What is Marriage.

[kidswarrior]

Uh... don't tell me, let me guess.

Marriage is decades of hard work, only to 'get there' and find out you're about to die from old age?

 

[KempoGuy06]

Marriage is between two people who love and care deeply for each other.

I agree. if two people want to get married then they should be allowed too whether man-woman, 2 men or 2 women. who are we to decided if it is right. Hell if people want to be that way lets go back to old old days and say that mixed race marriage are illegal. what ya think about them cookies?

I believe its ignorance.

B

 

[Lisa]

I agree. if two people want to get married then they should be allowed too whether man-woman, 2 men or 2 women. who are we to decided if it is right. Hell if people want to be that way lets go back to old old days and say that mixed race marriage are illegal. what ya think about them cookies?

I believe its ignorance.

B

ignorance is not knowing better. Arrogance is knowing better and not caring.

People are arrogant.

 

[Phoenix44]

Marriage is a legal contract. Period. Instead of a best man and maid of honor, you should walk down the aisle on the arms of your lawyers.

You'll probably never realize that unless you file for divorce, and at that point you may be completely shocked at what you signed up for when you walked down the aisle!

In my opinion, the government should have no place in personal relationships between consenting adults. If you want a spiritual commitment, that should be between you, your partner, and the Creator. If you want a legal contract, call your lawyers and get busy. The issues of social security, taxes, and health insurance are important, and should be egalitarian, IMO. (Of course, I believe in universal health care, which would make the latter issue moot, but that doesn't exist yet.)

If you believe that current legal marriage affords you the right to make medical decisions or end-of-life decisions for your partner, you are in a fantasy world. You must RIGHT NOW execute a health care proxy and power of attorney even if you are married.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not unromantic or anti-relationship; I've been with the same man for more than 8 years, and we're very happy, thanks. I just fail to understand what the State of New York has to do with it.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Uh... don't tell me, let me guess.

Marriage is decades of hard work, only to 'get there' and find out you're about to die from old age?

If we were talking about my first wife that couldn't happen soon enough

I can honestly remember standing in front of the priest and right after he said "untill death do you part" my very first thought was "That is an awfully long time"

And to all that are not yet married, IF that is your very FIRST thought at that moment...You are in the wrong place

Thank you and good night

 

[Kacey]

I agree. if two people want to get married then they should be allowed too whether man-woman, 2 men or 2 women. who are we to decided if it is right. Hell if people want to be that way lets go back to old old days and say that mixed race marriage are illegal. what ya think about them cookies?

I believe its ignorance.

B

Why should marriage be limited to 2 people?

 

[JBrainard]

In light of the current decisions in California, Florida and Arizonia, as well as 27 other US States to outlaw same-sax marriage, and several others to recognize it either as marriage, a civil union, or domestic partnership, as well as the decisions of other nations...

I had a thought (weird, I know) while reading the thread about the Gay protests against the LDS, and I apologize if it is slightly off topic...
I am not a lawyer, so if my presumptions are incorrect, please enlighten me. In cities and states where homosexuals have been added to the list of protected classes, these measures are or can be easily shot down as unconstitutional (city/state constitution, obviously). I was talking to a lawyer who specializes in discrimination cases and what lawyers in this field are currently doing is arguing, and wining, cases for discrimination against homosexuals by painting that it is discrimination against one's sex (a protected class). Now, considering that they are setting this precedent, shooting down these measures against same-sex marriage should be relatively easy. Whether you like it or not, if you look at the precedents being set and the unavoidable trend towards making homosexuals a protected class, these measures will be overturned in a heartbeat, the same way a measure banning inter-racial marriage would be shot down as being unconstitutional. So, what's the point of these measures, really? Sure, I guess a statement is being made, but discriminatory laws against homosexuals will inevitably fade away.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

My understanding is that State Constitution beats all lower laws, but differs to Federal Constitution.

So, San Francisco can keep issuing marriage licences to gays, but California won't recognize them, and the government agency that oversees the governments side of marriage is the State. I can be ordained, marry 2 people, and they have no protection under NY law if they are same-gender. I might get em into Heaven (yeah, right), but I can't get Mr. Smith in to the hospital to see his husband without the State's ok.

The other problem is, the system is inefficient. Hundreds of cases, scattered across the country, all seeking the same thing, draggin along for years. For efficiency and consistancy, a ruling needs to come from above.

Otherwise, you have to fight the same fight over and over and over again, and that's very expensive and tiring.

 

[Ray]

For efficiency and consistancy, a ruling needs to come from above.

You don't think the supreme court is excitedly waiting for the issue to be laid at their door step, do you? I'll bet they're frettin a bit.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I think the correct phrase is "******** bricks". If they were excited about it, they would have forced the issue I think.

 

[JBrainard]

An answer to the question of this thread by a complete pragmatist...
Marriage is an experiment. All relationships are experiments. These experiment may last 2 months or a lifetime. What is important is that you learn and grow during and after the relationship, no matter how long it lasts.

 

[elder999]

Marriage is a three ring circus.

First comes the engagement ring, then comes the wedding ring, then comes the suffering....:lfao:

 

[Carol]

anyone remember me? LOL :ultracool

I don't really understand the spiritual protests over gay marriage. People are living in sin that want to make a legal and emotional (and maybe even spiritual) commitment to each other...and the "moral" solution is to NOT let them take responsibility for themselves? :disgust:

Heterosexuals in general are not perfect models for stable relationships and long marriages (ask me how I know....lol)

But that doesn't seem to be at issue. The debate around gay marriage has been about gays. And gays that could possibly marry. The debate hasn't been about responibility. Most of the people that are against gay marriage are afraid of some kind of bad behaviour becoming more prevalent. But the way the debates have gone, the sexual orientation is discussed (and condemned) far more often than the issues of responsibility. Bad behaviour is bad behaviour, regardless.

Unfortunately I dont' think many people agree with me.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

An interesting view, and I think I agree.

2 people want to make a commitment, but can't, because of someone elses moral view.

 

[Gordon Nore]

An interesting view, and I think I agree.

2 people want to make a commitment, but can't, because of someone elses moral view.

The problem for me is that moral/religious filter is being used by the state. That's the church's job.

 

[Carol]

The problem for me is that moral/religious filter is being used by the state. That's the church's job.

It can be very difficult to draw the line as to where the state should be silent upon an issue of morals.

To me, the concept of same-sex marriage is a matter of human rights, and I do think the state can play a role in protecting or sanctioning human rights. If the state does not take a stand and depends solely on the democratic process...then that can lead to a situation like we currently have in California, where the voting public voted to remove a right that was previously given to the people.

 

[kidswarrior]

anyone remember me? LOL :ultracool

Heterosexuals in general are not perfect models for stable relationships and long marriages (ask me how I know....lol)

My wife makes this point all the time... Hmmm

Unfortunately I dont' think many people agree with me.

I think you're right, and believe it's because we only learn to think in black and white, either/or terms. Anything with multiple or open ended possibilities just stumps the majority of people.

 

[harlan]

I'm not 'married to the idea' that what was before is what should necessarily come after.

Marriage is committment. Everything else is extra.

 

[shesulsa]

anyone remember me? LOL :ultracool

Yes. :wavey:

I don't really understand the spiritual protests over gay marriage. People are living in sin that want to make a legal and emotional (and maybe even spiritual) commitment to each other...and the "moral" solution is to NOT let them take responsibility for themselves? :disgust:

No, the moral issue is that some Christians believe homosexuals are clearly being swayed by Satan and this is the Christian Warrior's job - fighting sin and fighting Satan. They consider it to be their core purpose in life - serving the trinity by combating evil. Problem is, they are operating on an older idea of "evil" - something defined over two thousand years ago. And, of course, to deny that we have better knowledge today would, IMNSHO, refrain from honoring the inevitable change and enlightenment granted to us by the same supreme being. Remember - once we ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, we became ashamed.

Heterosexuals in general are not perfect models for stable relationships and long marriages (ask me how I know....lol)

:lol2: - no need here.

But that doesn't seem to be at issue. The debate around gay marriage has been about gays. And gays that could possibly marry. The debate hasn't been about responibility. Most of the people that are against gay marriage are afraid of some kind of bad behaviour becoming more prevalent. But the way the debates have gone, the sexual orientation is discussed (and condemned) far more often than the issues of responsibility. Bad behaviour is bad behaviour, regardless.

You're too smart for Californians - and I can say that because I'm a native Californian. And your point raises the following question: "What rights does a 'bad girl' or 'bad boy' have? Well, Ladies and Germs ... the very same rights as you and me.

Unfortunately I dont' think many people agree with me.

I saw several people interviewed in spurts (Northwest coverage) after 8 passed saying they were told by their priest/minister that their pastor would be arrested if they spoke in church against homosexuality and gay marriage under prop 8 and that it was a free speech issue. I haven't had time to try to find an internet link to the footage I saw, but I hope to soon - especially because I think this is an important point to consider when weighing why the hell people would be so anti-human-rights in a state such as California.

So I don't think people necessarily disagree with you ... I think people are generally being lied to.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Interestinig numbers here. 75% say it's something other than only a man & woman.