Opinion?

[D_Percy_Prettywillie]

We know why marriage exists but in the 21st century it serves largely as a means to a financial or beneficial end- not every marriage of course and not all people, but for a larger and larger percentage of people who engage in it at this point. It is no longer the institution it once was because we are no longer the society where said institution served a less practical/more romantic option.

Now we've got people talking about gay guys marrying lesbian women and son's marrying their mothers and people marrying their dogs for the legal benefits of marriage. In none of the aforementioned scenarios is love to foundation of the agreement. It's all about getting the benefits marriage provides. So... rather than turn the country into some kind of legal carnival sideshow, why not just give those rights to everyone? Then, when people still choose to get married, it can be for purely altruistic reasons.

This isn't a gay/straight issue for me- it's about rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic and whether or not that is a worthy use of resources for a civilization that is faced with so many monumental, real challenges such as our is currently.

JSZ​

 

[Willifred]

what is your opinion on two homosexuals getting married?

but between a gay guy and a lesbian?


nothing sexual goes on between them but they do it for the benefits of getting married.

Err well what would be wrong with that then?

People love for different reasons. It's not really any of your, or the states, business what those reasons are.

 

[twoton]

We know why marriage exists but in the 21st century it serves largely as a means to a financial or beneficial end- not every marriage of course and not all people, but for a larger and larger percentage of people who engage in it at this point. It is no longer the institution it once was because we are no longer the society where said institution served a less practical/more romantic option.

I think if you go back far enough in every society you'll find that marriage was exactly a means of providing a financial or beneficial end. Marriages arranged by tribal chiefs built alliances, provided stability and insurance for the clan, etc.

 

[blazblue]

We know why marriage exists but in the 21st century it serves largely as a means to a financial or beneficial end- not every marriage of course and not all people, but for a larger and larger percentage of people who engage in it at this point. It is no longer the institution it once was because we are no longer the society where said institution served a less practical/more romantic option.

Now we've got people talking about gay guys marrying lesbian women and son's marrying their mothers and people marrying their dogs for the legal benefits of marriage. In none of the aforementioned scenarios is love to foundation of the agreement. It's all about getting the benefits marriage provides. So... rather than turn the country into some kind of legal carnival sideshow, why not just give those rights to everyone? Then, when people still choose to get married, it can be for purely altruistic reasons.

This isn't a gay/straight issue for me- it's about rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic and whether or not that is a worthy use of resources for a civilization that is faced with so many monumental, real challenges such as our is currently.

JSZ​

This!

 

[D_Sal_Manilla]

Me and my lesbian friend talked about it for the financial gains. Cheaper auto,health insurance. Survivor benefits. Ect

I've been thinking the same with mine. but by the time we graduate, we hope the states might actually allow same sex mirage.

 

[Viking_UK]

It wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

On the issue of benefits for married couples, it probably goes back to the days when "the little woman" was expected to give up work, stay home, keep house, raise the kids and have dinner on the table when Daddy got home. These days, with most couples both working, it seems a bit anachronistic to have tax breaks and extra benefits for one segment of society just because they've signed a piece of paper.

 

[B_Evie]

If it works for them, sure. However, regardless of gender, I think marriage should be considered a lifetime gift and forever experience between two best friends and not a formal ceremony for financial/beneficial gain.

 

[Young]

If it works for them, sure. However, regardless of gender, I think marriage should be considered a lifetime gift and forever experience between two best friends and not a formal ceremony for financial/beneficial gain.

A gay man and a lesbian woman can of course be best friends. But if they are both 100% gay the relationship would probably be mostly platonic. Question is: can you fall in love with someone you are not physically attracted to, and does a marriage have to be about love?

IMO everybody should be able to marry who he or she pleases as long as both partners are consenting adults, unrelated and mentally capable of overseeing the consequences of their actions.

 

[Serial Kisser]

I don't think it's anyone's business why two people get married - except those two people getting married.

 

[B_Evie]

A gay man and a lesbian woman can of course be best friends. But if they are both 100% gay the relationship would probably be mostly platonic. Question is: can you fall in love with someone you are not physically attracted to, and does a marriage have to be about love?

IMO everybody should be able to marry who he or she pleases as long as both partners are consenting adults, unrelated and mentally capable of overseeing the consequences of their actions.

I do not know. For me, I am in love and physically attracted to him. But the OP was asking for opinions and I gave mine. People should be allowed to marry for whatever reasons they chose. I just think for it to be a real lifetime relationship and true marriage of the heart, it needs to have a deeper meaning than doing it for "benefits."

 

[Thirdlegproduction]

The effing origin of marriage was for the purpose of financial benefits for the woman and her family and for the woman to produce offspring for the man.

You'll get my daughter in exchange for 10 of your cows and two goats.

So to pretend to make marriage anything more than a social agreement where two or more people benefit and to make it something divine and holy that's just weird.

Doesn't mean it can't be divine and holy sometimes but no it's not that sacred and you can do whatever you want as long as I'm not daily confronted with it and nobody gets hurt.

 

[B_Evie]

The effing origin of marriage was for the purpose of financial benefits for the woman and her family and for the woman to produce offspring for the man.

You'll get my daughter in exchange for 10 of your cows and two goats.

So to pretend to make marriage anything more than a social agreement where two or more people benefit and to make it something divine and holy that's just weird.

Doesn't mean it can't be divine and holy sometimes but no it's not that sacred and you can do whatever you want as long as I'm not daily confronted with it and nobody gets hurt.

I have to disagree. The main purpose of marriage was so men could control all the females in their family and get "benefits" such as cows and goats, power and ego boosters. The females never got any of the benefits you mention. The men owned all the property, including the woman who were passed from father to husband.

Thankfully, we do not live that way anymore and are free to actually choose who we marry - for whatever reasons. Again, this is my opinion.

 

[avg_joe]

what is your opinion on two homosexuals getting married?

but between a gay guy and a lesbian?


nothing sexual goes on between them but they do it for the benefits of getting married.

I would call it friend with benefits. Good idea but I don't know the legal complications, had one of them passed away.

 

[Hoss]

what is your opinion on two homosexuals getting married?

but between a gay guy and a lesbian?


nothing sexual goes on between them but they do it for the benefits of getting married.

It's their choice. If they are happy and can live that way then fine. I suppose they'd have one of those open marriages. Nothing wrong with open marriages, many heterosexual and many 2-man homosexual and 2 woman homosexual pairings are open.

What are the reasons for these 2 (the man and woman)?
If 1 of them is unable to work for some reason (health for example) then it definitely helps. Also several benefits.
The one thing to stop at though is when they reach the time for Social Security if they are in the U.S. Then it would be wise to divorce and just live together or they could end up with less money from Social Security.