Debate Mansion
Debate Mansion

India-Forums

   

SEXUALITY debate: Why can't people live their life (Page 8)

return_to_hades IF-Veteran Member
return_to_hades
return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 21526

Posted: 05 December 2011 at 10:27am | IP Logged
Originally posted by TheUltimate

 
Government has no business in anyone's marriage.


The judiciary still implements a legal definition of marriage right? That definition is based on government policy and judicial activism. Do you propose that marriage as a legal institution recognized by courts be totally dissolved? People can still traditionally marry. The law just won't recognize marriage.


TheUltimate Senior Member
TheUltimate
TheUltimate

Joined: 19 July 2010
Posts: 788

Posted: 05 December 2011 at 11:14am | IP Logged
Originally posted by return_to_hades



The judiciary still implements a legal definition of marriage right? That definition is based on government policy and judicial activism. Do you propose that marriage as a legal institution recognized by courts be totally dissolved? People can still traditionally marry. The law just won't recognize marriage.

 
I should have clarified. Government's role need not expand than what it is. It has been set for the legal recognition etc. and that's it. It must not step in and say "hey guys, scrap that old one man one woman crap.. here is the new definition that we have come up with for you guys. You'all need to sign new certificates to have your marriages compliant with this new version".
return_to_hades IF-Veteran Member
return_to_hades
return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 21526

Posted: 05 December 2011 at 11:30am | IP Logged
Originally posted by TheUltimate

Originally posted by return_to_hades



The judiciary still implements a legal definition of marriage right? That definition is based on government policy and judicial activism. Do you propose that marriage as a legal institution recognized by courts be totally dissolved? People can still traditionally marry. The law just won't recognize marriage.

 
I should have clarified. Government's role need not expand than what it is. It has been set for the legal recognition etc. and that's it. It must not step in and say "hey guys, scrap that old one man one woman crap.. here is the new definition that we have come up with for you guys. You'all need to sign new certificates to have your marriages compliant with this new version".


I'm not sure what the laws were in other countries but there was originally no one man/one woman crap in the US legal code. San Fran and other jurisdictions started giving gay marriage licenses based that the law stipulated age, and other requirements but not of gender. That crap was added by DOMA. That is why the constitutional amendments are not to "allow" gay marriages, but to "ban" gay marriages. Let two consenting adults of age just marry. Don't go amending the constitution to not let them marry.
Beyond_the_Veil IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 February 2008
Posts: 11596

Posted: 05 December 2011 at 12:53pm | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.
TheUltimate Senior Member
TheUltimate
TheUltimate

Joined: 19 July 2010
Posts: 788

Posted: 05 December 2011 at 2:48pm | IP Logged

We are going in circles. You seem to hold a view that marriage is not about kinship. Well, I disagree. I would expect that you tell me what are you basing your opinion on. You mentioned that since we have already introduced "variations" to the marriage, add one more. Sorry, but that is a straw man. You have not offered why do you believe that marriage is not about kids.

I noticed that you did not reply if there is a problem with the union (or whatever they are calling it), why not fix that? If two lines are of different lengths, either the smaller line can be made bigger or the bigger line can be cut short.. which one do you prefer?
 
You might think that you responded to my question about why gays want to adhere to existing standards but I am still unclear. I asked if it is about the advantages that married hetero couples enjoy and you said yes. So, well, let's put those advantages to their "union".
Why the marriage which traditionally has been between a man and a woman and vast majority of marriages are like that. Since we live in a democratic country, majority rules.
 
Regarding polygamy, yes the idea is incomprehensible. Man.. my head is spinning with few easy combinations that can be called a marriage:
1 male-1female, 1 male - multiple females, multiple males - 1 female, male-male, female-female, multiple males - 1 male, multiple females - 1 female, 1 male - multiple males, 1 female - multiple females, multiple males - multiple males, multiple females - multiple females...
Oh - and did I mention that they all do not have to be human species? I am sure I left out many possible combinations, but I am sure you get the point.
 
For your last question - system might not be perfect. As I have told multiple times, let's improve it. Why modify the other system?
Summer3 IF-Stunnerz
Summer3
Summer3

Joined: 24 September 2007
Posts: 44280

Posted: 06 December 2011 at 1:52am | IP Logged
In most muslim countries homosexuality is a criminal offense it seems and in Malaysia too it is a very big major crime.
 
Read the case of the politician Anwar Ibrahim (former DPM) who was jailed 9 years for sodomy.
 
 
 
 
 
Rehanism IF-Dazzler
Rehanism
Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010
Posts: 3458

Posted: 06 December 2011 at 8:00am | IP Logged
Originally posted by TheUltimate

We are going in circles. You seem to hold a view that marriage is not about kinship. Well, I disagree. I would expect that you tell me what are you basing your opinion on. You mentioned that since we have already introduced "variations" to the marriage, add one more. Sorry, but that is a straw man. You have not offered why do you believe that marriage is not about kids.

This is a personal and relative matter. There is no standard definition of the "purpose" of marriage in any law. Some people, mostly those under arranged marriage, marry to have kids and family. Others marry mainly out of love, intimacy and compatibility. We might safely assume that homosexual marriages are not arranged marriages. They marry because they wish to spend their life together and they want their relation ship to be recognized by the law and tolerated the by society as that is their constitutional right. Besides, legally recognized relationships provide several benefits like property rights, medical security, insurance etc which are not available in live-in relationships.

I noticed that you did not reply if there is a problem with the union (or whatever they are calling it), why not fix that? If two lines are of different lengths, either the smaller line can be made bigger or the bigger line can be cut short.. which one do you prefer?
 
You might think that you responded to my question about why gays want to adhere to existing standards but I am still unclear. I asked if it is about the advantages that married hetero couples enjoy and you said yes. So, well, let's put those advantages to their "union".
Why the marriage which traditionally has been between a man and a woman and vast majority of marriages are like that. Since we live in a democratic country, majority rules.

Wrong. We live in a Representative Democracy which promises equality to all irrespective of majority or minority and hence the law is obliged to safeguard and recognize the rights of every individual - whether they belong/subscribe to any community, caste, religion or sexual orientation. Secondly the law doesn't understand or recognize any "traditional definition" of marriage, which are purely subjective, nor does it require couples to produce kids. In fact the law might intercede and change traditions if required, but compromising on individual rights just to regard traditions is purely unconstitutional.
 
Regarding polygamy, yes the idea is incomprehensible. Man.. my head is spinning with few easy combinations that can be called a marriage:
1 male-1female, 1 male - multiple females, multiple males - 1 female, male-male, female-female, multiple males - 1 male, multiple females - 1 female, 1 male - multiple males, 1 female - multiple females, multiple males - multiple males, multiple females - multiple females...
Oh - and did I mention that they all do not have to be human species? I am sure I left out many possible combinations, but I am sure you get the point.
 
For your last question - system might not be perfect. As I have told multiple times, let's improve it. Why modify the other system?

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

SmritiKatha

TheUltimate Senior Member
TheUltimate
TheUltimate

Joined: 19 July 2010
Posts: 788

Posted: 06 December 2011 at 8:35am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Rehanism

This is a personal and relative matter. There is no standard definition of the "purpose" of marriage in any law. Some people, mostly those under arranged marriage, marry to have kids and family. Others marry mainly out of love, intimacy and compatibility. We might safely assume that homosexual marriages are not arranged marriages. They marry because they wish to spend their life together and they want their relation ship to be recognized by the law and tolerated the by society as that is their constitutional right. Besides, legally recognized relationships provide several benefits like property rights, medical security, insurance etc which are not available in live-in relationships.
The very base of any marriage, traditionally speaking was to have kids, kinship, management of heirdom etc.. That is what I have been able to find. So, to prove it otherwise, the onus lies on the opposing committee to bring forth some facts and verifiable evidences.
 
Arranged or love marriage is not  a point of discussion. Marriage is marriage.
 
Now, can the married couples decide not to have kids or can they not have kids? Of course. That still does not change the basic purpose of a marriage. Are those heterosexual couples who know they cannot conceive allowed to marry? Yes. As I have stated before, consider it as a loophole if you must.
 
So, as it has been established, the purpose of marriage for gay community is as you put "benefits like property rights, medical security, insurance etc". I have told multiple times before, if those are the issues, we should work on those issues and fix their "union".
 
Originally posted by Rehanism

Wrong.
It is as wrong as me calling you wrong without any data to back myself up.
Originally posted by Rehanism

We live in a Representative Democracy which promises equality to all irrespective of majority or minority and hence the law is obliged to safeguard and recognize the rights of every individual - whether they belong/subscribe to any community, caste, religion or sexual orientation. Secondly the law doesn't understand or recognize any "traditional definition" of marriage, which are purely subjective, nor does it require couples to produce kids. In fact the law might intercede and change traditions if required, but compromising on individual rights just to regard traditions is purely unconstitutional.
Your first point is a classic deflection. No, no one is saying that let's suppress gays like how in the past people were suppressed because of their religioin, caste, race, financial background, sexual orientation etc..
I wonder why this issue gets voted down in bleeding blue California every time it gets out to public.
 
Secondly, what are you trying to say by stating that law doesn't understand or recognize any "traditional definition"?? If so, then what's this discussion about?
Yes, the law does not require couples to produce kids... but well, who knew when the union of marriage was established in good faith that it would have to go around explaining its purpose.
By the way, law also does not require that incestous marriages be  not recognized... so, what is your point?
 
Again, one more time, if one system is broken, let's fix  that broken system instead of changing the other working system.

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Author Replies Views Last Post
The Cyber Culture Discussion/Debate

2

Author: return_to_hades   Replies: 15   Views: 1503

return_to_hades 15 1503 01 July 2010 at 4:39pm by the_Naked_face
Debate Contest (COMPLETED)

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 32 33

Author: return_to_hades   Replies: 256   Views: 13317

return_to_hades 256 13317 28 June 2010 at 8:13am by return_to_hades
Debate Contest Winners

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 18 19

Author: return_to_hades   Replies: 149   Views: 9665

return_to_hades 149 9665 23 June 2010 at 9:41pm by krystal_watz
Artificial life abroad Vs life in India?

2 3 4

Author: raj5000   Replies: 28   Views: 6562

raj5000 28 6562 10 July 2007 at 3:11pm by Gauri_3
Home life or Hostel life

2

Author: Swapna-Mobile   Replies: 14   Views: 6920

Swapna-Mobile 14 6920 06 February 2007 at 1:36am by realitybites

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels
Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index