Storyrider Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 I've concluded that the horse has already left the barn on this. Marriage is society's way of formalizing the union of a man and a woman. But so many people seem to require an explanation as to why the gender aspect should make any difference...? They're actually flummoxed at the idea. So--gender already has no meaning. Popular culture and the media have made the decision for us.
chris250 Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 Gays should have the same rights as straights to get married publicly or privately and adopt children. I think it's ridiculous that it's even a legal issue for gays to adopt children. They have to get permission from a judge? are you kidding me?! It matters not what the sexual preference of the foster parents are. It should matter more whether or not they would be responsible parents. At this time I see no evidence that gay marriage would ruin my life or ruin society. So I'm all for gay marriage.
Dumbledore Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 I've concluded that the horse has already left the barn on this. Marriage is society's way of formalizing the union of a man and a woman. But so many people seem to require an explanation as to why the gender aspect should make any difference...? They're actually flummoxed at the idea. So--gender already has no meaning. Popular culture and the media have made the decision for us. Yes, the "do gooders" are straitjacketing society with their political correctness. Soon, nothing will have any meaning, and we'll all be silent members of one glorious amorphous blob. It's such a shame, because our culture is what makes us truly human.
quankanne Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 Soon, nothing will have any meaning, and we'll all be silent members of one glorious amorphous blob. you know, I could argue that very same thing from this end of the spectrum ...
Dumbledore Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 A gay union can certainly never be called a marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and is not open to bastardisation in such a crude manner. Most gays don't want to push this at all - it is being taken up as a "cause" by certain "do gooders" in the community who have nothing better to do, and like the attention it affords them. I propose a new legal term - not that we need it. But if some gays insist on needing more than a civil union, then how about calling it a "rompage?" The word fits perfectly.
SincereOnlineGuy Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 Gays should have the same rights as straights to get married... Dude, they already do. Where have you been for the last several thousand years?
burning 4 revenge Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 could you look them in the eyes and tell them their love isnt real http://www.irocknroll.com/images/Hall_and_Oates.jpg
Touche Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 A little off-topic but has anyone ever wondered how, in the case of two women, they decide which one wears the dress? (Remember Ellen DeGeneris sp?) Is the one who wears the pants also the one who wears the strap-on? How does all that work? And then what about the ones where both of them wear suits or both wear dresses. What does it all mean? I'm sooooo confused by all of this.
kashmir Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 Marriage is such a joke now. Seriously, 50% divorce rate? Reality shows where people get married to strangers? I like the compromise they once proposed on South Park. "Instead of calling it marriage, we'll call them butt-buddies! They'll have all the rights that married people do, except we'll just call them butt-buddies. That way, the people against gay marriage can keep their sacred institution of "marriage" while gay couples still get to get all the rights as married people do." "Then what do we call lesbians who want to get married?" "Lesbians? No one cares about dykes!" *riot*
burning 4 revenge Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 A little off-topic but has anyone ever wondered how, in the case of two women, they decide which one wears the dress? (Remember Ellen DeGeneris sp?) Is the one who wears the pants also the one who wears the strap-on? How does all that work? And then what about the ones where both of them wear suits or both wear dresses. What does it all mean? I'm sooooo confused by all of this. I think Hall is the one with the mustache so he should wear the strap on
Author clv0116 Posted February 1, 2009 Author Posted February 1, 2009 I'm absolutely for gay marriage. Anyone who is against it should be ashamed of themselves! Why? I'm being completely fair about it. When you pass laws that take a freedom that you have, away from someone because they're different from you it is one of the worst kinds of discrimination. If you are straight, a gay couple marring has ZERO impact on you and YOUR beliefs, to prevent a loving gay couple from marrying is hateful and bigoted. Oh I see, you're not posting about the topic. My suggestion is to stop this thread now. Nobody is going to change anybody's mind, and isn't this a rather silly thing to argue over in the first place? The thread is about whether just eliminating the legal contract part of marriage for everyone wouldn't just be simpler and more fair. There has to be a legal precedent to deal with the dividion of assets, goods & chattels property and the correct and apporpriate care and supervision of children. That's a load of crap. Plenty of people are popping out kids and sharing resources without being married now anyway, what we need is a system that doesn't depend on an outdated legal concept. Marriage is such a joke now. Seriously, 50% divorce rate? Reality shows where people get married to strangers? Exactly. It's an outdated concept that's showing it's age horribly and is unfair to many fringe groups. Some want polygamy to be next, for instance. I say stop the madness and just abolish the idea of a legal contract. Child care is the responsibility of the genetic parents by default.
Geishawhelk Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 That's a load of crap. Plenty of people are popping out kids and sharing resources without being married now anyway, what we need is a system that doesn't depend on an outdated legal concept. Well;, it would be a load of crap if people were abiding with the fairness and equanimity of being involved in a relationship and dividing things up fairly and amicably. Unfortunately, you can probably count the times this happens per decade on the fingers of one hand. The system we have deals with that, because it deals with civil partnerships and common-Law relationships too. The system has actually moved on quite a bit from the time when the husband was entitled to everything and the wife was classified as a portion of his property. So I think the system isn't actually at fault. I think people are at fault.
Author clv0116 Posted February 2, 2009 Author Posted February 2, 2009 Well;, it would be a load of crap if people were abiding with the fairness and equanimity of being involved in a relationship and dividing things up fairly and amicably. Millions of partnerships both business and relationship are dissolved every year without anyone being married in most of them. Kids are born to unwed couples and care is taken of them. The marriage contract is a relic of the time when a man DID own the woman but it's obsolete.
Geishawhelk Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 I think we're attacking this from two different corners, but maybe saying the same thing: If you look at other posts I have written (Ok, forget it, I talk too much, there are so many!) you'll see that actually, I also don't agree with the concept of marriage. Not because I believe it to be an outdated concept, but because I don't believe people - as human beings - are either designed, or capable of remaining faithful. We're (bottom line) mammals, and very very few mammals are ever monogamous. It's not inbuilt, naturally, into our system, to stay monogamous. Should people decide to commit themselves to one person, and live monogamously, devoting themselves to partner and offspring - then they should stick to that commitment, that choice and that promise. If people can't stick to it - or don't believe they can - then they really shouldn't agree to that commitment in the first place. or they should warn their partner that something has occurred to make them tempted to sow it all elsewhere (male and female....) But the distinction between marriage as an institution, and a marriage where the division or allocation of chattels and property is concerned, has to be made. Companies, businesses and professional partnerships are subject to contracts and agreements, and the dissolution of these partnerships entails legal observation of jusitifed division and distribution of assets. Amorous partnerships should - and can - be no different, when it comes to such matters. But the institution of marriage as defined by church and/or state is, I will agree, something of an obsolete and archaic thing.....
Author clv0116 Posted February 2, 2009 Author Posted February 2, 2009 Companies, businesses and professional partnerships are subject to contracts and agreements, and the dissolution of these partnerships entails legal observation of jusitifed division and distribution of assets. Amorous partnerships should - and can - be no different, when it comes to such matters. This I agree on. The fact that a couple can sign a single certificate and implicitly agree to be bound by a very poorly written and subject to radical change contract without legal counsel is so broken I can barely figure out where to start. If a couple wishes to be bound by a legal contract then they have the right to have such a contract drawn up, including well defined terms, the courts that will have jurisdiction in case of breach, and so on. They have the right to review this contract, revise it until it fits their desires, and then make an informed choice with counsel. What happens now is close to the opposite of that and it's why a lot of men are shunning marriage.
Geishawhelk Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 Well, this is precisely why the concept of "pre-Nups" was thought up. Unfortunately, hitherto, it's not been possible to make them globally binding. I think they should be, and I don't think it is beyond the scope of any Legal system anywhere, to make them so. But it's fraught with problems, as things stand. Whilst they are not legally binding in the UK, my partner tells me they are "very persuasive".... and he's doing Law, so he should be informed!
Author clv0116 Posted February 2, 2009 Author Posted February 2, 2009 Well, this is precisely why the concept of "pre-Nups" was thought up. Prenups are a tiny bandaid on the festering gangrenous open sore that is marriage law. Cut the foot off and save the patient.
calazhage Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 Good idea for a thread. Here is my view. I love the idea of marriage, and having it mean something. I would love to introduce a woman as "My wife", and actually have it mean something. But if society gets to a point in which men marry men, women marry women, and perhaps friends just marry friends of the same sex, I would not mind doing away with the entire institution altogether. Do away with pre nups, alimony, and just live together. No penalty for cheating. Just break up, take what is yours, kick the other person out, whatever. If we are entering a genderless society, let's make it fair for men and women. You cannot on one hand say marriage is for protection of children, and women, and on the other hand say men can marry men, without lowering the overall meaning of marriage.
Geishawhelk Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 Prenups are a tiny bandaid on the festering gangrenous open sore that is marriage law. Cut the foot off and save the patient. No, no, no....Don't beat about the bush - say what you really mean - !!
Author clv0116 Posted February 5, 2009 Author Posted February 5, 2009 No, no, no....Don't beat about the bush - say what you really mean - !! You know I don't generally get accused of over-subtlety on this board.
Recommended Posts