Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to make an order. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Should voluntarily childless couples be allowed to get married?

13»

Comments

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 5,949
    @Fardragon So you're quoting a source you don't properly understand? Nice. Google translate is totally perfect, of course.

  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,386
    edited November 2016
    Just one example. There is plenty of other information on the internet for people who take their heads out of the sand.

    Marriage can only be between two people = your opinion. Fine.

    Other opinions exist = fact. My existence is proof of that, unless you would like to try to argue that I don't exist?

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 5,949
    @Fardragon It's not my opinion, it's the definition of marriage. It's a contract between two people. If you have multiple wives, you have multiple such contracts but the wives are not obligated to each other.

    RelSundanThacoBell
  • RelSundanRelSundan Member Posts: 916
    edited November 2016
    Fardragon said:

    RelSundan said:

    This is starting to sound like the America's 1800.

    Quite. The definition of marriage varies widely with both time and geography. That's why the only valid definition is what the people involved decide.
    Oh I wasn't really talking about the definition of marriage, I will leave that to you. Shandyr's polls about "allowing" which can be translated to "Forced to marry this way" etc reminded me about past America where you, for instance were not allowed to marry a black man if you were a white woman and vice versa. Homosexuallity was prohibited as well. It is all based on a concept, where the law claims marriage as their property, as they can tell you how you can and can not marry another person, as well as other restrictions regarding marriage. In this poll the question, whether we should allow or forbid that married couples would live a childless life, was presented.

    What I am saying is that marriage back in the day was so restricted compared today. Why should we apply restrictions regarding marriage again? It should be you and yours bussiness, not the government ( or any other factors for that matter)

  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 1,768
    Fardragon said:

    Polygamy is legal in quite a few countries, including India. I believe the Quaran teaches that four is the optimal number of wives. In the USA Mormons practice polygamy even though it's not technically legal. But we have already established that most of us believe the beliefs of the individuals concerned supersede meddling by the State.

    @Fardragon

    Mormons (members of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints) stopped practicing polygamy in 1890 in response to the enforcement of the Morril Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862 (previously unenforced) by the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 and now denounce it.

    "Mormons" who practice polygamy, mostly members of the rogue funadmentalist church formerly led by the infamous child molestor Warren Jeffs, are generally under FBI investigation and are considered by many to by a criminal organization.

    Just wanted to clear some things up because it is best not to confuse the two, one a respected international church and the other a cult led by criminals, even though the term "mormon" is commonly used to refer to either organization.

    RelSundan
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,386
    edited November 2016

    @Fardragon It's not my opinion, it's the definition of marriage. It's a contract between two people. If you have multiple wives, you have multiple such contracts but the wives are not obligated to each other.

    It's A definition of marriage, but legal codes vary widely around the world. You could argue that, as is in the case in several countries where polygamy is practiced, the contract only involves ONE person, since women have no legal rights. In other parts of the world there is no written law about marriage, and any disputes are handled by tribal elders. If a marriage is both homosexual and polygamous, as in the Brazil case, it cannot be between only two of the people involved. Each person has an obligation to each other person in the relationship.

    I have already expressed my opinion that I don't believe the state, or anyone else, has any right to dictate the relationships of consenting adults, and as such I personally don't give a flying fig about what the law says in any country. Marriage is whatever the people involved say it is: full stop.

    Post edited by Fardragon on
    RelSundan
  • RelSundanRelSundan Member Posts: 916
    Now that we settled that argument, who wants some ice cream?

    ThacoBellTeflonmashedtaters
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 7,630
    RelSundan said:

    Now that we settled that argument, who wants some ice cream?

    Me! Me!

    RelSundanTeflonmashedtaters
  • RelSundanRelSundan Member Posts: 916
    *steals ice cream from @Nimran and gives it to @ThacoBell*

    ThacoBellmashedtaters
  • SmilingSwordSmilingSword Member Posts: 827
    Shandyr said:

    New point for discussion:

    If religious belief and having children are not mandatory for marriage, then what is?
    What defines marriage?

    A piece of paper your government gives you.

    Kamigoroshi
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 5,949
    Here @Troodon80 demonstrates why you don't quote sources you don't understand.

  • RelSundanRelSundan Member Posts: 916
    I think @Fardragon rushed his posts a bit. It is better to take your time and compare different sources, especially if you have no knowledge about the subject from before.

    mashedtaters
  • TeflonTeflon Member, Translator (NDA) Posts: 517
  • BelanosBelanos Member Posts: 968
    edited November 2016
    Wow, where are you coming up with these bogus definitions of what marriage should or should not be? It's completely irrelevant whether a couple wants to have children or not, there are lots of reasons why they would want to be married aside from that.

    Post edited by Belanos on
  • ShandyrShandyr Member Posts: 8,263
    So as some of you have already correctly guessed, my two polls concerning marriage are related to same sex marriage.

    The German minister of justice recently announced that he is in support of same sex marriage.

    In the comment section of those news someone said that the most common arguments against same sex marriage were:
    1.) Gay couples cannot have biological children.
    2.) Marriage requires being religious.

    However that user gives then reasons as to why those two arguments don't hold, namely that there are heterosexual couples who cannot or don't want to have children and they are still allowed to get married.

    And secondly he argues that civil marriage doesn't require being religious, for example atheists are allowed to marry.

    Hence my two polls. I wanted to see if people on this forum agree with that comment.

    TeflonThacoBellJuliusBorisovSmilingSword
  • ShandyrShandyr Member Posts: 8,263
    edited November 2016
    I do not think that the answer to the polls are so blatantly obvious.

    In discussions about same sex marriage I have often come across the two arguments from the previous post.

    So I am wondering if the invalidity of those two arguments only hold true for heterosexual couples.
    But they somehow do apply for gay couples.

    Anyway, even if the invalidity of those two arguments also holds for same sex marriage, I am sure that opponents of the same can easily come up with other reasons as to why gay couples should not be allowed to get married.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 5,949
    @Shandyr You can come up with reasons and arguments for anything. That doesn't mean they're valid.

    ShandyrJuliusBorisov
  • ARKdeEREHARKdeEREH Member Posts: 531
    Perhaps a better question would be why should any demographic of consenting adult not be allowed to get married?

    Think about it this way, if we voted on whether or not the OP should be allowed to get married and the vote came back as a "no," should that mean that s/he really should be prohibited from doing so? Would that be fair or even make sense?

    I don't think it should be up to anyone except for the actual couple whether or not they get married (provided of course that they are consenting adults).

    ThacoBell
  • ARKdeEREHARKdeEREH Member Posts: 531

    What's wrong with being childless if that's what you want to do?

    Nothing unless you want to help cause more world hunger through overpopulation.

  • dunbardunbar Member Posts: 1,341
    edited November 2016
    Using the argument "Gay couples cannot have biological children" as a reason for not allowing same sex marriage is (to me) obviously nonsensical as many heterosexual couples are unable to have children, so the adjective "gay" is redundant, and to say that couples who cannot have biological children should not be allowed to marry is farcical.

    Troodon80
  • dunbardunbar Member Posts: 1,341
    Another thought for the proponents of "Gay couples cannot have biological children so shouldn't be allowed to marry" school of thought:
    It is my understanding that some couples actually wait until they're married before they have sex. If a heterosexual couple do this and only find out after they're married that they're infertile, must they then get divorced?

13»
Sign In or Register to comment.