Marriage

[qckbeam]

Recently in the news the debate over just what marriage is has begun cropping up, and I'm just curious as to what everyone here defines it as and why. Is marriage a sacred institution and bond which can be shared only between a man and a woman who love each other, or is it simply the ultimate expression of love which can be shared between anybody, be it a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman? I'd really like to know what everyone?s opinions are on the matter, and please, provide some sort of reason for your view.

 

[thenerdguy]

Is marriage a sacred institution and bond which can be shared only between a man and a woman.
Thats for me. Like i said before, I dont like gays but i wont diss them. So dant start a flame fest.

 

[qckbeam]

I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm just curious as to everyones opinion on the matter. Thank you for sharing yours.

 

[Letters]

Marriage is what you do when you're gonna be living with someone and sharing everything with them... that's what it is, but perhaps falls short of what it should be...

 

[qckbeam]

Marriage is what you do when you're gonna be living with someone and sharing everything with them... that's what it is, but perhaps falls short of what it should be...

mind sharing your thoughts on what it should be?

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Even though i said i would be in bewd now, i just want to get this in before it all goes haywire over night. I think that marriage is something thats between a man and a woman, thats what its based and thats where it should stay. Gays can register as being a couple but it just isnt marriage. I know what the word marriage means out of context by the way, but in context its not the same.

On another different but related note.

I think that marriage is something special between a man and a woman, it signifies their comitment. Just living together isnt quite the same, and i think the idea of "I can always leave" is there. Even though divource is through the roof nowadays....relatively speaking.

 

[Letters]

Well, it was created to be a bond betwen people who really do love each other and are willing to commit to that for the rest of their lives. So that, really, is what it should be (I don't really care about the whole homosexual issue and find it annoying and silly). Now, it's more of legal thing, and isn't lasting...

 

[Lucifer Crass]

All I have to say about this is, DON'T DO IT IT'S A TRICK!!!

 

[Rilcon]

lol

Marriage to me is sorta like a contract, you get guaranteed sex and offspring in exchange for some sacrifices. And since procreation is one of the main parts here, it should be heterosexual. Homosexuals can live together all they want, and even have their little marriage ceromony, but untill I see some kids pop out with there mixed DNA, it's not marriage under my eyes.

 

[qckbeam]

Well, how about this. Marriage is in my eyes the ultimate expression of love. You love another person so much that you are willing to devote your entire life to them and them alone. It has nothing to do with children, if that were the case than any heterosexual couples without children wouldn't really be married would they. Marriage in my eyes is about love, pure and simple. It's nice that you think Homosexuals can live together and have a commitment ceremony Rilcon, but you know they won't get any of the benefits of marriage that a heterosexual couple would get, right? Do you think that is fair?

On a side note, does anyone in here think the government has any say in marriage at all?
Personally, I say how dare they try to keep marriage for one group. It's not their place at all to tell people who they can love, and share their lives with.

 

[AudioRage]

To everyone that thinks Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed marrige:

Would it be ok if we refused interracial marrige two? How about no african-american can marry, is that alright with you aswell?

 

[Rilcon]

Hey, If I had the power to legislate, homosexual unions would have all the benefits and obligations as 'normal' couples, it's just that I consider I wouldn't call it marriage, even tho it would have the same legal consequences.

 

[qckbeam]

Hey, If I had the power to legislate, homosexual unions would have all the benefits and obligations as 'normal' couples, it's just that I consider I wouldn't call it marriage, even tho it would have the same legal consequences.

Oh ok, I misunderstood your post then. But still, your reasons for not calling it marriage are flawed, wouldn't you say? I'm going by your own definition of it.

 

[AudioRage]

Why wouldn't it be called marriage?

Whats so wrong with homosexuals being allowed to marry?


Edit: stupid qckbeam, be slower.

 

[Rilcon]

My defenition of marrige is not based just on love, it's also based on procreation. Without the procreation part, for me, it should be called something like "perpetual intense love union" or some historical word with that meaning.

Under the general definition of marriage, where procreation isn't as important, then yes, it would be called marriage.

Let me leave this clear, I have no problem with homosexual marriages, it's just that they would have a different name for me, a name that would also be used for heterosexual couples that agree on not having children.

 

[qckbeam]

My defenition of marrige is not based just on love, it's also based on procreation. Without the procreation part, for me, it should be called something like "perpetual intense love union" or some historical word with that meaning.

Under the general definition of marriage, where procreation isn't as important, then yes, it would be called marriage.

Let me leave this clear, I have no problem with homosexual marriages, it's just that they would have a different name for me, a name that would also be used for heterosexual couples that agree on not having children.

well mate, for the sake of practicallity, why not just agree to call them all marriage?

 

[AudioRage]

Espically since there is no way in hell heterosexual couples that are not having childern would be fine with being "not married"

 

[qckbeam]

Espically since there is no way in hell heterosexual couples that are not having childern would be fine with being "not married"

indeed

 

[Rilcon]

Well, you did ask me for my opinion, nobody said it had to be practical...

 

[qckbeam]

Well, you did ask me for my opinion, nobody said it had to be practical...

and I thank you for sharing it

 

[el Chi]

Whats so wrong with homosexuals being allowed to marry?

Exactly. If marriage is the Ultimate Expression of Love, then why can't homosexuals take part if they want to?

Espically since there is no way in hell heterosexual couples that are not having childern would be fine with being "not married"

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you saying that straight couples would never decide to be together for the rest of their lives and NOT get married? Personally that's what I intend to do. I don't see the point in marriage - why is a ceremony an expression of love? Surely one could express their undying love to their partner every day in whatever way they can for the rest of their existence. I don't have anything against other people getting married - I'm not going to drag anyone down. If someone feels they wish to marry another then that's an admirable thing, but I don't see it as an inevitable necessity of life or love.
Unless I meet someone who really wants to get married. In that case, then I'd submit

 

[GhostValkyrie]

Marriage was founded on the basis of one man and one woman joining together, and committing themselves to one another only. The divorce rate is horrible, but has no relevance to the fact of what it means, and should be. As Sparrow said, man and woman.
One man and one woman. That's how I feel.

 

[Maskirovka]

whatever it's called, homosexuals should definitely have the right to legitimize their relationships and have all the same rights as heterosexual couples.

the terminology and such is a different argument, imo. personally, i don't really care what it's called...though i admit it would be weird to hear someone say "i'm getting married" and have that mean it was to a person of the same gender. but "it would be weird" isn't a good enough reason to do anything.

though every gay person i've seen on TV talking about it or talked to in person always comes back saying their main concern is that they have the same rights. not many of them seem to be all that concerned with what it's labeled.

and i think gays should be concerned with what is possible given our current culture. i don't think most people would accept calling it marriage. that might change over time, but polls on many different news channels, etc. have shown that people aren't ready to call "it" marriage...but many people don't see anything wrong with giving them the same rights as a traditional married couple.

and also, I don't think the federal government should have any say in these things. It should all be left up to state governments.

 

[el Chi]

If it were left up to state govts then there'd be loads of states <Coughs>Texas<Coughs> that wouldn't have it, so gay couples would just get married in a different state... That's silly - just have it everywhere and save people the petrol money.

 

[pat_thetic]

Bleh.. I honestly don't care, but why can't gay couples just live together, instead of being married? I'm not sure what the benefits of being married are.. Can someone fill me in?

 

[Maskirovka]

Bleh.. I honestly don't care, but why can't gay couples just live together, instead of being married? I'm not sure what the benefits of being married are.. Can someone fill me in?

how about you fill yourself in...ever heard of google?

one thing is hospital visitation rights...

 

[Maskirovka]

If it were left up to state govts then there'd be loads of states <Coughs>Texas<Coughs> that wouldn't have it, so gay couples would just get married in a different state... That's silly - just have it everywhere and save people the petrol money.

the point is that the federal government shouldn't have any say in it...if it's going to be debated and laws made about it, it should be done at the state level. that's the only possible way given our current culture...like i said.

 

[el Chi]

Maskirovka makes an excellent point. There are many legal issues that involve marriage. Some friends of my family recently got married after being together for (at the very least) 20 years. The reasons they went through it in the end were legal. This is not to say it was a hollow occasion, mind.
Point is - why should homosexuals be denied such legal benefits? Isn't that discrimination?
As for his other point - I still don't understand why it ought to be federal. That would involve homosexual couples being denied the very legal rights you mentioned in certain states. I agree that there's a lot of homophobia and that there might be abuse (verbal or whatever) outside the registry office (I'd assume that it wouldn't happen in a church) but nevertheless.

 

[Maskirovka]

As for his other point - I still don't understand why it ought to be federal. That would involve homosexual couples being denied the very legal rights you mentioned in certain states. I agree that there's a lot of homophobia and that there might be abuse (verbal or whatever) outside the registry office (I'd assume that it wouldn't happen in a church) but nevertheless.

it shouldn't be federal....it won't be federal if it happens. this whole thing is going to have to be a "baby steps" deal for people...they can't handle change when it comes to these types of things...in fact a lot of people would be in favor of an amendment to make marriage between a man and a woman a part of the constitution...and you think it's practical to have federal law change the opposite way? it's much more practical to try and change culture slowly in this instance.

 

[LoneDeranger]

Whatever the law will be, it has to be on a federal level. Allow me to explain.

The reason is simply that many (if not the majority) of laws related to marriage are federal. I'm not law expert, of course, but here are some obvious examples:

- Immigration
- Social Security
- Federal Tax Laws (IRS)

Certainly all these laws have hundreds of pages devoted to specific distinctions due to marriage. And states have no business regulating these things.

 

[Maskirovka]

when i say it must be a state thing, i'm talking about what you call it...or let churches and communitites call it what they want.

of course the laws would have to be federal with regard to those things...and hospital visits (if you're out of state and something happens)

 

[qckbeam]

I'm really happy with this thread, I thought it might dissolve into a flame war, but it hasn't
Indeed, it's actually quite the opposite.

Very cool guys, very cool, and thank you for your opinions

 

[Obraxis]

Personally, I think anyone should be able to marry anyone else, nomatter age, sex or religon. Love is a wonderful thing, and if U love someone that much you should be able to be a married couple.

 

[CyberSh33p]

I think marraige is a sacred and holy or whatever institution, and I'm not religious I don't care who gets married, man and women, men and men, women and women, be they hot or ugly (if they're hot they should send me pics though ), but I think nowadays its been cheapened greatly. I don't really care if somoenes gay, I'd rather be oblivious to the fact and never know.

But nowadays marraige isn't really what it was. People go in and out like its a coffee shop and though couples who don't love each other shouldn't stay together, I think divorce is a bit too easy. People should live together a few years before they get married, I tihink =\

but this isn't really on topic. I just wanted to get my two cents in.

 

[Javert]

This is what I'm thinking. We used to be afraid of inter-racial marriages in the 60's, and we were like "Aahhhhh!" And then there were the homosexuals in the 70's, and we went "Aaaaahhhh!" This is just another part of the cycle. The ultra-conservatives go ape, politics declare their views, and the general people have their says. And then in ten years, people aren't gonna care. We'll be like, look, two guys like each other and they're married.
Just think.....is it going a BIG difference in society? Most of your lives won't be disturbed that's for sure. So in all, this is just a fad.

 

[A2597]

a sacred institution and bond which can be shared only between a man and a woman who love each other

 

[Spiffae]

I think marriage should be a right, not a privlege granted by the conservative government. What does it matter to joe and jane smith if the gay couple that lives next door is married? Does it de-legitimize their marriage? does it do anything other than give homosexuals a little more credibility in a world where they are discriminated against like blacks were in the 1950s?

I don't see what everyone's so afraid of. unless they are an ass-backwards religious-right puritain, i'd say chill out. why not give everyone equal rights, and equal opportunity.

Did you hear that the bush administration now wants to draft an ammendment to the constitution that prohibits gay marriage? That would be the first discriminatory constitutional ammendment ever.

great.

 

[PvtRyan]

There's no real argument why two same sex persons can't get married, there's just conservative christian bullshit. Marriage is something sacred? And that's something coming from the people of the country where a lot of people have divorced many many times?
Please, calling marriage sacred is like saying sex is only used to reproduce.

And besides, if it WERE sacred, then what unholy thing would homosexuals do that violates that 'sacred' thing? Besides than what a 2000 year old book says?

Gay marriage is legal here (Holland), just like in Belgium, and I don't mind, let people make their choices. Having gay people get some kind of contract instead of a wending vowel is just discrimination, because you say they're not equal to 'normal' people and shouldn't have the same rights.
Another argument for gay marriage is that gay poeple now have very shortlived relationships because there is no real fixed bond, that's the reason why HIV spread so quickly in that community in the US.

And I'm sure there will be a lot of 'being gay is against nature' comments, but first of all, that's not true, there are numerous records of gay animals. Second of all, so is monogamy if you look at it from your point of view, so let's ban marriage shall we?

Being anti-gay marriage is just a sign of being shortminded, because there is no real argument against it, so grow up and let people make their own decisions who they want to share their lives with.

PS: No I'm not gay, I'm just not shortminded.

 

[waedoe]

To everyone that thinks Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed marrige:

Would it be ok if we refused interracial marrige two? How about no african-american can marry, is that alright with you aswell?

its not the same.

 

[Mr. Redundant]

Marriage was based in christian religion... and its kinda against christianity to love another man (no procreation), so yeah an "americanized" idea of marriage has formed, with no ties to religion... which is weird, but to each his own.

the way I figure it, its your life, and you do what you want with it. *shrugs* I dont really care if two guys in san fran wanna get married, doesnt effect me, just wouldnt be my choice.