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.
I don't think marriage is a bloodless legal agreement, but love clearly isn't the issue. A man and a man or a woman and a woman can be in love and millions are in love with one another as we speak. As you said, this isn't about relationships, it's about marriage. The love is there. That's not the issue.
The biggest issue is really a legal one. That's where much of the clamor for gay marriage is coming from. Gay couples who have been together for years and want some of the benefits that are readily available to every heterosexual marriage including the sham marriages. That's the issue.
I disagree. To me, the issue is one of whether we want the word "marriage" to mean what it tradionally has and currently does ("the union of a man and a woman"), or to mean something else. Marriage has a special meaning. It refers to the union of two opposite human beings. Not different: opposite. It has metaphorical value as the cement of our society and our culture. It is a reflection of the way living things are designed to reproduce their species. It is a vehicle for the melding of the two sexes, with their radically different ways of seeing, knowing, and loving.
I share the belief that long-time partners deserve some legal consideration to protect them from being treated unfairly by the law. But to call such an arrangement a "marriage" is a semantic and cultural misnomer, and opens the way for other variants of human unions which may not be so benevolent.
These are perfectly reasonable arguments, but how would you keep any two signatories (friends, brothers and sisters, parishoner and unscrupulous clergyman, owner and pet, etc.) from taking advantage of such benefits?
I can't prevent nor identify sham marriages now. I guess the most accurate answer is the financial implications and legal liabilities for civil unions would need to be structured to discourage sham relationships.
I can't prevent nor identify sham marriages now. I guess the most accurate answer is the financial implications and legal liabilities for civil unions would need to be structured to discourage sham relationships.
Well, of course. But there would undoubtedly be more abuse of the law than currently exists, and by a rather steep percentage, given the ethical standards of the general public.
Well at least we can have a sense of humor on forums..
As for who is harmed, there are many who would believe that a children should have a father and mother, and missing one of them does harm. I was adopted into a mother/father household, my father died when I was rather young. I can tell you that missing my father was very harmful to me.
Its my believe that a father teaches their daughter on how to be treated by men, a mother teaches their son how to treat women.. Missing one of those could be very harmful to some individuals. Look at society and one parent families that exist in society today and one could argue that we have dummed down society and our expectations on a family.
As for 2 consenting adults, thats a valid argument, but, what about 3, 4, 5 consenting adults.. whatever goes goes right?
Well, first of all, you're going back to talking about children. Furthermore, in most cases the children of gay couples are/would be adopted. If not two moms or two dads, many would have no real parental figure. Moreover, a two-parent household isn't a panacea. There are many bad parents.
As for polygamy, I will say this: in our current society that would be problematic because it's outside of the norm. Children of polygamous marriages then have the cross to bear of being different. That's true for children of same-sex marriages, as well, by the way. Then again, for a time (and still, in many places), that's true of interracial marriages, cross-cultural marriages, etc. That makes for a difficult situation. No doubt. That's also sort-of society's issue more than the issue of the families in question.
Now onto polygamous marriage. First of all, this isn't a thread about that, so I don't want to derail. I'll just say that between the fact that polygamous marriages are as old as history and were once commonplace all over the world, and given accounts I have heard and read from the children of polygamous marriages (both Mormons from the US and accounts from outside of US culture), it's really hard for me to demonize it. It's not my cup of tea, but I've yet to hear a compelling case against it. Those who use the bible to find reasons against gay marriage tend to ignore the fact that it contains plenty of polygamy. It gets into sketchy territory.
Well, of course. But there would undoubtedly be more abuse of the law than currently exists, and by a rather steep percentage, given the ethical standards of the general public.
And those unethical people are all the same gender?
I disagree. To me, the issue is one of whether we want the word "marriage" to mean what it tradionally has and currently does ("the union of a man and a woman"), or to mean something else. Marriage has a special meaning. It refers to the union of two opposite human beings. Not different: opposite. It has metaphorical value as the cement of our society and our culture. It is a reflection of the way living things are designed to reproduce their species. It is a vehicle for the melding of the two sexes, with their radically different ways of seeing, knowing, and loving.
I share the belief that long-time partners deserve some legal consideration to protect them from being treated unfairly by the law. But to call such an arrangement a "marriage" is a semantic and cultural misnomer, and opens the way for other variants of human unions which may not be so benevolent.
There should almost be two threads here. One about the unions, the other about what we call the unions. A lot of the gay couples I know are all for calling their unions anything in the world as long as they get the benefits.
As for polygamy, I will say this: in our current society that would be problematic because it's outside of the norm. Children of polygamous marriages then have the cross to bear of being different. That's true for children of same-sex marriages, as well, by the way. Then again, for a time (and still, in many places), that's true of interracial marriages, cross-cultural marriages, etc. That makes for a difficult situation. No doubt. That's also sort-of society's issue more than the issue of the families in question.
There are many locations that "gay" is also outside of the norm.
There are certain people that would argue that children of gay marriages would have a cross to bear for being different.
And yes, as you pointed out, the same can be said for interracial marriages, (of which I'm involved in).. that being said, interracial marriages do comply with the legal definition of marriage.. i.e. male / female..
There are many locations that "gay" is also outside of the norm.
There are certain people that would argue that children of gay marriages would have a cross to bear for being different.
And yes, as you pointed out, the same can be said for interracial marriages, (of which I'm involved in).. that being said, interracial marriages do comply with the legal definition of marriage.. i.e. male / female..
I conceded that first point in the item you just quoted.
The second point proves that society evolves. Interracial marriages were illegal in many places at one point. Not anymore.
There are many locations that "gay" is also outside of the norm.
There are certain people that would argue that children of gay marriages would have a cross to bear for being different.
And yes, as you pointed out, the same can be said for interracial marriages, (of which I'm involved in).. that being said, interracial marriages do comply with the legal definition of marriage.. i.e. male / female..
I am a product of an interracial marriage then a gay marriage. My biological parents are of different races, and I trust myself to live successfully . After they had divorced my mother "married" a woman, who I now consider my stepmom, and they are still happily married. This union happened when I was still young and had several more years of school to go through. I can personally say that having the experience of not coming from a cookie-cutter family is liberating! The idea that you do not have to be what society expects you to be. It caused my mother and myself to become closer and more open with each other. Out of all the children I know with same sex parents they feel the same way. We in a way have this guaranteed acceptance from our parents without them having to say it outloud that really helps us to survive the ups and downs that come with growing up. I would not change it for the world! My hope for my mother and her wife is that they can stand before family and friends and share with us their love. I am so happy that my mother was sent her soul mate, very few of us get to see what a real loving and committed relationship look like, I am very lucky. Now I know how I want to feel when I stand at the alter and tell my significant other how they have changed my life for the better. I only hope everyone will get the opportunity
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.
