TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Next Step After Gay Marriages - Non Sexual Marriages

The Next Step After Gay Marriages - Non Sexual Marriages

So, currently in Sweden we have a Marriage Act and a Partnership Act. They both regulates the legal rights of two ppl in a union, the marriage is for a man and a woman, and the partnership is like the US civil unions (ie gay ppl can marry, with the exception that in Sweden they get the same rights as the ones that actually marries). Anyhow, since they both pretty much states exactly the same things, they are going to go into one act soon making it possible for gay ppl to marry under the Marriage Act.

Anyhow, since we are doing some changes in this act anyway there was some argumentation now that we should not only include gays in this act, but other relationships, such as two brothers living together (or two good friends). Cause really, there is not reason that those extra privileges that you get by marriage should only be to ppl that is married, it should be to everyone that lives under similar circumstances.

So his idea was to make marriage a non legal thing, but more like a romance thing or whatever you want to call it. And then make another thing with all the legal stuff in, which was for everyone living under certain circumstances!

Totally makes sense to me and I really like the idea!

Discuss!

Oh, and the argument that marriage benefits are so that ppl will get kids, give the tax break and shit to the people who get kids, not the ppl who potentially can have kids. makes a lot more sense that way. so that argument doesnt work. thanks bye.

i wanna be able to marry my dog but in a sexual way. yeah it may not be natural but i was born attracted to dogs! dont descriminate against me you conservatives/libertarians.

But seriously folks, Rofl @ gay marriage.

Let me get this straight...you are passing a law in Sweden so you can marry you're brother?! Double yoo tee eff mate!!!!

Are you lobbying for sheep to be included in the bill as well?!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Let me get this straight...you are passing a law in Sweden so you can marry you're brother?! Double yoo tee eff mate!!!! Are you lobbying for sheep to be included in the bill as well?!

LOL! well it wouldnt technically be marriage, but more like ppl living together can have the benefits of marriage (so we would have to make up a new word for this thing). I guess that would only include humans though, unfortunetly =/

This whole thing is getting out of hand now....I'm going to marry my cat!

Hell, in some States people can will their estates to their pets....

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Oh, and the argument that marriage benefits are so that ppl will get kids, give the tax break and shit to the people who get kids, not the ppl who potentially can have kids. makes a lot more sense that way. so that argument doesnt work. thanks bye.

The argument goes that is not good for society just to have kids, but for those kids to group up with two parents, a male and female.

Studies have proven that kids tend to grow up better (smarter/richer/etc) when they have two parents (male and female) that are married as opposed to single parent households (especially female only).

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Studies have proven that kids tend to grow up better (smarter/richer/etc) when they have two parents (male and female) that are married as opposed to single parent households (especially female only).

im not discounting the fact that you might be right, but your assertion that studies have proven this is simply not true.

as for the marriage thing, i used to be all for homosexual marriage. but since thinking about it further, since the pink lobby is so concerned with celebrating their sexuality (and thats fine), im all for keeping marriage for the heterosexuals to celebrate their sexuality.

civil unions, as legally binding as marriage is a suitable alternative for gay couples. as for civil-unioning with your best mate, pet or brother, well theres something awfully funny about that

"latest news: feminist movement leader marries dildo"

quote:

Originally posted by paranoik0 \"latest news: feminist movement leader marries dildo\"

dildo divorces feminist movement leader after she was caught out munching the hallway rug

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew (so we would have to make up a new word for this thing).

How about; "Fairied"???

Oh man, seems like no one really got this idea oh well whatever...

The reason that serious proposals are up for same-sex marriage rather than inter-species marriage or marriage with hairbrushes is because marriage is an act of consent,and a hairbrush (or an non-human animal) cannot give consent to get married.

So there.

I got one!

how bout we Ban marriage altogether.... and its everyone with everyone wheneever they feel like. That would be fun. you couild have many Dads!!!

i don't know I mean there should be gay marriage because if a couple really love one another than the government shouldn't be stopping them from getting married. But this is going to far, for there to be a real relationship it must be people who are not blood related or people who are just friends.

For all of you who completly did not understand this idea and arent haveing an open mind about it:

It's only marriage in the terms of the legal parts of marriage. So basically it would be to seperate the marriage thing from the state. So ppl could marry however much they wanted to and it would be up to the churches/whatever to decide if they wanted to marry gays or not. However, ppl under certain condititions could together get the legal benefits of being married, without being any love in that way. So marriage is a thing that would only matter to the ppl who do it, and the legal stuff could be enjoyed by whoever need it (be it two loveing ppl, two ppl living together, two brothers etc).

Clear enough or you still dont understand?!

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Clear enough or you still dont understand?!

I STILL DONT UNDERSTAND!!

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid I STILL DONT UNDERSTAND!!

Are you serious? Cause I could explain further, but I dont always note your sarcasm!

I understand but i still think it is BS

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew However, ppl under certain condititions could together get the legal benefits of being married, without being any love in that way. So marriage is a thing that would only matter to the ppl who do it, and the legal stuff could be enjoyed by whoever need it (be it two loveing ppl, two ppl living together, two brothers etc).

i get it, its just bollocks. imagine the legal nightmares inherent in allowing this kind've thing. a best friend could claim defacto status coz they'd shared a living space for a few years. marriage should always be for those in a relationship. extending it is pure bollocks.

indeed its only a loophole at the moment, as the recent amendments left out the wording which stated they must be in a relationship.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,1011...3-13762,00.html

Go marry a fence post in Sweden, but not here in America, bud.

Sorry. Lol!
[[[smoke]]]]

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i get it, its just bollocks. imagine the legal nightmares inherent in allowing this kind've thing. a best friend could claim defacto status coz they'd shared a living space for a few years. marriage should always be for those in a relationship. extending it is pure bollocks.

So, what exactly would be bad about two persons living together (best friends), that they could claim to have the legal benefits of being married. Since really, they live under the same conditions pretty much so if they want the same conditions and make life easier for them, i dont see why the law wounldnt allow that. The laws are for the best of the ppl, and if this helps to make ppls lives better, than that is a good thing imo.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.