Now that gays can 'marry' in the UK...

Qcmbr

..can anyone think of a good reason why marriage shouldn't be extended to everyone else regardless of other relationship?

Should an elderly couple of sisters living in the same house be married to give them the same rights of property etc..?
How about children marrying parents to avoid inheritance issues?
While we are at it why shouldn't marriage be to more than one person - surely the legal benefits of marriage shouldn't be restricted now to relationships where three or more people truly love each other and shouldn't be denied the financial benefits?

I was listening to a spokesperson for Outrage explaining what marriage was in his mind - a legal bond between people who love each otherr and are committed to each other. The other commentator asked the above questions.

For too long now the minority voices have been illegally held back - marriage is now broken free from the narrow religious shackles that once held it - brothers and sisters of the world unite...literally.

nicolaou

We've done this http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/20/103070/1.ashx

Qcmbr

Sorry - been away for ages

Qcmbr

Hang on though - no - one really broached the commentators questions in the other thread or did I miss it in my speed read.

avishai

While we are at it why shouldn't marriage be to more than one person - surely the legal benefits of marriage shouldn't be restricted now to relationships where three or more people truly love each other and shouldn't be denied the financial benefits?

Why do I always hear this one from LDS guys?

And theres a damn good reason for not allowing siblings to marry and you know it, not the same thing at all.

Qcmbr

Methinks you miss my intent (and you narrow all the questions down to one area only - sibling marriage) - I'm asking the questions which seems almost inevitable following changes to marriage in the UK.

Also could we say that marriages don't have to be consumated? Children can be adopted if needs be and the relationship warrants it?

Why do LDS mention this sort of thing a lot - here's my guess - because the US is a country that set itself up to escape religious intolerance and then crapped all over my religion especially over the issue of plural marriage. Marriage is a sore point for us since the western world is hell bent on destroying the marriage that we stand for and replacing it with a new format.

GentlyFeral

Qcumber, plural marriage is the only area you bring up where you and I are within shouting distance of agreement. OTOH, plural marriage as it has been practiced in this country is liable to abuses, such as middle-aged powerful men commandeering all the young girls, etc. If it were legalized it could be regulated.

On the whole, though, your post on this subject is a red flag to a bull, deliberately provocative. Your "legalize incest" red herring is a smear tactic.

Here's a little mental exercise for you. Just for a few minutes, place yourself in the position of someone who is legally forbidden to marry the love of his life; someone who can only select a spouse from people he is not attracted to.

GentlyFeral

Qcmbr

The whoel subject is highly provocative - no doubt there - I'm not trying to smear though. I sat last night thinking of any arguement I could find as to why marriage shouldn't be extended to everyone now. A lot has been made of the situation regarding the legal issues (gays couldn't claim property etc.) which seems just as valid for ANY relationship of any type. I am playing devil's advocate here but purely as an intellectual exercise - of course I'm not suggesting we should extend marriage to all and sundry nor am I advocating a return to plural marriage but for the record I was also opposed to gay marraige and public opinion has been coached around to accepting that.

Maybe in the next few years we'll have become more accepting of any type of relationship.

scotsman

Qcmbr

Your issue is really with inheritance tax, not civil partnerships.

Jeffro

I once downloaded a trial version of a family tree program that was produced by LDS.

It had no option to add children without indicating that the parents were married, and no option for same-sex couples. (Interestingly, it did allow for the creation of additional marriages without indicating that the other marriages had been dissolved.)

Even if they may not agree with a particular kind of relationship, it is just plain ignorant to not accept the realities of the world they live in.

Now that gays can 'marry' in the UK...

Share this