This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Can of Worms: Is marriage necessary anymore?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Hi guys!
This poll series is inspired by a new TV series being aired in Australia called "Can Of Worms". In fact, it's not just inspired by, it's blatantly ripping it off, to some extent.
The premise of the show is that it's a comedy panel that discusses ethical issues (i.e. opening up a can of worms, figuratively). Each week, it brings up two 'big worms' for discussion. There's only one rule - no fence sitting!
This question is particularly appropriate, considering the way the latest discussion on clothing has turned towards homosexuality and marriage.
This is question 5 in the series - is marriage necessary anymore?
Post by
donnymurph
Voted no, my thoughts on the matter will eventually be mentioned by someone else in this thread, I assume, so I'll not bother.
Post by
Jubilee
Assuming divorce will stay what it is? Marriage doesn't do much considering people are having kids out of wedlock constantly.
I do wish there was some sort of law that keeps couples together (married or not) if they have a kid together until that kid reaches a certain age (except with something like abuse). That's what I think marriage's most important role was, and I still think that much is necessary.
So, um, maybe?
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Jubilee
Oh I don't think they necessarily have to live in the same house. I meant together like as if they were still married, meaning they aren't dating or marrying someone else.
Post by
Squishalot
Oh I don't think they necessarily have to live in the same house. I meant together like as if they were still married, meaning they aren't dating or marrying someone else.
You mean, you would want a law that
prohibits someone from partnering with another, even if they were to love that someone so much that they wanted to spend their whole life with them
?
Post by
Jubilee
I would want a law that gave a child who was conceived consensually the benefit of having the full attention of both parents. Actions have consequences, and a new life is a big consequence that needs to be properly dealt with. I've seen too many single mothers struggle and often fail to raise their children as well as they should. And that was my last post, now that I've replied to everything.
Post by
Lenience
Should've been a "Meh" option, I voted "No".
Post by
Skreeran
Wish you gave more options than just "Yes" or "No."
I think that marriage is fine and dandy for people who want it, but I think two people should be able to get the tax/custody/visitation rights without having to go through a ritualistic ceremony if they don't want to do so.
I voted "No," because I don't think marriage is necessary. That doesn't mean I'm against marriage, or that I don't think we should have marriage anymore, simply that I think that it isn't really required socially anymore. I just wish my government would differentiate between religious/traditional marriage, and legal unions.
Post by
Squishalot
Wish you gave more options than just "Yes" or "No."
I think that marriage is fine and dandy for people who want it, but I think two people should be able to get the tax/custody/visitation rights without having to go through a ritualistic ceremony if they don't want to do so.
That's half the point of the limitations of the answers - you can boil it down to exactly what you need and don't need.
And what you're saying is precisely why I wish the US would give up the whole "it's separate but equal" argument and provide for de facto unions over there.
Post by
Atik
I expressed my views in Jubilee's topic. I'll quote myself if you want, but I voted no.
Post by
pezz
I would want a law that gave a child who was conceived consensually the benefit of having the full attention of both parents. Actions have consequences, and a new life is a big consequence that needs to be properly dealt with. I've seen too many single mothers struggle and often fail to raise their children as well as they should. And that was my last post, now that I've replied to everything.
Telling someone they can't have sex or any other kind of intimacy for 18 years because their marriage turned sour almost immediately after having a kid is a pretty good way to turn them into a terrible parent. That's probably the fastest track towards resenting a child that I can think of. A better idea would be to tell legal guardians (not biological parents) that they can't live more than so many miles away from a child, with the exception of things like boarding school.
I voted no. I think the use of the word
necessary
is going to make a lot of people agree with me, since you can still be pretty pro-marriage and not think that it's necessary.
Post by
Jubilee
I didn't say 18 years =/
You don't have to think the same things I do, but what I've seen makes me wish for much more accountability. I'm not trying to argue anything.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
buzz3070
I voted no. In my mind the only things you need that marriage is suppose to represent is Love, commitment, and trust. If you have all of those things Without going through all of the hoops getting married comes with then Why go through all of them?
Post by
xaratherus
I voted yes.
I actually agree with the views of some of these "marriage protection" groups that marriage is a core concept behind the nuclear unit of society - family. Where I disagree is that such a family must center around two parents of opposite gender.
Marriage is a necessity until society comes up with another working method of ensuring the financial, emotional, and social well-being of offspring, and the government protections offered to families through married parents are transferred to that new institution.
Personally, I'm thinking consensual polygamy is the way to go for those who are emotionally and sexually mature enough to enter into such a relationship. A family with six parents is simply better-safeguarded against the sorts of hardships that can arise in a typical two-parent household that loses a parent.
If you have all of those things Without going through all of the hoops getting married comes with then Why go through all of them?
At least in the United States, there are numerous government benefits and legal "easements" that help protect a family's social and financial well-being, and those are not easily obtained outside of a civil marriage (if they are obtainable at all).
Post by
Dwarfiesgosquish
Oh I don't think they necessarily have to live in the same house. I meant together like as if they were still married, meaning they aren't dating or marrying someone else.
You mean, you would want a law that
prohibits someone from partnering with another, even if they were to love that someone so much that they wanted to spend their whole life with them
?
They said the exact same things about the person they're now divorcing...
Post by
buzz3070
@xaratherus,I'm well aware of the benefits that comes with a marriage.
I was going with what I thought the core beliefs of getting married was all about and that you can have those without going through all of the hoops to get married up to and including the marrige itself.
While I understand the benefits I don't think those come to most peoples minds when they want to marry someone.
Post by
gnomerdon
Marriage is still necessary to me. To publicly display your true love to your loved one is important (at wedding).
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.