 |
The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
When two adults decide to marry and want to spend their lives together, does society or their families have the right to break the marriage or prevent it from happening through force?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Engl on -
No one has the right to. But the people around them have a way of bringing that to fruition. I guess it depends on the culture that you're in.
Again, no one has the right to put any married couple asunder... :D
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Black on -
No one has any "rights" that cannot be violated by other individuals. Still, some actions are inherently "not right". Some times force is the only way to protect what you believe is right. Sadly, force usually invites a counter force of disproportionate strength. Skillful dialogue may be your greatest tool for forging connections with others that disagree with your ideal of what is right. "Quid pro Quo" has its place as well.
On the other hand, they can't very well break up a marriage that they are not aware of. Some ties should be severed if they are pulling you under the surface. Make sure that you evaluate ALL of the consequences carefully before acting.
Good Luck ;)
-
Permalink Reply by dr kellie on -
Why is it wrong for a brother and sister to want to get married and spend their lives together? If they are both adults and realize that they should not have children, why would anyone care? My gut reaction is, "gross", but what difference does that make?
Suppose a brother and sister had never met until udulthood and they became mates without knowing. Is there something wrong with that?
I know this might open up a whole new can of worms, but what the hell.
-
Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on -
Yes..."gross" is not always the same as "immoral". Having children would be immoral because it could hurt the children genetically.
-
Permalink Reply by A. R. on -
In a modern and civilized society, no adult(s) has de-facto rights over other adult(s). So the answer is a "Hell no". But as we all know, there are cases where even laws are passed preventing consenting adults to marry... and I am sure you all know what I am talking about.
-
Permalink Reply by SecularCortex13.x on -
LOL.. sigh...force em' to read this:
part of the great 2012 Americans' (that happen to be or became) atheists...
-
Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on -
Couple of questions:
- For what reason (if any rational or logical reason) does society wish to terminate this union?
- Does this union pose any harm or threat to its members?
- Is the society the sole arbiter of correct behavior, and is there a balance between the needs of the many (society) and the needs of the few (individuals)?
Regardless if we're referring to interracial marriage or gay marriage, there is no RATIONAL reason to prevent such unions. Mostly the "reasons" opponents of these marriages come up with amount to fear, fear of something different, fear of a break with the former homogeneity of the existing culture. Sorry, not good enough.
The harm in such a union as perceived by bigoted members relates to the first question. Again, fear of change from the status quo or what some holy book has taught them. Again, none of this rises to the level of genuine harm.
As for the society itself, is this a democratic society or an autocratic dictatorship? Do all members of this culture have the opportunity to contribute and have input on its structure, or are the rules pronounced ex officio or ex cathedra as unquestioned truth? Most importantly, does the minority exercise its franchise without coercion or are they to be crushed by the tyranny of the majority? Autocracy rarely if ever respects any other sensibilities other than its own, whereas democracy gives breathing room to all and authors laws to maintain order fairly while respecting the rights of the individual.
Personally, I don't see any of the above questions as being trivial or rhetorical. Certainly, any society could arrogate the power you suggest to break unions because it wants to. Whether any genuine GOOD comes from such action, however, is debatable at best.
 |
 |
 |
 |
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
joseph f logston replied to Atheist Andrea's discussion Are you open about being an atheist or are you in the closet?
Richard Goscicki replied to Atheist Andrea's discussion Are you open about being an atheist or are you in the closet?
Natalie A Sera replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion New fungus killing cats in Australia in the group Atheist Ailurophiles
Debra Stevenson commented on Debra Stevenson's blog post Halloween 1978 film critical themes and analysis ( please read)!Debra Stevenson commented on Debra Stevenson's blog post Halloween 1978 film critical themes and analysis ( please read)!
Ruth Anthony-Gardner replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Our Political Need to Learn from Religion in the group Religion For Atheists© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
