View Full Version : define marriage ?
we all know marriage is between a man and wife but why arent these 2 allowed to be officially a couple in the US for that matter other countries will acknowledge the same............
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3122632.stm
why arent these 2 allowed to be officially a couple in the US
Because they are not man and woman?
Dave Stones
19-09-2003, 15:36
Originally posted by kronas
we all know marriage is between a man and wife but why arent these 2 allowed to be officially a couple in the US for that matter other countries will acknowledge the same............
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3122632.stm
the law says it all...
the 1996 US Defence of Marriage Act defined marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife".
the rules cant be bent and america is a fairly relgious country isnt it?
but interstingly there are 4 definitions if you look in the dictionary...
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
the last one is probably key to it... having the customs but the marriage not holding any legal swing...
Dictionaries are not legal documents so quoting them doesn't really prove anything ...
Dave Stones
19-09-2003, 15:42
maybe so... when people ask questions about defining things its always interesting to see what the dictionary throws up though...
Originally posted by kronas
we all know marriage is between a man and wife but why arent these 2 allowed to be officially a couple in the US for that matter other countries will acknowledge the same............
In all fairness, I think the US are also cracking down on the Amish (I think), who think they can have several wives.
Originally posted by danielf
In all fairness, I think the US are also cracking down on the Amish (I think), who think they can have several wives.
What kind of mental man would want more than one wife? God coping with one is hard enough :D ;)
Originally posted by imback
What kind of mental man would want more than one wife? God coping with one is hard enough :D ;)
Just think of the cost :rolleyes:
Originally posted by danielf
Just think of the cost :rolleyes:
Thinks of the nagging:p
Originally posted by Russ D
Because they are not man and woman?
so what ?
if they want to marry then let them they obviously like each other so much and the marriage should be acknowledged by any country state (which it wont be due to 'diffarences') :rolleyes:
Originally posted by danielf
In all fairness, I think the US are also cracking down on the Amish (I think), who think they can have several wives. No offense buddy, but remember this next time you hear someone ranting on about ignorant Americans...
It is the Mormons, not the Amish, and they are mostly in Utah.
And I don't see two men or two women as being able to marry, so I'm opposed to changing the laws. I'm sick of this bending over backward for the minority.
Originally posted by Jerrek
And I don't see two men or two women as being able to marry, so I'm opposed to changing the laws. I'm sick of this bending over backward for the minority.
give me a valid reason as to why they shouldnt be allowed to marry ?
do they harm you ?
is it detremental to you ?
Originally posted by Jerrek
No offense buddy, but remember this next time you hear someone ranting on about ignorant Americans...
It is the Mormons, not the Amish, and they are mostly in Utah.
And I don't see two men or two women as being able to marry, so I'm opposed to changing the laws. I'm sick of this bending over backward for the minority.
Ah, sorry about that. Good thing I said I -thought- it was the Amish.
Originally posted by imback
Thinks of the nagging:p
Think of more than one Mother-in-law!
Originally posted by kronas
give me a valid reason as to why they shouldnt be allowed to marry ?
Simple, because they are not male and female. That is a valid reason. Just like I'm opposed to one marrying family, I'm opposed to same-sex marriages. Or do you advocate the right to marry your own brother?
I don't think that gays should be allows to marry, but saying that they should be allowed the protection provided in law by marriage.
Marriage to me is a religious thing, and even if I wasn't gay I wouldn't want to marry anyone, however if I lived with a woman for more than 2 years both I and the woman involved would be protected by the law as common law wife and husband. Nothing like this exists in law for two men or women in a committed relationship ship.
I am not entitled to my partners pension should he die, I would have to move out of my house and his family could claim half from out joint bank account, which he certany doesn't want. Whats that all about?
*remembers he must phone and sort a will out
The law needs to change to entitle me and him to some sort of protection. This certainly shouldn't be included in an existing law, but a new one created.
As far as I can see, this a visa issue, and I think the USA should be more liberal about who they let into their country.
Originally posted by Jerrek
Or do you advocate the right to marry your own brother?
Do you advocate the right to marry your own sister??
homealone
19-09-2003, 23:01
Originally posted by dellwear
I don't think that gays should be allows to marry, but saying that they should be allowed the protection provided in law by marriage.
Marriage to me is a religious thing, and even if I wasn't gay I wouldn't want to marry anyone, however if I lived with a woman for more than 2 years both I and the woman involved would be protected by the law as common law wife and husband. Nothing like this exists in law for two men or women in a committed relationship ship.
I am not entitled to my partners pension should he die, I would have to move out of my house and hos family could claim half from out joint bank account, which he certany doesn't want. Whats that all about?
*remembers he must phone and sort out will out
The law needs to change to entitle me and him to some sort of protection. This certainly shouldn't be included in an existing law, but a new one created.
As far as I can see, this a visa issue, and I think the USA should be more liberal about who they let into their country.
you raised some good points there, dellwear.:cool:
the best definition of marriage I ever saw was "a public announcement of a private decision"
- but like you say that doesn't help the present legal position of a same sex partnership.
I agree, if the, "situation" exists, the Law should reflect it.
Gaz
Originally posted by homealone
you raised some good points there, dellwear.:cool:
I can do it if I try REAL hard!! ;) :p
Originally posted by Graham
Think of more than one Mother-in-law!
Thanks for that Graham, that's a sleepless night for me:(
I couldn't agree more on the legal points Dellwear.
I'm not religious (or gay), and I don't see the point in marriage personally. To use Homealone's definition (nice one Homealone ;)). I/we don't feel the need to make the decision public.
But, I can understand that same sex couples feel the need to make their decision public as many mixed sex couples do. I don't see any reason why civil marriage should not be open to them. As far as religious matters are concerned: religious marriage is separate from civil marriage isn't it?
homealone
19-09-2003, 23:53
Originally posted by danielf
I couldn't agree more on the legal points Dellwear.
I'm not religious (or gay), and I don't see the point in marriage personally. To use Homealone's definition (nice one Homealone ;)). I/we don't feel the need to make the decision public.
But, I can understand that same sex couples feel the need to make their decision public as many mixed sex couples do. I don't see any reason why civil marriage should not be open to them. As far as religious matters are concerned: religious marriage is separate from civil marriage isn't it?
I liked the way my mum did it, when she married again after my dad died ( many years ago ) - she popped into the registry office on her lunch break - she is still with him:)
Originally posted by homealone
I liked the way my mum did it, when she married again after my dad died ( many years ago ) - she popped into the registry office on her lunch break - she is still with him:)
;) My parents joked about the two of them travelling down to the registry on one moped (early 60s this is). It's probably not true, but not far off either.
Do you advocate the right to marry your own sister??
No. You're missing the point. I'm counting on the fact that the gay marriage supporters can't give me a clearcut reason why marrying direct family members should be illegal. Just as they have beliefs, I have my own.
As far as I can see, this a visa issue, and I think the USA should be more liberal about who they let into their country.
No please. If anything, visa restrictions should be tightened.
I think the civil declaration of partnership thing that has been/is being brought in goes far enough.
Most of the gay groups I know (and have heard in the media) don't want marriage and are happy with the new idea.
The Today program on Radio 4 were rather dissapointed when the gay representative and tory MP they had on both totally agreed :D
Then the media went a bit loopy calling for something equivalent to the new gay thing for hetrosexual couples (surely that would just be a civil marriage?) because "some men just won't agree to marriage" and if they split with their partners she's entitled to nothing.
So they proposed that after 2 years women would get automatic rights over their partner's property etc!
Dellwear, the common law stuff isn't actually true (I thought it was too) hetrosexual partners have no rights over each others belongings even after 20 years. If the guy has a pension and dies, but never married his common law wife, she has no claim over the pension.
Marriage between close family is a social construct in response to the increased chance of malformed children due to lack of genetic diversity.
Back 100-150 years and beyond, when a wife died, the eldest daughter would take over her roles. ALL of the wfe's roles.
There's more incest in our ancestry than we'd like to think about!
Homosexuality has been a taboo simply because it can produce no offspring and therefore not good for the tribe, then religious dogma got mixed in.
Look at nature and you'll see most animals partake in homosexual acts, Bonobos are a prime example.
With regards to Visa's, I think the US should come up with more valid reasons to keep people out rather than the nature of their relationship.
All that needs to take place with regards to this incident is the words "man and woman" removed.
Anyone got some tipex? (or is it white-out over there?)
Originally posted by kronas
give me a valid reason as to why they shouldnt be allowed to marry ?
Marriage was always intended for reproduction. Families etc.
Originally posted by kronas
do they harm you ?
No and even if they did, that would not be my reason for being against the idea
Originally posted by kronas
is it detremental to you ?
No
timewarrior2001
20-09-2003, 10:52
same sex marraiges to me are offensive.
I also find the picture shown in the article offensive.
But I also have no complaints about same sex couples wanting to make the same devotion to each other.
Some of my friends that just happen to prefer same sex relationships think the marraige issue is repulsive also.
Strange situation, and I respect the US for saying no. Whether or not its a right descision is not for me to say. What I do beleive is that the US is the ONE country that has the balls to say "no we dont want you here". Where as the UK says "come here please dont create a scene it wont look good on our image"
Whether somehting is morally right or wrong I dont care, if I dont like it I dont like it. Maybe its time the UK started to toughen up on some of its laws etc.
Originally posted by Jerrek
Do you advocate the right to marry your own sister??
No. You're missing the point. I'm counting on the fact that the gay marriage supporters can't give me a clearcut reason why marrying direct family members should be illegal. Just as they have beliefs, I have my own.
As far as I can see, this a visa issue, and I think the USA should be more liberal about who they let into their country.
No please. If anything, visa restrictions should be tightened.
Please tell me if I have got the wrong end of the stick (again), but they can get in to the states if they claim to be single. So whats the difference?
And am I right in thinking that is is only an extended stay they want to be allowed in for not emigration.
If this is the case the surely the only issue's that the USA should be interested in are:
A.) Do they have a big enough bank account to support themselves without working.
B.) Are they likely to abscond (thats not the right word but you know what I mean).
It's clear from the BBC story that they would be fine on the above two counts as they would be allowed entry if they filled the forms in a single men.
Personally I would just fill in the god damn forms as single men and be done with it. Whats it matter? I don't phone the BBC every time I have to fill out a form and tick single or other in the relationship box, they should get a grip. There really is more important things to worry about in life.
Oh, Jerrek, I think we were at cross purposes, as far as I'm concerned having anything to do with relationships within family (even extended) is disgusting, and anyone that doesn't think so is sick in the head. ;)
The Diplomat
20-09-2003, 13:21
Oh dear ... yet another piece of media distortion....:rolleyes:
As far as I can see they haven't been denied entry for being gay
( which is implied by the headline ) but because they CHOOSE not to complete the necessary paperwork to facilitate their entry.
Simple... fill it in differently and you can come in, otherwise.... stay at home. :)
Originally posted by dellwear
Do you advocate the right to marry your own sister??
Only if you can play the banjo... :)
Originally posted by Jerrek
Do you advocate the right to marry your own sister??
No. You're missing the point. I'm counting on the fact that the gay marriage supporters can't give me a clearcut reason why marrying direct family members should be illegal. Just as they have beliefs, I have my own.
Ok, here's a clear cut reason: If marriage is "for reproduction" then marrying your sister (or other close blood relation) is a bad idea because consanguinity risks the re-inforcement of recessive genes which could result in any child born suffering from congenital diseases etc.
(I've never even *heard* of anyone wanting to marry their brother, so I think that's a red herring.)
However I think that *any* couple, straight or gay, should have the right to 1) make a publicly binding commitment to their relationship. 2) Have the right to transfer money and property in that relationship *without* penalty. 3) Have the right to automatically pass on money or property after death.
Currently even if an unmarried couple have lived together their entire lives, bought property in common, share a bank account etc, if one dies the other has *no* automatic right of inheritance if the dead partner didn't make a will because of the laws of intestacy.
(And before someone raises "Common Law Marriage" I'd point out that this only exists in popular myth it hasn't been in English law since the marriage act of 1753!)
There is also the fact that unmarried couples are penalised by the tax system etc because some allowances are *only* given if you're married (a husband and wife can transfer money and property to eachother without penalty, unmarried couples risk getting taxed)
IMO this is archaic and discriminatory and we need to take a much more enlightened view of the whole subject.
In some of Robert Heinlein's books he postulates different forms of "marriage contracts" which vary from the "traditional" to actual short-term contracts eg one that will only run for 1 year after which time either partner can decided to leave or the couple can renew it, specifications of who does what etc or who gets what in the event of a break up (I'd note that the "pre-nuptual agreements" that have become more common in the USA are a step in this direction!)
People should be quite free to have "Christian Marriages" if they want, but they should not be precluded from forming a more permanent bond with their partner, nor penalised because they can't simply because it doesn't fit in with someone else's religious beliefs.
To any married people here, how would you feel if to enter a country you had to claim you were single?
I'm sure there's plenty who would say "but we know we're married so where's the big deal?" but I also know that there are some that would be outraged at the thought.
Originally posted by Jerrek
I'm sick of this bending over backward for the minority.
I'm sure your ancestors said exactly the same thing about the emancipation proclamation, not that I'm inferring you're some sort of KKK activist or anything but you know ... you come across as the type :p (your surname isn't Metzger by any chance?)
Originally posted by Russ D
Marriage was always intended for reproduction. Families etc.
see my reply to danielf post
Originally posted by danielf
I'm not religious (or gay), and I don't see the point in marriage personally.
i thought marriage was about showing ones love for another and wanting to spend the rest of your lives together commiting to the relationship ?
Originally posted by Jerrek
Simple, because they are not male and female. That is a valid reason. Just like I'm opposed to one marrying family, I'm opposed to same-sex marriages. Or do you advocate the right to marry your own brother?
what are you talking about i never said incest should be allowed i dont see a good enough reason for gay couples to be disallowed from getting married
Originally posted by kronas
see my reply to danielf post
Yes - but I didn't think you were serious....
Originally posted by kronas
i thought marriage was about showing ones love for another and wanting to spend the rest of your lives together commiting to the relationship ?
I guess it is for many people. But I don't feel the need to marry to show that. I've been with the same woman for 7 years, and neither of us feels the need marry, and we're quite comitted.
I think this is where Homealone's quote comes in (public announcement of a private decision). We've made our private decision, and don't need to make it public.
I disagree it's the public announcement thing. It's the exchanging of vows which have incredible meaning. Remember that you only need 2 witnesses for marriage, hardly a public announcement.
Originally posted by Russ D
I disagree it's the public announcement thing. It's the exchanging of vows which have incredible meaning. Remember that you only need 2 witnesses for marriage, hardly a public announcement.
The point is that it means different things for different people. If you're religious, it has different meaning then when you're not. For some people it is showing commitment to each other. Others feel they can make this commmitment without getting married. This leaves the public announcement, being allowed to call your partner your wife, wear a wedding ring, and have a big wedding with loads of guests to which you can show you make this commitment. For me, neither of them seem very important, as my gf and I are not religious, feel we are committed without having to exchange vows, and don't feel the need to tell the rest of the world that we love each other so much.
I can fully understand if these things carry meaning for other people, and I don't understand why gay couples should be deprived of this pleasure. At least when it comes to civil marriage.
Also, despite these vows with incredible meaning 1 out of 2 or 3 marriages end in divorce...
The point is that it means different things for different people. If you're religious, it has different meaning then when you're not. For some people it is showing commitment to each other. Others feel they can make this commmitment without getting married. This leaves the public announcement, being allowed to call your partner your wife, wear a wedding ring, and have a big wedding with loads of guests to which you can show you make this commitment. For me, neither of them seem very important, as my gf and I are not religious, feel we are committed without having to exchange vows, and don't feel the need to tell the rest of the world that we love each other so much
Having a 'public announcement' has nothing to do with reliogion, I thought I'd add....
Most large wedding ceremonies are more due to the bride wanting it to be 'her day' - the majority of bloke I know would much prefer a low-key event.
Also, despite these vows with incredible meaning 1 out of 2 or 3 marriages end in divorce...
So is that 1 out of 2 or 1 out of 3? Which organisation did you get that vague statistic from?
homealone
21-09-2003, 12:51
Originally posted by Russ D
I disagree it's the public announcement thing. It's the exchanging of vows which have incredible meaning. Remember that you only need 2 witnesses for marriage, hardly a public announcement.
I agree regarding the exchange of vows in a religious ceremony Russ - although, its been a while since I attended a church service, but IIRC the "calling of banns" for the intended marriage was part of the process, so some "announcing" was going on.
What I meant by my post, (and the quote wasn't mine), was that by getting married, a couple are making a statement regarding their relationship - in the civil sense, anyway. As danielf said he feels his relationship is committed enough for them not to have to ratify it - and that's cool, I know several couples who are in long term relationships and have never married.
In the religious ceremony the couple are partaking of one of the Sacrements of the Church and I accept that has a meaning over & above the "mechanics" of the process:)
Gaz
Originally posted by Russ D
Having a 'public announcement' has nothing to do with reliogion, I thought I'd add....
Most large wedding ceremonies are more due to the bride wanting it to be 'her day' - the majority of bloke I know would much prefer a low-key event.
So is that 1 out of 2 or 1 out of 3? Which organisation did you get that vague statistic from?
Memory. As I recall, it was 1 out of 3 a couple of years ago. It wouldn't surprise me if it has gone up. But that is irrelevant really.
The point is that different people marry for different reasons, valid for them, and not very valid for others. Some people might even marry for the tax benefits alone. I don't see why gay couples should be deprived of this right (marriage as well as the tax benefits) While I can see some religions objecting, I don't see why this should affect civil marriage.
A tip - if you're going to quote statistics in an arguement, make sure they're valid ;)
Originally posted by danielf
The point is that it means different things for different people. If you're religious, it has different meaning then when you're not.
is that why marriage is an institution :p :D
Originally posted by Russ D
A tip - if you're going to quote statistics in an arguement, make sure they're valid ;)
;) How telling. Google for divorce rates and you get prices ;)
Anyway, it's a bit difficult to find the actual number of marriages ending in divorce (typically number of divorces per 1000 people in one year is given), but the following gives the number of marriages ending in divorce for France, a few years back. I doubt the UK is very different.
http://www.ined.fr/englishversion/publications/population/2000/t3-00A.html
it says: After a slight fall in 1996, the number of divorces remained stable in the next two years, and the period index stands at 38 divorces per 100 marriages. Assuming no further increase, the proportion of marriages ending in divorce will be 29% for couples married in 1970 and 35% for those married ten years later.
Originally posted by Russ D
A tip - if you're going to quote statistics in an arguement, make sure they're valid ;)
Anyone quoting stats makes me wonder what the truth is, because generally the statistician that compiled them has used equations that are biased toward their own feelings.
Just look here:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=marriages+end+in+divorce&spell=1
No one website can agree, but it does look like a high proportion, if I think about people I know that have or are married I'd say it is about 40% have been divorced at some time of their life
Like I said I wouldn't want any 'contract' I entered into to be called marriage anyway, if they passed a law letting me 'marry' then I wouldn't because I don't like the background of the word.
I think that there should just be legislation that allows people in longterm same-sex relationships some sort of legal rights.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.