Home > Law Group > Discussion Board

Clearly too black and white. If there were an easy solution, somebody would have come up with it long before now. And there is that matter of thousands of years of human history to consider.

Okay, a civil union among three or more people . . . Hmmm. Wouldn't that be--oh, I don't know--a corporation?! If such an arrangement existed, can you imagine what any subsequent divorce proceeding would be like? Imagine 3 or 4 individuals and their personal attorneys all screaming at each other in a settlement conference. Reason enough right there to avoid the concept of a multiple civil union!

Seriously, the whole issue of marriage seems complicated by the blurring of the lines between church and state views of the institution. In some faiths, a civil divorce isn't recognized in the church as a dissolution of marriage, and many marriages are not founded in any way on religious faith. And many people marry solely or primarily for economic reasons.

At one time, marriage gave people formal social permission to live together and have children. Married people were (and still are)afforded economic advantages in terms of taxes and benefits that promote the establishment of family households. Being married was the social norm and staying married for long periods of time was more often the rule rather than the exception.

But the times they are a changin', like it or not and 'for better or worse." Considering the incredibly dynamic nature of our society, it isn't surprising that marriage as it currently exists as a legal and social institution is being questioned and redefined by many people.

In reply to #10:

society has certain rules to control lives, however, freedom is in my blood to pursuit in life.

i am in charge of my life. Life is too short to waste on arguing and disrespect.

got to go--chao!~

The purpose of government is to safeguard rights, not regulate marriage, as #7 imputes. Between consenting adults, whether of the same or opposite sex, government should not be found.  And if an individual wants to "marry" multiple partners, what's wrong with that?  Isn't it still legal in Utah? So what if the sexes are different?

#9 wrote "It always gets complicated when the moral values of one group collide with the rights of individuals."

A group can't have a moral value. Only individual rights exist, and they trump everything else.  Freedom is the ability to exercise one's rights. If the members of a group choose to exercise the same rights, then you have a collection of like-minded individuals that define that group.  And they can do whatever they wish, as long as they do not interfere with the rights of another.  So for those who oppose gay marriage, don't have one, marry heterosexually.  If government is to safeguard rights, same or opposite sex marriages should legally be seen as.....the same.

I think that ; god creats men and women to comleted each other .Any man needs woman and any woman needs man either phycal or psycological needs .so if man marries man they will not complete their role in life. they will not have a pure sextual relation  .and how he can pregnant actually he can not .so if he can not give birth and have a child to build his society and his great nation    . in future the new  generation will defends for the welfare of their nation but if we do not have a real and a pure marrage between man and woman our nation will die and it may become a part of history 

First I would like to say nice observations to mshurn. I appreciate the irony used while making your points.  It’s difficult for many to remain logical and objective on a topic that we feel strongly about. This topic has jumped from law, to God, to nature, and etc., but I would concur that it is not a black and white issue.

Coincidentally, it was at one time a black and white issue. No mixing of races was acceptable in marriage, and in fact a justice of the peace in Louisiana was recently criticized and has since stepped down for refusing to marry an interracial couple. But, as mshurn has said, “. . . times they are a changin’”.  Perhaps as a society we need to consider the need for change with regard to legally recognized partnerships. Many of the same sex couples I know, have been together longer than a majority of the legally sanctioned marriages that take place today. Hmmm . . .

Next, those arguments about God creating man and woman to be joined together are true (if one believes in the Christian Bible), but let’s not argue in the same post that gay marriages will destroy our country because of a lack of ability to procreate. If God is a creator, and God is in control, than no choice of ours whether it be “gay” or “straight” can supersede the will of God. God gave us choice, but he will complete his will. So if our country fades into nonexistence it is not because of homosexual unions but because deems it.