Kinda sad that one can get an annulment for something like those things, yet when two men or two women try to go get hitched, everyone flip flops their shit upside down, inside out, left side right.. This shows our priorities along with our twisted senses :/

Well, the sex bit is really the only weird thing about the annulment grounds I know of - the rest are more or less adaptations of standard contracts law. You have to be able to consent to make a contract, your contract must otherwise be legal, etc. I expect the sex part was introduced as, again, more of that old school inheritance and estate values - back when marriages were more or less managed affairs of the families designed to incorporate wealth and sustain it through a system of heirs and inheritances as opposed to MGM musical affairs where everyone dances around and proclaims their undying love for one another. You know, back when the woman didn't really get a say because she was more or less property of her parents? Good times...

Sorry if I did not explain myself right, but I was talking about "religious marriage" and most of the of the predominant religions in the world share the same point of view regarding this point.
"Traditional marriage" is after all a "religious marriage", or if you prefer to see it, it inherits a lot from it.

Civil marriage is VERY recent, as it dates from the XVIII century (with some differences from country to country) while religious marriage is ancient in most cultures.
I think there were some kinds of common-law marriages a bit earlier - and only in some countries and specific circumstances- but by no way they were equal to marriages (as nowadays common-law marriages in many a country in which this legal figure still exists).

So by "traditional" I meant "religious", which may be a bit clearer way to put it if you prefer.



Anyway, even current legal form of civil marriage nowadays considers sexuality as part of the contractual points in many countries. That's why cheating is one of the legal reason to terminate such a contract.
And, as Mistermook mentioned, not being able to have sex is often one of the legal grounds for annulment.



As I said before, I'm not supporting traditional marriage or religious marriage and of course I am not against marriage between people of the same sex.
I personally think that marriage (or whatever the word you can use for it) should be a more open kind of contract, which any two (or more) adult people should be able to write on their own terms. I just don't see the point of so many limitations nowadays.

In that case, we really don't have anything to discuss, since I believe that "religious marriage" is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and perhaps more properly belongs in one of the religion threads.

More importantly, I believe that the average gay couple is more interested in what marriage means legally and whether they have access to the legal rights and responsibilities that a legal marriage entails. Gay people want to have a say in what happens to their partners when they are ill. Gay people want to have their family structures legally recognized. Gay people want to be able to file joint tax returns. Gay people want the right to marry legally. They already have religious marriages (although not always in their chosen church).

Yes, some religious gay people will also want to fight for their relationships to be recognized in the church. But, that's a separate issue and many gay people will change churches rather than continue to be discriminated against by their existing church.

Just wanted to share this.



(This guy is also a Christian. I think.)

There is also the whole states' rights vs central federal government's rights argument but the fact that the central government is taking more and more control over the states (through the commerce clause and elastic clause) is another can of worms. I think that the central federal government of the USA will eventually overstep its bounds in the constitution that it will either amend the constitution, finally be told no (which really hasn't happened much since the New Deal), or topple (though the fall of the USA will be more complex than just states wanting their independence back, there are economic reasons as well, such as debt, deficit, gdp, etc).

As I have stated, I think that the USA should make an amendment to the constitution that reforms marriage law (such as who can get married, who can perform marriages, what a divorce means, what an annulment means, can people remarry, how this affects religious freedom, etc). If marriage was for procreation, then men and women would be allowed to be married at 16 and could not marry after 50. This is a little ridiculous by today's standards.

--Ocram

Of core it's still marriage! the only difference is that its two boys or two girls getting married, not just one boy and one girl. There's not a big difference, and the world wont end, considering gay marriage has
happened, and the earth's still here.

Well, not really. If you look at all of human history, religious marriage is quite recent. State-sponsored marriage, which I assume is what you mean by civil marriage, is only slightly more recent. As far as we know the original forms were private contracts or agreements between the parties involved. Those parties were likely to be the two families rather than the bride and groom since formal marriage was about alliances, property, and inheritance. These marriages were no less legal, valid, and binding than a modern marriage is. (I say as far as we know since marriage originated before recorded history.)

The Church got involved in the process of marriage in the Western world in the 1200's to 1500's, making it not all that much older than state-officiated marriage which began in the 1600's in the US. Not much of a difference when you're talking about thousands of years of human history.

In fact, from this historical point of view, traditional marriage would be polygamy between one man and one or more women, with optional concubines, formed by private contracts or agreements between the man's family and the women's families.

An interesting article, including a brief discussion on how the recent evolution of 'traditional' marriage has led to the rapid acceptance of same-sex marriage: http://www.livescience.com/37777-hi...f-marriage.html

Love is blind. It has no eyes and is equal to all the species of the Earth. If two same sex want two be in love or marry i think they should, No some should be told no they can not marry or be in love because no matter what. It is ridiculous. I have seen movies on Netflix that just make ashamed to be human. There are enough children on the world to be adopted for every one on the planet. The way i hear people talk a about same sex people is unbelievable (ie we should have the pastor talk about it). Love has no bounders.

The thing is that love and marriage are not the same thing. To this day, many couples around the world do not marry for love. Marrying for love was virtually nonexistent for many centuries.

--Ocram

Any two consenting adults should be allowed to freely marry. It shouldn't be any more complicated than that. Gender, "love", procreation, religion, Moko the Samoan Bird King, whatever... all irrelevant.

On a less serious note, (mainly because I don't have time to read through the previous 7 pages, so not sure if this has been mentioned) wasn't there a lady who married the Eiffel Tower? And someone else who married a fence.
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems rather silly to be in a huff about two humans marrying, when you can apparently marry a table. But if you love a table, go ahead and marry that table. I'm not one to judge, haha ^-^

But actually more seriously, I don't think homosexuality in general should be held in such contempt by some people. Say, if rhubarb pie was your favorite food and you really loved eating it, I wouldn't expect anyone to get angry at you just because they like apple pie and thats what they perceive as 'normal'. I mean, that's just kind of silly when you think about it, right?

Now take your rhubarb pie and eat it with pride!
I'll just stay in the corner hoarding both apple and rhubarb pie

After all the debate, I don't know if the concept of traditional is even relevant. Beyond the natural desire to be bound by vow to the one we love, the significant part of the marriage/union is rights pertaining to property and law acquired, shared and controlled between two persons. We can debate the value of religion and history ad nauseum, but it is relevant to the question vis-à-vis the 21st century? Without rights (by any moniker) a couple who moves into a single arrangement have no rights, not even tenants in common, to protect them against traditional probate. (Go watch "If these walls could talk 2" from HBO. Agree with same-sex relationships or not, if this doesn't break your heart then you may not qualify as compassionate enough to speak on the topic Just saying....

I am constantly frustrated by the U.S. principle of "separation of church and state" and then various interest groups from both side of the fence trying to legislate morality for their own narrow focused purposes. Ya can't legislate morality, boys and girls! It's been tried and has failed over all the world for all the millennia humans have imposed their opinions and preferences upon other humans. It's oligarchy, monarchy, socialism; tis not democracy. Just my 2 cents... *sigh*

"Be, Jonathan!" Why do we make life so complicated?

The idea of Separation of church and state is at best a clusterfuck of messes that really do not work out. The main thing it was there to do was to namely prevent any one religion being given favoritism over another religion or to prevent the government from sponsoring any one religion, basically a Neutral card in regards to religion. This doesn't mean that the government can't listen to religious groups nor have influence and pressure from these organizations.

If Separation of Church and State really mattered, then the US government would use its own naming, procedures, and protection for the union between two people.


--Ocram

You mean, a word like "marriage"?

That's the word that I like and I'm not religious. I don't actually understand why the word would be considered religious.

Marriage existed before most modern-day religions. If religious persons believe their marriages to be so much more special than those of others, they should use their own naming, procedures, and protection for the union between two people. While the ceremony may hold religious tones, the actual institution of marriage in most countries is a civil one. It's mostly in the Middle East where marriage is more of a religious institution than a civil one; each religion governs it's own, with Islamic law trumping civil and other religious rules. In the U.S., a marriage is only legal with the signing of a civil marriage license. Many couples get married by a judge, a justice of the peace, or other public officiant. They need not go to a church, synagogue or mosque in order to marry. Our government has made the process simpler by allowing religious leaders to perform a religious ceremony AND to act as a civil officiant. The religious leader must sign the civil marriage license before witnesses and the couple for the marriage to be legal. Only having the religious ceremony is not valid in the eyes of the state. In Europe and Latin America, some countries recognise religious marriage as equivalent to civil marriage, others do not. If you move to another country after having entered into a religious marriage only, it is important to check the consequences for your marital status. Some countries – such as Belgium, Bulgaria, France, the Netherlands, Romania and Turkey – require that a civil ceremony take place before any religious one. In Indonesia marriages must be registered with both civil and religious institutions to be legal. In China marriages must be recorded in the Civil Registry. Australia has basically the same rules as the US.

I support the separation of church and hate.

I think America should do more with is time, Laws and money like keep murders, pedophiles , drugs, and terrorist , out and and off the stree. Honestly the KKK seams more of a threat than a gay person unless they murder someone

I'm confused by what you're trying to say. Are you in support of gay marriage and think the U.S. government shouldn't waste any more time on it? Or do you want them to somehow defend the bans they currently have by doing... nothing? I think you also said that gay people aren't bad unless they kill people and aren't worse than the Ku Klux Klan, which I agree with.... I guess.

Marriage is a contract, and brings you certain benefits and security in your life. It is one that should be available for everyone, because otherwise it's violating laws about equality. The contract is the same regardless of your religion (or lack of one), and therefore should not be defined by what one religion says about it. Therefore yes, it should be legal, and it should simply be called marriage. It'd become quite redundant in a sentence otherwise. "I'm a man and gay married to another man." (Yeah, makes no sense.)

And I should also mention how unfair the situation is to transsexuals. In my country, if someone who is married decides to transition, they must divorce first, because same-sex marriage does not exist within our laws.

However, what's worse is that this is really the only thing governments are debating about. Whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry. All the while ignoring the violence and discrimination lgbt-people suffer through daily, and not doing anything about making the laws better so that we'd have more rights (ones that matter more than marriage) and could feel safer.

Of course it should you dolt. Marriage is between two people and if they happen to be same sex who are any of us to judge? I happen to love my partner and we are waiting to have our civil partnership converted to a marriage certificate. We are even going to redo our vows.

Please don't insult people in the debate room (or anywhere, but it's even less appropriate than usual in the debate room). Please also don't attack people for having views which they actually disagreed with, which you'd have seen if you had read the first post properly.

Tradition is a terrible reason for justifying something.
Female circumcision is tradition in parts of Africa.
College hazing is tradition as well.
Human sacrifice was an ancient tradition.

I thought we've already been through why separate, but "equal" isn't fair, and doesn't work?