Do you support it? Why or why not?

I support it as long as it involves consenting adults only, (it could be same sex or a mixture of male and females). I really don't see what the big deal is, if people can have an open relationship they should be able to have an open marriage. I wouldn't have one of these marriages myself but I do support the choice of others to have this if they want it.

Tags: marriage, polygamy

Views: 494

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

By what possible authority could one say it is wrong?

I'd rather just abolish the whole concept of marriage as a legal institution.  What business is it of anyone's other than the people involved in the relationship what kind of commitment (if any) is made between the  people?

That way, everyone can just seek out the type of relationship they want to have without having to worry what anyone else might think about it.

The financial stability of being married is too much for some people to give up. Ok obviously if they want a divorce thats a seprate matter. But to abolish marriage entirely is to make life difficult for persons who may be financially struggling. The legal benefits of marriage is good for the economy

Really?  You seem to be under the impression I am suggesting abolishing commitment, compromise and cohabitation.  I'm merely saying you shouldn't need a license to do it and that it is none of anyone's business.

There are no 'legal benefits' of marriage that can't exist without marriage, there would just be a different standard for determining eligibility.  

A publically-expressed commitment, a promise witnessed by your god, a legally-binding contract has far more gravitas than a convenient private arrangement between two people.

The thing about marriage is, it's a responsible commitment to the concept of family and the responsibility of raising the next generation. I think the whole thing is correctly weighty, just would prefer it not to be so God-oriented.

What makes you think a private arrangement between people would necessarily be merely convenient?  Why does it have to be between two people?  Why would it have to be private? 

And why does something having gravitas suddenly make it everyone's business? You know what else has gravitas?  People choosing to become a family because they love each other and not because the government says they can.

A family doesn't need a license to be a family.  A family just is.

None of these things are exclusive to the institution of marriage.  

The thing about marriage is, it's a responsible commitment to the concept of family and the responsibility of raising the next generation

Marriage is higly overrated - In Australia, one in three ends in divorce. Marriage does not keep people together, nor does it protect children.

How many women don't know if their husband is visiting prostitutes, going to a strip show or having mistresses. Or indeed, the wife having a lover.

Marriage is a facade. In Australia, live together for two years, and the same rights will be bestowed upon you.

One must be committed to 'a relationship'. That is what makes a relationship work.



Oh ok so you are actually suggesting civil partnerships should entirely replace marriage? Sorry for the misunderstanding

What the heck is a 'civil partnership?'  Why are you trying to define a relationship that you're not a part of?  What business is it of yours?

Who is anyone to declare that my choice of relationship is more or less valid than yours?  Why would one person's standard for a relationship warrant financial/medical benefits while another person's would not?  By what possible authority could anyone judge?

If you want to get married, go get married.  That's neither my nor the government's business.  It is certainly not for the government to decide to recognize and reward your choice of relationship but not recognize and reward mine or vice versa.

You can have a relationship with whomever you like and call it whatever you like. It is no one's business but yours.  The government should not bestow or withhold privilege or benefit to any form over another. The only way to do that is to get out of the marriage business entirely.

I don't know how I can be any more clear.

Because that's what we have in my country for gay couples who want marriage. I didn't define it the state defined it.

I just don't see how what you are suggesting can be realistic at all to be honest. If your married or in partnership how do you prove that without government recognition or acknowledgment?  It just doesn't make sense.

Ugh.  I think you need to stop deferring to the state -- your state at that -- to define someone's relationship.

This is obviously going completely over your head otherwise you wouldn't ask a question such as "how do you prove that without government recognition?"

I don't know if I know of any more ways to say it isn't any of anyone's business.  Why should or would I ever have to prove my relationship status to anyone?

If you don't think it is "realistic" that simply means you believe someone somewhere has a need to know or that certain types of relationships merit special privileges.  I vehemently reject both of those concepts.

I think its probably best that we agree to disagree. I know what your saying, I just don't agree with it. 

Is the plural of spouse, spice?

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Science Isn't About Truth

Started by Ari E. S. in Philosophy. Last reply by Unseen 19 minutes ago. 21 Replies

Blog Posts

Seeing the man in the child.

Posted by Diane on April 19, 2014 at 9:52am 0 Comments

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service