What would be wrong with allowing any two people to marry regardless of sex or romantic love? The bilogical sex of the individuals would be irrelevant. Whether or not the two people are romantically in love would be irrelevant. This means any human being can marry any other human being and be able to benefit from all of the laws designed to benefit human beings that are married. A brother could marry a sister or brother, a sister could marry a sister or brother, controversial yes, but there isn’t a reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to enter into the contract.
I really don’t see a reason why a family member say a brother with a great job and benefits can’t extend those benefits to a sister or bother that doesn’t have a great job or benefits or another friend of either sex that doesn’t have a great job or benefits. Wouldn’t this be more beneficial for soceity?
Your thoughts?
I don’t think anybody in the world has a problem with allowing two people to marry who aren’t in love. People have been marrying for political or financial reasons for centuries.
Whether other considerations can also be discarded – gender, relationships, etc., is another issue. Depending the specific issue, it can be somewhat to extremely controversial.
Somehow, somewhere, long ago it was decided that a contract was required for legitimate sexual intercourse .
Legitimate sexual intercourse is no longer confined to the marriage contract in western countries and we have expanded to legal oral and anal sex for all pursuasions anyway so that the legal benefits that have accrued to the marriage contract should no longer be based on sex.
To really be fair to everyone though, the legal marriage contract should be abolished. After all, there are those who cannot attract a mate and there are those who do not want a mate for reasons other than the legal implications of the marriage contract.
Is the brother paying for the benefits, or is the company paying for them? If it’s the latter, I don’t see how he can be said to be extending them to his sister. Basically, if anyone can marry anyone just to get benefits, you’re asking private companies to subsidize universal health insurance. How can they do that, without going broke? Why should the brother get to decide how they spend their money?
Arguably, it would be better for society if “benefits” weren’t tied so close to employment and to marriage. The whole setup whereby, in addition, to paying you a salary, the company you work for provides “benefits,” like health insurance, to you and your family makes some sense in a society where the typical family has one breadwinner and one homemaker.
That’s about what I was going to say, only much more eloquent. If the contract we call “marriage” didn’t always involve some third party getting obligated to pay for something, I don’t think there would be nearly as much debate about what should be allowed and what should be disallowed.
Not that long ago. It’s fairly recently (relative to the scope of human history) that lifetime monogamy (ie., the modern ideal of marriage) became the norm- and intercourse with a concubine or even a prostitute was as legal in many societies as intercourse with one’s own spouse(s).
King Solomon did not have to rewrite any laws to marry his 700 wives. Henry VIII had to rewrite several in order to marry just six.
Meaningless distinction. Are my rights infringed upon when my tax dollars pay for somebody else’s house fire to be put out?
If we are still to allow such an arcahic institution I see no reason why it shouldn’t be allowed for all; heck, I would consider marrying my brother in such a circumstance, even though his arms aren’t quite long enough for a good reach around.
Well then the marriage would have fuck-all to do with it, wouldn’t it? In the OP’s scenario, he is suggesting that the government essentially extort money from private companies by declaring that marriage is whatever we say it is. It seems to me that the first thing that would happen is that companies would simply stop offering health benefits to family members, thereby leaving everyone in a worse pickle than when they started.
“So my brother can get health benefits” is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard for expanding the concept of marriage.
