these days,  their concepts of marriage and religion are an affectation. Almost all the whingeing and protesting is a staged irrelevance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've got to accept that, for most people these days,  their concepts of marriage and religion are an affectation. Almost all the whingeing and protesting is a staged irrelevance.

Possibly the most sensible post I've seen on the subject.

 

I may need to lie down now  :tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why stop at gay marriage? Let's get rid of any moral ambiguity, eh? Sodomy is legal, whats next? bestiality ? Incest? Peodophilia? The country is a joke!

why stop at gay marriage?

 

because incest, bestiality and  paedophilia and  are harmful-that is why they are illegal.

 

why wouldn't sodomy be legal? How is it a moral issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the government: -

 - abolished divorce

 - decreed that all married partners had to pool pension funds in perpetuity

 - would only pay state benefits into joint accounts

 - would only pay unemployment  benefits for a fixed total period of ten years in a lifetime

 

then, nowadays, the odds are that, no-one would want to get married or enter into a civil partnership unless they had lived together for many years.

 

Prior to the First World War, those caveats were effectively in place but people did get married because of convention and god-fearing religion.

 

We've got to accept that, for most people these days,  their concepts of marriage and religion are an affectation. Almost all the whingeing and protesting is a staged irrelevance.

yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the government: -

 - abolished divorce

 - decreed that all married partners had to pool pension funds in perpetuity

 - would only pay state benefits into joint accounts

 - would only pay unemployment  benefits for a fixed total period of ten years in a lifetime

 

then, nowadays, the odds are that, no-one would want to get married or enter into a civil partnership unless they had lived together for many years.

 

Prior to the First World War, those caveats were effectively in place but people did get married because of convention and god-fearing religion.

 

We've got to accept that, for most people these days,  their concepts of marriage and religion are an affectation. Almost all the whingeing and protesting is a staged irrelevance.

 

Crikey, spot on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the government: -

 - abolished divorce

 - decreed that all married partners had to pool pension funds in perpetuity

 - would only pay state benefits into joint accounts

 - would only pay unemployment  benefits for a fixed total period of ten years in a lifetime

 

then, nowadays, the odds are that, no-one would want to get married or enter into a civil partnership unless they had lived together for many years.

 

Prior to the First World War, those caveats were effectively in place but people did get married because of convention and god-fearing religion.

 

We've got to accept that, for most people these days,  their concepts of marriage and religion are an affectation. Almost all the whingeing and protesting is a staged irrelevance.

 

This last line has put it best I reckon.

 

As for polygamous (or polyamorous as they sometimes call it) marriages, I think it's an idea destined to end in failure. However, the fact that I don't like it is no reason that it shouldn't happen. After all, it doesn't affect me or my marriage. I suspect it will always be a fringe thing too. Despite the sexual revolution, the vast majority that participate in casual relationships still eventually desire a monogamous relationship. One person is hard enough to keep happy, more people leads to more inevitable complications.

 

There is however a difference between polygamy and gay marriage in that polygamy does genuinely create some potential problems and unpleasant side-effects when it comes to the raising of children and custody issues. It could harm a child to be split 3 or 4 ways in a divorce agreement and be damaging if the mother wanted a divorce and the rest didn't (including potentially other mothers). These could of course be resolved but gay marriage affects no heterosexual person and cannot produce children in this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another thought.

 

Why don't we remove the legal status of marriage. You can marry who you want, when you want, as many people as you want and wherever you want .

 

However, none of this will have any bearing on your ability to claim nationality, state benefits, tax relief or accommodation.

 

 

Problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another thought.

 

Why don't we remove the legal status of marriage. You can marry who you want, when you want, as many people as you want and wherever you want .

 

However, none of this will have any bearing on your ability to claim nationality, state benefits, tax relief or accommodation.

 

 

Problem solved.

largely for practical reasons: it's a contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of sounding like a Les Dawson joke, why would anyone want two bleeding wives? I'm with Stan

 

or worse, two ma-in-laws!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with same gender legal arrangements,I went to a male civil ceremony last year and it was a jolly good do

As regards 'marriage', the definition of which seems to be the problem or many, might it be possible to give religios blessing to same sex couples in an arrangement, maybe called 'garriage' or something, which has its own definition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with same gender legal arrangements,I went to a male civil ceremony last year and it was a jolly good do

As regards 'marriage', the definition of which seems to be the problem or many, might it be possible to give religios blessing to same sex couples in an arrangement, maybe called 'garriage' or something, which has its own definition?

why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What some people choose to 'forget' when discussing this issue, particularly while they are in their default mode of blaming it all on Christians, is that marriage as we have been applying it for hundreds of years in England was in fact a Christian construct.  Therefore, Christians do have a legitimate cause for complaint when a government barges in to redefine something that has existed in its fundamentals for hundreds of years and was established by their forefathers. 

 

Some legal elements of the traditional marriage construct have changed, mainly in relation to wives.  However, three fundamentals have remained steady: marriage is between a man and a woman, it is a publically professed commitment and is for procreation.  These three components have formed the basis of marriage for hundreds of years, including the non-religious form.  To enable gay people to become married is to change those fundamentals.  Therefore, it is to redefine marriage.  It is that redefining of marriage which is upsetting many Christians (and indeed those of Muslim and Jewish faiths also, since there are many shared fundamentals between the three religions 'of the book').

 

Polygamy is a different ballgame again.  Human beings may be sexually promiscuous but emotionally they (on the whole) crave something deeper, if not when young then when older.  Polygamy is a disasterous idea, and not just for the adults, and IMO should never be legalised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What some people choose to 'forget' when discussing this issue, particularly while they are in their default mode of blaming it all on Christians, is that marriage as we have been applying it for hundreds of years in England was in fact a Christian construct.  Therefore, Christians do have a legitimate cause for complaint when a government barges in to redefine something that has existed in its fundamentals for hundreds of years and was established by their forefathers. 

 

Some legal elements of the traditional marriage construct have changed, mainly in relation to wives.  However, three fundamentals have remained steady: marriage is between a man and a woman, it is a publically professed commitment and is for procreation.  These three components have formed the basis of marriage for hundreds of years, including the non-religious form.  To enable gay people to become married is to change those fundamentals.  Therefore, it is to redefine marriage.  It is that redefining of marriage which is upsetting many Christians (and indeed those of Muslim and Jewish faiths also, since there are many shared fundamentals between the three religions 'of the book').

 

Polygamy is a different ballgame again.  Human beings may be sexually promiscuous but emotionally they (on the whole) crave something deeper, if not when young then when older.  Polygamy is a disasterous idea, and not just for the adults, and IMO should never be legalised.

 

The procreation argument in particular is a nonsense. Lots of infertile couples marry, and lots of married people also choose not to have children.

 

As for the rest of it, Henry VIII made a very public mockery of the Christian concept of marriage hundreds of years ago. People got over it eventually.

 

The new law doesn't force any religious bodies to marry gay people. They can feel as upset as they want about it, it is a free country we live in, but our elected Parliament has voted overwhelmingly and across party divides to change the law on this matter and they'll just have to learn to live with that. This is not a theocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The procreation argument in particular is a nonsense. Lots of infertile couples marry, and lots of married people also choose not to have children.

 

As for the rest of it, Henry VIII made a very public mockery of the Christian concept of marriage hundreds of years ago. People got over it eventually.

 

The new law doesn't force any religious bodies to marry gay people. They can feel as upset as they want about it, it is a free country we live in, but our elected Parliament has voted overwhelmingly and across party divides to change the law on this matter and they'll just have to learn to live with that. This is not a theocracy.

On procreation, gay people are not biologically capable of procreating with their partner.  That isn't a moral judgement; it is a simple biological fact.  Choice and fertility are irrelevant as even if both gay partners are fertile and want children, they still cannot procreate with each other.  They need a third person.

 

Men and women have been making a mockery of marriage throughout its history so I am not sure what your point was?  Do you think Henry VIII was the first man in history to murder his wife or change a situation to suit himself?

 

We are not a theocracy and I am glad about that.  Indeed, those who disagree with gay marriage for whatever reason will have to live with it.  That is the burden of living within a liberal democracy - all of us have to live with something we don't like.  Including you, because you don't appear to like religion very much!  However, on the point about not forcing religious bodies to enact gay marriage, I doubt very much that would stand a legal test but I am sure we will find out soon enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On procreation, gay people are not biologically capable of procreating with their partner.  That isn't a moral judgement; it is a simple biological fact.  Choice and fertility are irrelevant as even if both gay partners are fertile and want children, they still cannot procreate with each other.  They need a third person.

 

Men and women have been making a mockery of marriage throughout its history so I am not sure what your point was?  Do you think Henry VIII was the first man in history to murder his wife or change a situation to suit himself?

 

We are not a theocracy and I am glad about that.  Indeed, those who disagree with gay marriage for whatever reason will have to live with it.  That is the burden of living within a liberal democracy - all of us have to live with something we don't like.  Including you, because you don't appear to like religion very much!  However, on the point about not forcing religious bodies to enact gay marriage, I doubt very much that would stand a legal test but I am sure we will find out soon enough. 

 

Gay people are not capable of biologically procreating with their partners. True, but irrelevant. Infertile people are not capable of biologically procreating with their partners, but no one thinks they shouldn't be allowed to get married. Because that would just be stupid.

 

Of course Henry VIII wasn't the first man to murder his wife or change a situation to suit himself. But he did it in quite a high profile way. The world did not end. Nor will it end when gay people start marrying each other.

 

On the matter of religion, people can believe whatever they like as far as I'm concerned, but they shouldn't be able to require anyone who does not share those beliefs to live their lives by them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gay people are not capable of biologically procreating with their partners. True, but irrelevant. Infertile people are not capable of biologically procreating with their partners, but no one thinks they shouldn't be allowed to get married. Because that would just be stupid.

 

Of course Henry VIII wasn't the first man to murder his wife or change a situation to suit himself. But he did it in quite a high profile way. The world did not end. Nor will it end when gay people start marrying each other.

 

On the matter of religion, people can believe whatever they like as far as I'm concerned, but they shouldn't be able to require anyone who does not share those beliefs to live their lives by them.

Infertility is what is irrelevant here because that can apply across the board.  Gay people even if fertile would simply never, ever be able to procreate with their partner because they are biologically incapable of doing so.  That is a scientific fact and no amount of avoiding the issue with irrelevancies will change that.  Only heterosexual couples can procreate with each other.  However, since the definition of marriage is now to change, meaning that procreation becomes irrelevant to marriage, that opens the door for all sorts of arrangements and it would not surprise me to see polygamy making an entrance in the fullness of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infertility is what is irrelevant here because that can apply across the board.  Gay people even if fertile would simply never, ever be able to procreate with their partner because they are biologically incapable of doing so.  That is a scientific fact and no amount of avoiding the issue with irrelevancies will change that.  

Not for much longer it's not

Does that change the argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not for much longer it's not

Does that change the argument?

No.  Two women still don't have the right equipment to procreate with each other.  They still have to go to a third person (in this case, the scientist).

 

I don't like what science is proposing here.  Seemingly, nor does the Sheffield professor in your link. 

 

But then again, I didn't like the 'spare part' baby science either.

 

I think that westerners have become very 'me' centred.  So long as we all get what we want then pox on the consequences.  I think the potential consequences of playing with the genetic makeup of human beings in the way that is proposed is to risk creating a monster, if not in that generation then in future generations.  Makes my skin crawl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What some people choose to 'forget' when discussing this issue, particularly while they are in their default mode of blaming it all on Christians, is that marriage as we have been applying it for hundreds of years in England was in fact a Christian construct.

In an effort to avoid work I've been doing a bit of reading around this. It seems that the period in this country where marriage was entirely controlled by 'Christians' (in your terms) ran from 1753 to 1836. During that time if you weren't married in a Church of England church, a Quaker chapel or a Jewish synagogue then you weren't married.

Prior to this period the chances are that unless you were moneyed you weren't married, after this period civil marriage came into being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an effort to avoid work I've been doing a bit of reading around this. It seems that the period in this country where marriage was entirely controlled by 'Christians' (in your terms) ran from 1753 to 1836. During that time if you weren't married in a Church of England church, a Quaker chapel or a Jewish synagogue then you weren't married.

Prior to this period the chances are that unless you were moneyed you weren't married, after this period civil marriage came into being.

You need to go further back:

 

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've sent me a link which has nothing specific about England and which shows that marriage as a concept pre-dates Christianity.

You'll need to explain how this shows that we need to consider Christians when talking about English marriage laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infertility is what is irrelevant here because that can apply across the board.  Gay people even if fertile would simply never, ever be able to procreate with their partner because they are biologically incapable of doing so.  That is a scientific fact and no amount of avoiding the issue with irrelevancies will change that.  Only heterosexual couples can procreate with each other.  However, since the definition of marriage is now to change, meaning that procreation becomes irrelevant to marriage, that opens the door for all sorts of arrangements and it would not surprise me to see polygamy making an entrance in the fullness of time.

 

Procreation has always been irrelevant to marriage. It isn't a precondition ( 'thou shalt procreate!' ), never has been, never will be. Lots of married people don't have kids, for a multitude of reasons, some biological, some not. It doesn't make their marriages any less valid that people who do have children. Let's be honest here, it's just being used as a weak argument by people who don't really like the thought of gay people being married to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've sent me a link which has nothing specific about England and which shows that marriage as a concept pre-dates Christianity.

You'll need to explain how this shows that we need to consider Christians when talking about English marriage laws.

You clearly haven't read the article then if you think it has nothing specific about England in it, and clearly you have missed references to stuff like the reformation (which was a specifically Christian period) and how Christianity sought to change the Jewish traditions of marriage in place prior to Christianity (as you know, Christianity has its roots in Judaism).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017