By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is marriage the right of each and every citizen?

 

Is marriage a right to all citizens?

Yes, screw the Constituti... 29 46.03%
 
No, I side with the Const... 18 28.57%
 
In my country marriage ac... 4 6.35%
 
I'm not touching this wi... 12 19.05%
 
Total:63
Rainbird on 04 August 2011
Joelcool7 said:

Marriage no matter which way you slice it is a religious institution [...]

And yet I can get married in city hall by the mayor. Granted, that's in Denmark, which isn't covered by any of the legal documents you described, but I'm pretty sure you can be declared married by the court in the US.

Either way, marriage is not purely a religious institution, and as superchunk accurately said, marriage is a contract. The marriage you're thinking of is the christian equivalent of an ancient tradition. The problem with marriage today in the western world, is that it's the christian version of marriage that is built into the norms of society rather than a government based marriage.

I think being married is a right to every pair/group of consenting adults, but only in the contractual form. The christian form is reserved for those who wish to follow that, and the same goes for every other kind of marriage.



Around the Network
Netyaroze on 04 August 2011

"Marriage no matter which way you slice it is a religious institution"

No it isnt hystorically speaking.

In germany you can get married only through state. A priest does not have the right to marry you. Ofcourse you can marry in church but the paperwork has to be done by the state and after they processed it its legally binding. The priest is just for show.



outlawauron on 04 August 2011
Kasz216 said:
Zlejedi said:
Kasz216 said:

Both Yes and No.

Marriage isn't a right, however it does become a right the moment government decides to use it as the method to delvier benefits to a committed pair of individuals or uses it to establish familial rights.

As it is now, i'd say marriage is a right in the US.

If the US dropped all tax breaks, and legal benefits for married spouses, I would then say it is NOT a right.

Easy solution... change government marriage to civil unions... for everyone.

Nope.

Marriages receive additional benefits because they are responsible for education and upbringing of future generations.

 

If lack of gay marriages is discrimination than so is existance of men/women only toilets.


Bullshit.

I'm getting married in 4 years, when I get married, I will not have kids.  I will still get marriage benefits.

Gay couples who adopt, or who otherwise have kids (Having kids in a straight relationship, getting a divorce them living with a gay person) do not get marriage benefits.

If marriage benefits are for raising kids, then they should be stripped from married couples and instead be given to people... who have kids.

Which again, does include gay people.


and to follow your logic... I guess if lack of gay marriage isn't discrimination white and black only toliets aren't discrimination... right?

 

Edit: And to head off the "You could have kids!" arguement.  Nobody goes through infertility testing before they get there marriage benefits even though there are a number of men and women who can't have children.... and no woman loses her marriage benefits once she hits menopause.

This isn't so much about gay couples, but I thought you got extensive tax benefits for the adoption of a child regardless of martial situation....



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

MrBubbles on 04 August 2011

universal declaration of human rights

 

 

what do i win...?



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Joelcool7 on 05 August 2011
ctalkeb said:
Joelcool7 said:

Umm the Constitution of Canada, US and Australia are not twisted thank you, have some respect for the law and our countries founding properties.

You don't understand what a constitution is, or what it does.

You don't understand how dictionary definitions work.

You falsely claim that pastors or priests will be forced to carry out gay marriages (they're not even forced to carry out straight marriages, so how you can believe that is slightly beyond me).

You (disgustingly) compare homosexuality with beastiality and pedophilia. Then manage to accuse others of "low" argumentation.

Tell me, will it be worth my time to argue with you?

Ummm firstly I do understand what a Constitution is, its the founding principles and laws in which a country is to be governed. The Constitution is made to ensure that everything in it remains law protecting and preserving that countries principles. All future laws and actions of that countries government must respect and adhere to that constitution. Its a written record that dictates and governs how a country should be run. I could now quote the dictionary definition "A body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed"

How don't I understand how dictionaries work, they are books in which the legal definitions of words are contained. Fact is the Canadian Government had to change the legal definition of the word marriage so that gay couples could be married. That has nothing to do with dictionaries, which means you probably don't understand how a dictionary works. Dictionary companies don't decide what a word means they simply give the definition. Please don't accuse me of not understanding something you clearly don't.

As for pastors and such, umm I'm not saying they will be forced and making some kind of prediction. I'm stating they are being forced and I would know as I am Canadian where gay marriage has already been passed. You live in Norway and are commenting, but you see you have no clue what goes on in the rest of the world. If the US were to legalize marriage yah they might force pastors, they might not I don't know. All I can say for sure is that the Government was going to revoke my pastors marriage liscense for refusing to marry a gay couple. Infact due to anti-discrimination laws and the fact that the definition of marriage has been changed in Norway as of 2009 I wouldn't doubt your country is forcing pastors and civil servents to marry gay couples as well.

As for argueing with me, save your breath I don't argue. I debate maturely and respectully with all members of VGChartz but once something turns juvinile and the debators start to take things out of control, then I leave. Their is a major difference between arguing and debating!

 



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

Around the Network
Joelcool7 on 05 August 2011
MrBubbles said:

universal declaration of human rights

 

 

what do i win...?


Nothing because even the Universal Declaration of rights does not say Marriage is a right for all citizens. It specifically says in Article 16.

Article 16.

  • (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
  • (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
  • (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Their you have it, yet again nowhere in the world do I know of a declration of human rights etc...etc.. that says marriage is a right of all citizens. Infact since most of the world signed the Universal Declaration of Rights I would say this just proves it. Though I guess this shows that marriage is the right of every man and women to one another.

Good try Mr.Bubbles

Do people suggest that we need to alter the Universal Declaration of human rights as well as all of our individual countries bills and laws so that we may force change on the definition of marriage on a global scale? If so that is sort of scary our countries all made these agreements and signed these things into law and respect each others religious institutions.

Also note that the declaration specifically says "and to found a family" a gay couple cannot found a family biologically neither can a beast couple or an object couple. Clearly this right only applies to males and females it says so specifically!



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

Rath on 05 August 2011
Joelcool7 said:

Alright I recently got in a debate over gay marriage and the right of marriage in general. I was called uneducated etc...etc.. for not believing marriage is a right under the declaration of rights or Canada, USA, Australian Constitutions. However I knew my declaration of rights pretty well and with a nights research realized that not only is marriage not a legal right guaranteed in the Canadian constitution or Declaration of Rights but it isn't in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights either or the Australian ones.

So the question has to be asked, legally and democratically is marriage a right that each and every citizen is entitled to? Also if marriage is a right that each and every citizen is entitled to like how Health Care is in Canada and such then what are the implications on society?

I'll start with my opinion based on the Constitution of Canada, USA and Britian. I do not believe marriage is a right as it has no legal recognition as one. None of our countries have put marriage in their contitutions or rights bills. Their isn't a single country that I know of which believes marriage is a right to all citizens. Am I entitled to the right to get married? If I want to marry another man, animal or object should I have that right? Is it owed to me am I being treated unfairly and not as an equal if I am not given the right to get married to whoever or what ever I want?

In my opinion and the opinion of almost every dictionary prior to 2003. Marriage is a bond both legally and spiritually between a man and women. The definition is explicit marriage is not between two men, two women, a woman/man and an animal or a man/woman and a object. The definition was actually changed in 2004. So was that change nescessary and supported legally by the Constitution or law? I would like to see some legal evidence to support that change in definition and law?

Marriage is a religious ceremony and religious institution. Sure it was recognized by the Government but its basis and grounds are in religion. So what entitles beastiality followers, homosexuals and object fetishers to marriage? Some have argued that their were gay unions back in the Roman and Greek empires. But were those union's marriages recognized by the church,temple etc...etc.. or were they just two men or women living with one another? Also to use those as examples in Greek and Roman times a fifty year old could marry a five year old, does that mean that pedophilia should be legal as well because it was in the Roman/Greek empires?

So thats my opinion on marriage, it is a religious institution between a man and a women before God and there for the law. Not the legal right of any or every citizen, object or animal. My opinion is based on the Constitutions of Canada, US and Australia. So what's your opinion, is Marriage a right that should be guaranteed to all citizens? If so why do you believe that and what are your legal grounds to believe that?

Notice this thread is not about Gay Marriage, it is about whether marriage is a fundamental right legally or democratically.

Also please no flaming, derailing or insulting in this thread. This is not a troll thread it should be a civilized discussion on whether Marriage is a right to all citizens and whether it constitutionally or legally is such. Why do you think marriage is a right?


If marriage is a religious institution and you're using freedom of religion as a defence of banning gay marriage, what about the religions/churches who are fine with marrying gay couples (and believe me, quite a few exist)? Their religious rights are being infringed by banning them from marrying gay couples under your argument.

Also marrying children and animals would still be illegal for the same reason having sex with them is - both are unable to properly give consent.



papflesje on 05 August 2011
Joelcool7 said:
MrBubbles said:

universal declaration of human rights

 

 

what do i win...?


Nothing because even the Universal Declaration of rights does not say Marriage is a right for all citizens. It specifically says in Article 16.

Article 16.

  • (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
  • (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
  • (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Their you have it, yet again nowhere in the world do I know of a declration of human rights etc...etc.. that says marriage is a right of all citizens. Infact since most of the world signed the Universal Declaration of Rights I would say this just proves it. Though I guess this shows that marriage is the right of every man and women to one another.

Good try Mr.Bubbles

Do people suggest that we need to alter the Universal Declaration of human rights as well as all of our individual countries bills and laws so that we may force change on the definition of marriage on a global scale? If so that is sort of scary our countries all made these agreements and signed these things into law and respect each others religious institutions.

Also note that the declaration specifically says "and to found a family" a gay couple cannot found a family biologically neither can a beast couple or an object couple. Clearly this right only applies to males and females it says so specifically!


Nothing in that text states that it only applies to a union of a man and a woman, which means it can also be used to confirm gay marriage (I'll agree that probably wasn't its original purpose, but it does fit now).

Family on the other hand doesn't necessarily dictate children. Aside from that, with the possibility of adoption, that is also eliminated. I'd like to see you say "you're not a family" to a man and woman who just can't have children. In essence: they biologically CAN'T found a family either (according to your definition).



sapphi_snake on 05 August 2011
mrstickball said:

Actually, you would find an argument to support this. Church as in the Christian church, or religious organizations in general.

I'd suggest reading up on the contemporary foundation of marriage at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage_by_culture

You can find a significant amount of information in regards to the church establishing and codifing the requirements of marriage millennia ago, and in law for most European countries for centuries. You can cite many exmaples of marriage existing before Christianity, but again, it was never codified.

Forms of marriage are present in all cultures, but none codified it except for the church. Thus why I argue they are the torch bearer for the definition of marriage. But as such, history shows us that all cultures have had common-law marriages, which should be the basis for the state (civil unions).

The link you provided in no way brings any information I didn't already know. Just because christianity tried to hijack marriage in the West, in their attempt to take control of alll aspects of society, doesn't mean that that has any relevance now. I also stressed the 'in the West' part, because the Church has no connection to marriages outside the Western world. The fact that you call them 'common-law marriages' just shows your ignorance, considering that marriage is strictly codified in all cultures, even if not written. Not to mention that by your logic, only christians can get married.

Also, in current society the State is the one who regulates marriage, as marriage is a legal institution.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

sad.man.loves.vgc on 05 August 2011
Rath said:
Joelcool7 said:

Alright I recently got in a debate over gay marriage and the right of marriage in general. I was called uneducated etc...etc.. for not believing marriage is a right under the declaration of rights or Canada, USA, Australian Constitutions. However I knew my declaration of rights pretty well and with a nights research realized that not only is marriage not a legal right guaranteed in the Canadian constitution or Declaration of Rights but it isn't in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights either or the Australian ones.

So the question has to be asked, legally and democratically is marriage a right that each and every citizen is entitled to? Also if marriage is a right that each and every citizen is entitled to like how Health Care is in Canada and such then what are the implications on society?

I'll start with my opinion based on the Constitution of Canada, USA and Britian. I do not believe marriage is a right as it has no legal recognition as one. None of our countries have put marriage in their contitutions or rights bills. Their isn't a single country that I know of which believes marriage is a right to all citizens. Am I entitled to the right to get married? If I want to marry another man, animal or object should I have that right? Is it owed to me am I being treated unfairly and not as an equal if I am not given the right to get married to whoever or what ever I want?

In my opinion and the opinion of almost every dictionary prior to 2003. Marriage is a bond both legally and spiritually between a man and women. The definition is explicit marriage is not between two men, two women, a woman/man and an animal or a man/woman and a object. The definition was actually changed in 2004. So was that change nescessary and supported legally by the Constitution or law? I would like to see some legal evidence to support that change in definition and law?

Marriage is a religious ceremony and religious institution. Sure it was recognized by the Government but its basis and grounds are in religion. So what entitles beastiality followers, homosexuals and object fetishers to marriage? Some have argued that their were gay unions back in the Roman and Greek empires. But were those union's marriages recognized by the church,temple etc...etc.. or were they just two men or women living with one another? Also to use those as examples in Greek and Roman times a fifty year old could marry a five year old, does that mean that pedophilia should be legal as well because it was in the Roman/Greek empires?

So thats my opinion on marriage, it is a religious institution between a man and a women before God and there for the law. Not the legal right of any or every citizen, object or animal. My opinion is based on the Constitutions of Canada, US and Australia. So what's your opinion, is Marriage a right that should be guaranteed to all citizens? If so why do you believe that and what are your legal grounds to believe that?

Notice this thread is not about Gay Marriage, it is about whether marriage is a fundamental right legally or democratically.

Also please no flaming, derailing or insulting in this thread. This is not a troll thread it should be a civilized discussion on whether Marriage is a right to all citizens and whether it constitutionally or legally is such. Why do you think marriage is a right?


If marriage is a religious institution and you're using freedom of religion as a defence of banning gay marriage, what about the religions/churches who are fine with marrying gay couples (and believe me, quite a few exist)? Their religious rights are being infringed by banning them from marrying gay couples under your argument.

Also marrying children and animals would still be illegal for the same reason having sex with them is - both are unable to properly give consent.


Good point.