Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

On modern marriage and family

Fence sitting here.
Not homophobic, xenophobic, or religious fanatic.

Here my dilemma....

Marriage used to be the legal union between one man, male, and one woman, female.
And a child could have maximum one father, and maximum one mother, so maximum two parents, biological or legal.

But this has been changing.
Now two men, or two women, can legally marry. All good.
And a child can have two fathers, or two mothers. Great.

If society is fine with these, and im not saying it shouldn't, where should the line be drawn? Or what's the argument for drawing a line at all?

If two men can marry, not not 3, or more? In case you wonder: this legally happened already.
If a man can marry his boyfriend, can he marry his brother? Or his father? Or his mother? Or his dog? Or a song? Or a thought? Or a mathematical equation?

If a child can have 2 fathers, why not 3 or more?
Or why not 2 mothers AND 1 father?

Not arguing either way. Just confused.
Thanks.

Posts

  • Sometimes I feel society is evolving for the sake of it. It’s almost as if we had to prove that we can do whatever we like and the law has to endorse it.
    Personally, I don’t have big views on any of this, I just wonder why people have to make a big fuss if they want to marry their dog… just go to Las Vegas where no doubt you can do that and don’t bother parliament who should worry about more important matters
    left the forum March 2023
  • Ugo, I like your answer 😊👍
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 26,238
    edited December 2022
    If we assume that humans are a monogamous species based on the evolutionary advantage it confers given that it's offspring take an extremely long time (16-20 years - longer than the lifespan of many similar mammals) to reach maturity.

    The feeling of "Love" is a chemical pathway evolved to encourage that evolutionary advantage

    On the basis that there is and never has been a god and so any religious significance is irrelevant, marriage is a social construct designed to encourage, signify and indeed encourage the evolutionary advantage (It is a meme (Dawkins, 1976) based on the original use of the word).

    Whatever the evolutionary cause of non-cis-heterosexual love may be, despite it's opposition to evolutionary advantage, it is clear that it can be equally as strong and enduring. Further, pre pandemic ONS data (2018) indicates that such marriages are less likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages.

    Thus, given that marriage exists only to give social recognition to long and enduring partnerships. 2 people of any gender or orientation must have the right to enter one.

    If a man can marry his boyfriend, can he marry his brother? Or his father? Or his mother? Or his dog? Or a song? Or a thought? Or a mathematical equation?


    This statement is simply base homophobia as it equates love between two men to that between that of a song. Other than revealing your true intentions, your question would have been much better without it.
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • ddraver said:

    If we assume that humans are a monogamous species

    Should we assume this?

  • I think the broader point is that it used to be the case that we had to adapt and live within the law, whereas it seems that now it's the law that has to adapt and allow for our lifestyle... what is accepted and acceptable is constantly shifting. I am sure we all have a line, I certainly wouldn't want pets to have access to universal credit... families of 3 or more parents? Sure, why not... well inside my red line.
    left the forum March 2023
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 26,238
    If we don't, it leads to a very short (but much easier) discussion on the value of marriage...
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 26,709
    Just sounds like old farts lamenting things not being like they used to be. Laws have never been constant or unchanging.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rjsterry said:

    Just sounds like old farts lamenting things not being like they used to be. Laws have never been constant or unchanging.

    Yes, and famously even animals had far more rights than human beings... I can't remember which roman emperor... was it Caligula?
    left the forum March 2023
  • pangolinpangolin Posts: 5,946
    Look guys. I'm not homophobic, buuuuut.
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • thistle_thistle_ Posts: 6,971
    ddraver said:

    Thus, given that marriage exists only to give social recognition to long and enduring partnerships.

    And visas/tax benefits.

  • ugo.santaluciaugo.santalucia Posts: 28,020
    edited December 2022
    The world is changing is sometimes difficult to keep up... I was recently frown upon for saying that a particular therapy dog (a sausage shaped lab) could do with a bit of dieting...
    That is obviously offensive to some... I used to get away with this kind of stuff, now you don't get away with anything.
    I can't say that drag queens as an entertainment are terribly boring, because of course it is offensive, sexist and so on...
    Basically there is not a lot left to say that is not offensive...
    I don't know how long we will be allowed to say that a particular footballer had a bad day, without that being offensive to their heritage

    Ignoring this PC rebellion is what led to Brexit, so it's very dangerous to brush it all off as "old folks who want to moan"
    left the forum March 2023
  • pangolinpangolin Posts: 5,946
    Ignoring old people moaning is what led to Brexit, they should be challenged on both counts.
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • First.AspectFirst.Aspect Posts: 13,692
    If it is okay with everyone, could we possibly distinguish the OPs original premise (which seems to be that same sex marriage has devalued marriage) with grumpy old farty complaints about young peoples' inalienable right to be offended on someone else's behalf?

    One is genuinely offensive.

    The other is just irritating.
  • I think the broader point is that it used to be the case that we had to adapt and live within the law, whereas it seems that now it's the law that has to adapt and allow for our lifestyle... what is accepted and acceptable is constantly shifting.

    When has this not been the case?
  • I think the broader point is that it used to be the case that we had to adapt and live within the law, whereas it seems that now it's the law that has to adapt and allow for our lifestyle... what is accepted and acceptable is constantly shifting.

    When has this not been the case?
    It’s probably just moving a lot faster, like everything else is. If you are not the kind of guy who can switch social media every year seamlessly, then you might have a bit more inertia in your way of thinking.
    I occasionally still find mechanics calendars quite attractive, so I have a lot of inertia left…

    left the forum March 2023
  • morstarmorstar Posts: 6,190
    The thing I wonder is…

    Is the increasing number of gay relationships solely reflective of it being more widely accepted (don’t say it’s totally accepted as it clearly isn’t (see no gay PL footballers)) or…

    Is there actually an evolutionary element i.e. a mechanism of nature to curtail human overpopulation?
  • morstar said:

    The thing I wonder is…

    Is the increasing number of gay relationships solely reflective of it being more widely accepted (don’t say it’s totally accepted as it clearly isn’t (see no gay PL footballers)) or…

    Is there actually an evolutionary element i.e. a mechanism of nature to curtail human overpopulation?

    Deffo the former… in the past you simply didn’t know who was and who wasn’t.
    As someone who never gave a monkey of other people sexuality, I find this tick the box culture very annoying

    left the forum March 2023
  • First.AspectFirst.Aspect Posts: 13,692
    What makes you think there are an *increasing* number of gay relationships? People are either gay, or they aren't. And this has always been the case. Same applies to any other gender identity. The only thing that changes is how it is, or is allowed to be, expressed.
  • morstarmorstar Posts: 6,190
    That’s my point. It’s not an either or. The first is a given. People can be openly gay, therefore there are more relationships. Illegality was absolutely a limiter on the ability to meet people safely and form relationships without punishment.

    The second can also be true. Impossible to prove either way due to the statistical impact of the first. I would not be surprised if it were true though.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 70,604 Lives Here
    Who cares about what other people do re love?
  • Who cares about what other people do re love?

    exactly...
    left the forum March 2023
  • briantrumpetbriantrumpet Posts: 16,469

    Who cares about what other people do re love?

    exactly...

    Well, the law does set some bounds, so as a society we do care in certain regards. But if by 'love' we mean between consenting adults, then, indeed.
  • ProssPross Posts: 39,231
    Lots of things used to be done differently. Kids used to get sent to work down mines or up chimneys. Women (and men outside those with land) didn’t used to be allowed to vote. Women were expected to stay home and keep house for their man.

    Things change usually (hopefully) for the better as people become more enlightened.
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 26,238
    morstar said:

    That’s my point. It’s not an either or. The first is a given. People can be openly gay, therefore there are more relationships. Illegality was absolutely a limiter on the ability to meet people safely and form relationships without punishment.

    The second can also be true. Impossible to prove either way due to the statistical impact of the first. I would not be surprised if it were true though.

    Unless someone here has been keeping their occupation in this area very quiet I suspect we're not going to get a proper answer. However, it makes a lot of sense that "singing if you're glad to be gay" means that more people who were hithertoo unable to be honest are being so...

    Gareth Thomas being a classic example.
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 8,683

    Who cares about what other people do re love?

    exactly...
    Within certain almost universally accepted boundaries I'd go along with that.

    One thing I find interesting is, having fallen into coaching girls football from 13 year olds up to adult, is how many of them ended up as gay or bisexual. I mean at least 50%. So is there something in being gay that inclines females towards playing football (I believe other team sports are similar) or does female football and the fact it's the norm to be gay just mean that the social pressure to be straight doesn't exist ? If there was no expectation either way would we all be equally likely to swing either or both ways?
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
Sign In or Register to comment.