Of These Three Couples, Who Should Be Permitted To Marry?

You have three couples, all are very much in love.

Couple #1: John and Barbara. Barbara has been married twice before, and this will be her third marriage. Each of her marriages lasted less than one year. John has not been married before. Both are in their middle fifties, so procreation is out of the question.

Couple #2: Jack and James. A gay couple who have been together for ten years and have decided to take the plunge into marriage. Both have stable jobs and own their own home. They have been together since high school, and this is the first and only relationship for both. They cannot naturally procreate, but are hoping to look into surrogacy to have a child.

Couple #3: Fiona and Harry. Fiona is two years older than Harry. Both are in their mid twenties. They are fit, healthy, and capable of procreating. They are very much in love - they are also first cousins. They are concerned about potential problems should they have a child, but have decided to go ahead anyway.


Which couple, or couples, should be allowed to marry? Would you prefer a couple married three times before to be married before a gay couple who have never been apart?
Should first cousins be permitted to marry over Barbara and John?

IMO, logically, one has to choose the gay couple. Marriage between John and Barbara isn't likely to last long considering Barbara's track record, and if you allow first cousins to marry, doesn't this open up a can of worms?

 

All of them should be permitted to marry.

 

I think that couples # 2 and 3 should be allowed to marry. Couple #1 should not. Marriage is meant to be sacred. It is not sacred if you divorce your spouse after less than a year.

Couple #3 should marry provided they do not have children.

 

Practically, all. Though Couple 1 are clearly the least "deserving"...

 

In law.. marriage is A CONTRACT.. its only sacred or a sacrament if the parties involved take it to a church.

 

Okay, we disagre. I believe marriage, no matter where it takes place, should be considered sacred.

 

There is nothing to "disagree" about. Marriage is a contract under law. That's domestic law 101.

 

As I said, we disagree because my opinion is different to yours.

 

Truck question. None of them should be allowed to marry because they are all mental patients in the insane asylum.

 

Couples 1 and 2 I believe should be able to marry.

Now...I don't believe divorce should be a restriction for those who wish to marry. You never know, people change. Some people just want love so badly they make rash decisions and jump into things to quickly. I don't think that this should prevent them from marrying.

Couple two well...no secret I think gays should be able to marry. Moreover it really looks like SSM will be legalize nationwide within the next decade or so. So yes they should be able to marry.

Couple three...no way no how. It's a huge risk for any possible children the couple could sire. Would it bother me if they married? Personally no.

 

Truck question? I need new glasses.

 

this is why the govt is not the correct vehicle to decide. All of them can cohabitate all that they want. Why don't you have aunt and nephew as a choice either? Do you want to discriminate against 2 people very much in love?

Since the question of "marriage" is more of a moral issue than a legal one, it must go back to your church, social group or none if you so choose.

It used to mean something to go before God and vow your commitment to each other and to God. That is if you believe in the almighty. I don't need a Senator, or congressman or Governor to allow me to do that.

 

all should be able to marry

sacred in whos eyes and by whom?

 

^if its a religious ceremony which marriage apparently is, then it is sacred to God.

 

Mak I had thought you did not believe??

 

Excellent question and well put.

I disagree, though. All should have the right to marry. The state has no business in a "sacred" affair, other than to register a legal contract.

The morality question in #1 is moot. #2 is a given as I live in an area where gay and lesbian marriage has been legal for about six years, in fact we have been seeing the first wave of divorces.

And #3 is, of course a given.

Now, one for you.

In the New Church of Latter Day Saints, the males take as many brides as they like, often when the women are in their teens.

Allowed or not allowed?

[Not a hypothetical question, a leader in the sect here has just lost his appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada who declared that the law prohibiting polygamy is unconstitutional but upheld the conviction on the basis that polygamy is injurious to individuals and the fabric of society]

 

I do not and will not be married in a church, but that is where religious people are meant to marry.

 

The fact that we're even having this discussion is a sad testament to how common it has become to be out of touch with reality in today's society. Couple number one is the only correct answer. Once upon a time, everybody knew this. Today, nobody knows anything anymore.

 

All three couples should be permitted to marry. Let the chips fall where they may.

 

so what makes it sacred to you?

 

My wife and I were married by a judge. My friend & his wife were married by a JP. Please explain, in detail, EXACTLY how those were religious in any way. Be specific.

 

All of the above. Marriage is a contract between consenting adults, and the government should have no say as to who is "permitted" to enter into it and who's not.

 

Generally that is the belief that marriage is religious in nature. Marriages take place outside the church, but I believe that when marriage was invented, founded, whatever, it was religious in nature.

 

Because you pledge your vows to someone and say you will spend the rest of your life with them. Marriage is not something to be taken lightly. It should be treated as special and precious. It (*)(*)(*)(*)s me when people go out on a few dates and get married and divorced within a year.

If you say those vows, you should mean them.

 

the gay couple has better odds of staying together, but wouldn't bar any of them from marriage even first cousins.

but i see where the OP is coming from, under a sacred marriage covenant the homosexual couple looks to have the best morals out of the whole lot