Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A segment of the older generation of America seems to get such a hard-on from social conformity, particularly to made-up, arbitrary mores that they have deemed "respectable". If you don't fit into their "normal" box they freak the f--- out. My grandparents have expressed to me the need for social conformity...I thought it was ridiculous, and told them so. Then, I did everything I could to **** them off....it was pretty fun.
Long story short: don't worry about the haters...they won't be around much longer, and their influence ain't all that either.
Wow. Though I didn't share my Grandparents world view, I didn't deliberately try and provoke them. Little thing called "respect". Maybe you've heard of it? My Grandparents loved me and I loved them back. My parents didn't share all the views and opinions of their parents either, but flying colors in their face never entered my folks minds, either. A d yon thought shocking and angering yon Grandparents was "fun "?
Perhaps this fits the mold of fbe breakdown of family that is being talked about? That seems an unfair and quite vi fictive way to treat your Grandparents. Their game on things may have differed , radically, from yours, but that is the world they lived in, all their lives. If yon tell me I should like the smell of shyte, throwing a bucket of it in my face sure isn't going to convince me you're on the right track. , Ahh, but the ..exuberance..of youth, does often lead us to think such .methodology is the best bet to get the point across.
Idk, maybe yon actually despised your Grandparents, maybe your parents , as well. I have a good family, so maybe I'm just lucky. Neither my Sister, or I, share the take on things my parents and Grandparents do/did. But we never let that divide us, as a family. Hate to tell you this, but, you made a point for the opposition. Could be a three pointer. Breakdown of family, in this manner, is a big talking point on one side of the fence here.
Even though I already know where I come down on the issue at hand here, I'm meaning toward thinking breakdown of family IS a valid concern, that bears further looking at as to a possible correlation.
While I personally think marriage creates a stable society so the more people that can partake in it, the better, I think one of the problems is overturning votes in various states. I don't like that on any issue.
Voters in 31 states voted to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Then define the SSM as civil unions, leave it at that and go on. That will address the legal issues the gay rights activist, seem to want. They can come together and have a family, legally adopt, legally divorce, legally do all.
It's where people wish to redefine marriage; take away that obstacle, by not doing that and live life.
I'm thinking Belgium (I get that from the op) has legally defined SSM as civil union and no drama followed. Wow, what a novel thought.
But, just from experience, SSM was a big hoopla in up here in Canada before it was legal.
Now? You just don't hear about it. It's just another marriage.
Sure, some folks still don't like it, I'm certain. But, it's not brought up anymore.
Defined as a civil union, or marriage? Just asking ...b/c it seems that is the problem here.
Then define the SSM as civil unions, leave it at that and go on. That will address the legal issues the gay rights activist, seem to want. They can come together and have a family, legally adopt, legally divorce, legally do all.
It's where people wish to redefine marriage; take away that obstacle, by not doing that and live life.
I'm thinking Belgium (I get that from the op) has legally defined SSM as civil union and no drama followed. Wow, what a novel thought.
If legalized its really none of my (or your) business if a church wants to allow a marriage ceremony in their church.
Then define the SSM as civil unions, leave it at that and go on. That will address the legal issues the gay rights activist, seem to want. They can come together and have a family, legally adopt, legally divorce, legally do all.
It's where people wish to redefine marriage; take away that obstacle, by not doing that and live life.
I'm thinking Belgium (I get that from the op) has legally defined SSM as civil union and no drama followed. Wow, what a novel thought.
And Canada redefined the term marriage and no drama followed. More than a dozen countries have defined marriage to include SSM and no drama followed. The drama comes not from the gays nor their supporters.
Why should a special group be allowed to redefine what marriage is?
Why not accept civil union as acceptable... why try to change a historical institution into something that by its very nature is an unsustainable behavior
No special classes ..
Because the gays don't like that idea and here's why:
Rather than the civil union having the same legal rights as a marriage, cut the term civil union out all together and call it a marriage.
Maybe because civil unions that are equal to marriage do not exist in this country. No civil union is federally recognized. Then there is the fact that even the limited protections of civil unions have been denied to us in many states.
How is one to accept something that was never offered and does not exist?
Maybe because civil unions that are equal to marriage do not exist in this country. No civil union is federally recognized. Then there is the fact that even the limited protections of civil unions have been denied to us in many states.
How is one to accept something that was never offered and does not exist?
Then make it exist. Laws can change. Equalize legally civil unions to that of a marriage. That also takes away the idea that it is a second class legal status. No redefinition of marriage required.
Then make it exist. Laws can change. Equalize legally civil unions to that of a marriage. That also takes away the idea that it is a second class legal status. No redefinition of marriage required.
I don't understand the difference? You are hung up over a word?
Marriage is a secular contract. The churches should just get out of the business.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps this fits the mold of fbe breakdown of family that is being talked about? That seems an unfair and quite vi fictive way to treat your Grandparents. Their game on things may have differed , radically, from yours, but that is the world they lived in, all their lives. If yon tell me I should like the smell of shyte, throwing a bucket of it in my face sure isn't going to convince me you're on the right track. 
, Ahh, but the ..exuberance..of youth, does often lead us to think such .methodology is the best bet to get the point across. 
