Marriage? Gay Marriage? Polygamy? State or Church?

Fine, if you want it.

Should marriage be between only a man and a woman? Or should anyone be able to marry? And as many times and with as many people simultaneously as they wish? And if not, why not?

Who does the "right to marry" extend from? What is the role of the State? Or a Church?

If 50% of marriages end in divorce and the other 50% end in death, should marriage even be allowed? Is the damage and anguish worth it? Should it be promoted?

If a partner is to die, should you ever remarry? Should marriage be preserved in all circumstances? Is violating the "bonds of marriage" acceptable if granted by the spouse?

If your wife signs up to your forum should you ban her?

Everyone should be able to enjoy the misery of marriage.
I don't like the idea of same sex marriage because it looks a bit unnatural to me. But no body made themselves, so I can't hold that against them.
I get itchy by polygamists like 40+ year old men taking 14 year old virgins as their wives in the name of the lord. That bothers me more than same sex marriage.
I think that to truly love someone you need to let them be free in a relationship. Which is weird as I am very jealous. But that's getting off topic.

Should marriage be between only a man and a woman?

I'm not against marriage between the same sex. The world now accepts marriage between the same sex more and more, but still it's not legal in every country, yet. Bottom line is, these people loves each other, and there shouldn't be boundaries in love. If marriage isn't about making babies then it shouldn't be between only a man and a woman. What gets me though is a 60 years old man marrying a 32 years old woman or something like that. It's just really disturbing which goes against my own point that says there shouldn't be any boundaries in love. I guess there has to be some exceptions.

And as many times and with as many people simultaneously as they wish?

In my opinion marriage with as many people simultaneously as they wish will create a lot of problems. Inequality, unfairness, jealousy, etc. I dont think the end result will be anywhere close to pleasing. I dont know, it's just a terrible idea.

If 50% of marriages end in divorce and the other 50% end in death, should marriage even be allowed?

I think it should be allowed. People marry because they love each other at the time they decided to get married, what happen after they are married is another story, that's what I think.

If a partner is to die, should you ever remarry? Should marriage be preserved in all circumstances? Is violating the "bonds of marriage" acceptable if granted by the spouse?

I think there are many views to this. If you look at it from the religious view then maybe you shouldn't remarry if a partner dies. If not then maybe it is OK to remarry if the spouse said so?

If your wife signs up to your forum should you ban her?

I get itchy by polygamists like 40+ year old men taking 14 year old virgins as their wives in the name of the lord. That bothers me more than same sex marriage.

Polygamy is multiple marriages at the same time, it has nothing to do with age. You're thinking of certain sects/cults that have polygamist marriages involving younger children.

I think that to truly love someone you need to let them be free in a relationship.

Doesn't love involve some form of trust or fidelity?

What gets me though is a 60 years old man marrying a 32 years old woman or something like that. It's just really disturbing which goes against my own point that says there shouldn't be any boundaries in love. I guess there has to be some exceptions.

Why are you against that sort of marriage? They're both well and truly adults, it's beyond legal... the moral implications vary from person to person but not every older man or woman who marries younger is with someone who has money. Sometimes they are more physically attracted to someone older, sometimes (mostly in females I've noticed) they need/want someone older because they feel they have a higher level of maturity than any man their own age has and considering women mature faster than men wouldn't it be normal for them to seek that?

I think there are many views to this. If you look at it from the religious view then maybe you shouldn't remarry if a partner dies. If not then maybe it is OK to remarry if the spouse said so?

What's your opinion though?

I guess there has to be some exceptions.

And they should be?

In my opinion marriage with as many people simultaneously as they wish will create a lot of problems. Inequality, unfairness, jealousy, etc. I dont think the end result will be anywhere close to pleasing. I dont know, it's just a terrible idea.

Alright, but what should be done about it?

Why are you against that sort of marriage? They're both well and truly adults, it's beyond legal... the moral implications vary from person to person but not every older man or woman who marries younger is with someone who has money. Sometimes they are more physically attracted to someone older, sometimes (mostly in females I've noticed) they need/want someone older because they feel they have a higher level of maturity than any man their own age has and considering women mature faster than men wouldn't it be normal for them to seek that?

I'm not against it and I'm well aware that it's beyond legal. To be honest, I really shouldn't be disturbed by this sort of marriage at all because it's rightful and everything, maybe it's because I'm not used to seeing this sort of marriage since we really dont see it that often. It's fully reasonable for women to marry men who are older, and in most cases the male is older than the female in a married couple anyway, but the male is usually only 5-15 years older and not 30-40 years older. Still, if a male is to be 30-40 years older than the female, there's nothing wrong with that, I'm just not used to the thought.

What's your opinion though?

Hmm.. I think it's more about the agreement between the couple and not the "bonds of marriage". If the spouse said it's ok to remarry once they have passed away then I think it's OK for the partner that is left behind to do so if they wanted to. If they didn't have any sort of agreement before one of them passes away then I guess it depends on the partner that is left behind. If they truly love the dead one I dont think they'll seek another marriage anyway. That is, of course, unless they meet another "right" person.

@Jae.

Yeah, love for me has to involve trust and fidelity. I'm not the sharing type. What's also needed, for me personally, is the sense that none of the people in the relationship settled or is shackled. If you have to handcuff to keep them, they might be happier with someone else. Equality is a big thing for me. I don't consider relationships where one is more dominant than the other succesfull. Sure, it can work like this for years or even lifetimes, but not for me.

"Polygamy is multiple marriages at the same time" I know.
"it has nothing to do with age" I know.
"You're thinking of certain sects/cults that have polygamist marriages involving younger children" That's what I was talking about. lol.

I guess there has to be some exceptions.

And they should be?

I dont know, but I think there should be exceptions in marriage so that not everyone can marry simply because they "love" each other. Should a marriage between a father and a daughther be allowed because they "love" each other? I'm not saying that it will happen, but incase it ever does do you think it should be allowed? I dont think it should.

In my opinion marriage with as many people simultaneously as they wish will create a lot of problems. Inequality, unfairness, jealousy, etc. I dont think the end result will be anywhere close to pleasing. I dont know, it's just a terrible idea.

Alright, but what should be done about it?

Dont allow it. I think there will be more negatives than positives if it is allowed. OK, if it is indeed allowed those people might get what they want but after they got married who knows what will happen? It's definitely possible for one of them to get jealous over the other and decided to commit a big time crime by killing the rest of the err.. spouses. Like I said, I dont think this type of marriage will end well. At least not in most cases.

If your wife signs up to your forum should you ban her?

Yes

My stances are:

no to polygamy, it should be 2 people for marriage. however, if the state/religion wanted to allow it, I wouldn't mind.

yes to gay/straight marriage, I've been to gay/lesbian weddings, they were better and actually less awkward than some of the straight weddings I've been to.

"right to marry" should come from the state, since there is a physical difference with health care/benefits whatever if you are married or not by the state.

I'm for unlimited divorces/remarriages. Death or otherwise. But I am against golddigging. Some ho/scrub shouldn't be able to take 50% of everything in a divorce nor burden the other person with their debt. Unless it was all accrued during the marriage. Example: I win the lottery, find the "perfect one" the week after and get married. She wants a divorce, she gets none of my billions. But, if I marry, win the lottery, then it gets split. (that seems really hypocritical, call me out on it)

By basic stance is that if it is mutual, and as long as no one is "forced" to do anything, people can do whatever the fuck they want. My neighbors could be into bondage with strangers and as long as I dont have to hear it/it doesnt affect me, I really dont give a fuck.

I dont understand why people get their shit all in their mouth when two guys or two women get married. So what? It doesn't affect you at all. Same with abortion. Benji, make an abortion topic.

Monogamous marriage should be allowed to two consenting adults, regardless of sex. Polygamous marriage should not be allowed due to the inevitable reasons of jealousy and hurt. Besides, in like 99.9% of cases, it's the male having multiple wives, and not the other way around.

Marriage should be a symbolic contract where two people enter a partnership to protect the interests of each other and their children, if any. The Church should be there for religious, traditional and cultural purposes, if the couple wants it (unless they're part of the non-exclusive club).

Marriage shouldn't be anything but a mutual bond for a partnership where each are faithful, trusting, and loving to each other through better and for worse. Death or divorce may happen, but it's the life experience and growth that matters. Every marriage should have a prenup, to really minimize the damage that could come out of a divorce. Also, a diamond encrusted gold ring is vastly overrated. Get an awesome titanium, tungsten or platinum ring with sapphire or something.

If a spouse is to die, the living spouse should be allowed to re-marry regardless, but there's that chance where the living spouse wouldn't want to re-marry out of devotion and eternal love.

If my wife signs up on the forums, there's no need to ban her. She'll leave in a couple of days because we're all a bunch of immature disgusting assholes.

fuck i forgot to say that I actually banned kathryn's 2nd screenname here since she forgot her original one

Should marriage be between only a man and a woman?

Yes, same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed.Why? It's a tradition between man and woman Gays are always saying that nobody respects them. Heteros doesn't do any gay parades just because they are heteros.

And as many times and with as many people simultaneously as they wish? And if not, why not?

No. It's against ethic. One should dedicate to one person. It's only my opinion though.

If 50% of marriages end in divorce and the other 50% end in death, should marriage even be allowed? Is the damage and anguish worth it? Should it be promoted?

Should alcohol be allowed? If one can't be faithful then don't marry. If we are speaking about alcohol... then consume it moderately. It can have health benefits ( Red wine)

"right to marry" should come from the state, since there is a physical difference with health care/benefits whatever if you are married or not by the state.

But should there be? Is the State the one to bless your personal relationships?

My neighbors could be into bondage with strangers and as long as I dont have to hear it/it doesnt affect me, I really dont give a fuck.

Trust me, you're gonna hear us.

Benji, make an abortion topic.

That was considered. I decided to start with something contentious.

Polygamous marriage should not be allowed due to the inevitable reasons of jealousy and hurt.

So things that cause jealousy and hurt shouldn't be allowed?

Besides, in like 99.9% of cases, it's the male having multiple wives, and not the other way around.

So?

She'll leave in a couple of days because we're all a bunch of immature disgusting assholes.

Or because it's time for our bondage club meeting next to Jao's house.

Yes, same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed.Why? It's a tradition between man and woman Gays are always saying that nobody respects them. Heteros doesn't do any gay parades just because they are heteros.

I don't follow?

Should alcohol be allowed? If one can't be faithful then don't marry. If we are speaking about alcohol... then consume it moderately. It can have health benefits ( Red wine)

Why would you think we're talking about alcohol?

But should there be? Is the State the one to bless your personal relationships?

State gives you the actual benefits, it doesn't need to be blessed, just recognized.

And to jump ahead to the next argument, yes, it should still be called marriage. It's just a word.

State gives you the actual benefits

But should it?

give benefits to couples?

debatable. it does has conspiracy written all over it, but it encourages marriage, settling down, and a "righteous" way of living

I support it

So things that cause jealousy and hurt shouldn't be allowed?

Let's try injustice. It is injustice for a man to have two wives when they each have only one husband. The two wives will have to fight with each other for the husband's love, attention and affection, while the husband will enjoy the power of having two wives. In the event a wife has two husbands, the two husbands will beat each other to death, and the wife will become a widow.

The end.

Let's try injustice. It is injustice for a man to have two wives when they each have only one husband.

If they want to have share a husband, or have multiple husbands and wives, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Because potentially bad situations can occur? Straight single man/woman marriages often have bad things, like a husband beating his wife and children, holding power and fear over them, oppressing them, raping her, killing them, etc.? Should we not allow single man/woman marriages then?

There are plenty of perfectly happy polygamist marriages, where the wives love to have multiple other wives, they enjoy sharing the burden and love. If three people love each other, why should they be forced to kick one out of the relationship?

I don't care who marries who.

A lobster should be able to marry a banana if both so wish.

There are plenty of perfectly happy polygamist marriages, where the wives love to have multiple other wives, they enjoy sharing the burden and love. If three people love each other, why should they be forced to kick one out of the relationship?

Interesting. Maybe I underestimate the power of cooperation with 3 or more people. Personally, I wouldn't be able to tolerate it, but that's probably the culture and society I'm used to.

As far as the legal ramifications of marriage are concerned as well as things like health care benefits and the like, I don't see why marriage between all couples can't or shouldn't be recognised. That element of marriage has very little to do with religion and "sacred bonds" anyway...and besides, how sacred is marriage when people marry for money, citizenship, or on a drunken binge 24 hours a day in Vegas to someone they met five hours ago? At this point in human civilisation, I think the sanctity of marriage has well and truly been destroyed long before same-sex couples came into the equation.

That said, everyone is entitled to their beliefs and I wouldn't expect any church to condone or perform gay marriages. That's their right and they shouldn't be forced to go along with anything that they feel defies their beliefs and what they feel is right and wrong. "Marriage" is a word that's been seperated from religion long enough that I don't think it can be fairly claimed as an exclusive term for heterosexual couples. But as for a "church wedding", well, that's up to the churches themselves.

Gay marriage rights isn't my fight, but since it wouldn't harm me in the slightest I certainly don't oppose it. With matters like that, my philosophy is very much a "live and let live" approach. And if there is a God who will punish gay people...well, that's between those people and God when it comes time for their final judgement. And if that judgement is reserved for God, then I don't see why we should be waggling scolding fingers and in particular spreading messages of hate and committing acts of violence as some sects do, which certainly seems to be against God's will as well. But that's getting into a whole other topic (which already exists).

Basically, I don't feel that I can ethically oppose anything that can't cause harm to myself or society at large. And as yet, I don't see how same-sex marriages or even polygamy for that matter will pose any more of a threat to society than abusive marriages, marriages for money, citizenship or some other convenience or forcing two people to marry due to cultural traditions.

I'm all for gay marriage for a few reasons. Firstly, the world is overpopulated. Less people birthing children and more of them adpoting (or just not having any, period) is a good thing (yes, some lesbian couples will still actually get pregnant from other means, but aside from that).

Everyone deserves health benefits. The argument of two people of the same gender getting married just to abuse benefits... there's nothing stopping a man and a woman from doing the same thing. It has nothing to do with gender, if someone wants to screw the system, they will.

I don't follow any religion that recognizes marriage, so the concept means virtually nothing to me. For the government to recognize it is a laughable violation of the First Amendment, but who cares about the Constitution these days anyway?

I find it endlessly hilarious that homosexuals desperately want to be able to perform (state-sanctioned) rituals championed by those who consider them inferior human beings.

For the government to recognize it is a laughable violation of the First Amendment, but who cares about the Constitution these days anyway?

Couldn't agree more.
That's why I, myself, oppose voting on the right for same sex couples to be married. Marriage is not a political issue, the principle of voting whether or not someone should be allowed to wed is just as bad as banning it in the first place. It's downright stupid how the America right now has some states that allow same sex marriage and some states that forbid it. It's almost like saying, "Hmm, we're not sure if gays and lesbians are actually people and so for now, you'll have rights in some states, but not in others, mmk?"

And the Westboro Baptist Church is making headlines again recently.
Here's their planned protest of a Michael Jackson tribute at Staples Center off their official website, but it doesn't stop there, they've actually made a song to express their hate.