# Allowing Marraige for All **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 10, 2009, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-marraige-for-all/495950 "2009-05-10T15:42:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-marraige-for-all/495950/1 "2009-05-10T15:42:51Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-marraige-for-all/495950/2 "2009-05-10T18:26:20Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > 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. Ed ---
**Author:** ![Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/65b543/32.png) [@Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hero_From_Sector_7G)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-marraige-for-all/495950/3 "2009-05-10T18:33:26Z")
Will you marry me? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-marraige-for-all/495950/4 "2009-05-10T19:10:41Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-marraige-for-all/495950/5 "2009-05-10T19:36:48Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > 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? 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? ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-marraige-for-all/495950/6 "2009-05-10T19:56:37Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-marraige-for-all/495950/7 "2009-05-10T20:12:24Z")
> [@Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](#): > > Will you marry me? I could not marry anyone who does not venerate the works of Shel Silverstein. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-marraige-for-all/495950/8 "2009-05-10T23:26:57Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > 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? Health care should always be a right not a benefit, but that’s another debate. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim_r.mortiss/32/142_2.png) [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_R.Mortiss)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-marraige-for-all/495950/9 "2009-05-10T23:36:39Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > 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? Will you marry me? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim_r.mortiss/32/142_2.png) [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_R.Mortiss)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-marraige-for-all/495950/10 "2009-05-11T00:27:04Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > Health care should always be a right not a benefit, but that’s another debate. Health care \*is \*a right. \*Free \*health care is not a right, nor can it be, without infringing on someone else’s rights. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-marraige-for-all/495950/11 "2009-05-11T00:47:45Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > 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. 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. > [@](#): > > Health care is a right. Free health care is not a right, nor can it be, without infringing on someone else’s rights. Meaningless distinction. Are my rights infringed upon when my tax dollars pay for somebody else’s house fire to be put out? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Poster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Happy\_Poster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Poster)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-marraige-for-all/495950/12 "2009-05-11T00:49:45Z")
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. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-marraige-for-all/495950/13 "2009-05-11T17:44:31Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > Health care should always be a right not a benefit, but that’s another debate. 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. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-marraige-for-all/495950/14 "2009-05-11T18:20:07Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Are my rights infringed upon when my tax dollars pay for somebody else’s house fire to be put out? Not if it was extinguished with Gatorade.