U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: What is the main reason you would marry someone?
Companionship 66 44.59%
Financial security 10 6.76%
Physical attraction 3 2.03%
Romance 8 5.41%
To have children 21 14.19%
Other 40 27.03%
Voters: 148. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-31-2010, 05:44 AM
 
11,943 posts, read 13,398,685 times
Reputation: 2772

Advertisements

LOL Zeke, I've offended men by ignoring their wallets waved in my face. Wonder what made them think that was enough.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-31-2010, 05:55 AM
 
Location: Armsanta Sorad
5,650 posts, read 7,200,498 times
Reputation: 2449
Companionship. It's hard to find that here in America.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2010, 06:06 AM
 
17,853 posts, read 12,884,473 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
Opposite-sex couples can marry for just about any reason they want, including "love".

What your side has to prove is that allowing same-sex marriage will somehow harm society or provide no social benefit. So far, the lawyer representing your view is having a tough time doing that:
The lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, has studied the matter deeply, and his erudite briefs are steeped in history. He cannot have been blindsided by the question Judge Vaughn R. Walker asked him: What would be the harm of permitting gay men and lesbians to marry?

“Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know,” Mr. Cooper said. “I don’t know.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/us/27bar.html
AUM, I've been facinated by reading the transcripts and live blogging of the recent Prop 8 trial in Ca. The 2 (count them) "experts" from the anti-gay marriage side proved to be a real boon...for the pro-gay marriage side.

David Blankenhorn was one of the anti-gay marriage sides "experts". David Bois (attorney for the plaintif -pro-gay marriage side) actually got him to admit this:

Quote:
Blankenhorn admitted that “Adopting same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children,” and would be “a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion” and “a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea.” He also testified that it would result in fewer children growing up in state institutions and instead being raised by loving parents and would in fact reduce the divorce rate; reduce promiscuity; improve the stability of couples’ relationships; increase wealth for families and reduce government costs; and a decline in “anti-gay prejudice” and “anti-gay hate crimes.”
You can find the transcripts and live blogs here:
Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Last edited by Ceist; 01-31-2010 at 06:14 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2010, 06:15 AM
 
Location: Ohio
2,178 posts, read 8,417,185 times
Reputation: 3943
To me marriage is not a trial run just to see if it works.
Marriage is for life long companionship. The sharing of life, births, deaths, raising children, seeing grandchildren born, experiencing getting old together and even almost most knowing what the other is thinking.
It's supporting each other, picking each other up when one is down with sickness or sadness.
Knowing that each is always there for the other.
There were 2 obits in the local paper yesterday with the same last names. The wife died at 89 yrs old. The husband died 2 days later. He was 91 yrs old. They had been married for almost 70 years.
That is what a real marriage is. A lifetime of commitment and love.
My wife and I have only been married for 27 years. We raised 6 kids. We have grandkids. We have experienced the deaths of relatives and a parent. We made it through the tragic death of a young family member. All of these things have helped to bond us together and made us realize how much we need and depend on each other. Life has mountains that get in the way and we have had our share over the years. But you never learn how to climb unless you are challenged. We have climbed them together and will continue to do so for as long as life allows us to be together.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2010, 06:22 AM
 
11,943 posts, read 13,398,685 times
Reputation: 2772
Nothing so changes your perspective on life when you have someone to mind. Bless you Robhu, and many happy more years to you both.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2010, 06:25 AM
 
17,853 posts, read 12,884,473 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robhu View Post
To me marriage is not a trial run just to see if it works.
Marriage is for life long companionship. The sharing of life, births, deaths, raising children, seeing grandchildren born, experiencing getting old together and even almost most knowing what the other is thinking.
It's supporting each other, picking each other up when one is down with sickness or sadness.
Knowing that each is always there for the other.
There were 2 obits in the local paper yesterday with the same last names. The wife died at 89 yrs old. The husband died 2 days later. He was 91 yrs old. They had been married for almost 70 years.
That is what a real marriage is. A lifetime of commitment and love.
My wife and I have only been married for 27 years. We raised 6 kids. We have grandkids. We have experienced the deaths of relatives and a parent. We made it through the tragic death of a young family member. All of these things have helped to bond us together and made us realize how much we need and depend on each other. Life has mountains that get in the way and we have had our share over the years. But you never learn how to climb unless you are challenged. We have climbed them together and will continue to do so for as long as life allows us to be together.
One More Piece of Evidence Why Marriage Matters
Quote:
On Christmas day in Missouri, tragedy struck the family of Missouri state trooper Dennis Engelhard. He was helping a motorist stuck in the snow, and was killed by a car that lost control and hit him. He was 49 when he died.
A sad story, to be sure, but what came next must have felt like a slap in the face to his family.
When Highway Patrol Cpl. Dennis Engelhard was killed in a Christmas Day traffic accident near Eureka, the agency described him as single with no children. Gov. Jay Nixon called on Missourians to pray for Engelhard’s family, who “lost a beloved son and brother.”

Neither statement tells the whole story.

Engelhard, hit by a car that lost control in the snow, was gay. He left behind a partner of nearly 15 years who was not mentioned in his obituary or official information released by the Highway Patrol, although members of the agency knew about his sexual orientation. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch)
The state also denied his partner the normal pension benefits that would have come to the spouse. And then to top it all off, the newspaper blogs around the state write things like this:
In their defense, officials say they’ve never paid benefits to long-term girlfriends, boyfriends, etc. of straight troopers, either. The rule has always been that benefits go to a spouse.
This is why marriage matters. These two men had been together for fifteen years, and then some blogger has the temerity to say that their relationship wasn’t as important because they weren’t spouses? Perhaps he might not have been in Missouri in 2004 when the people of the state, in all their infinite wisdom choose to write discrimination into their constitution. I’ll cut him that much slack, because to assume otherwise would indicate an uncaring and painfully flippant response to the loss of one’s rightful spouse.

It’s hard to argue that these two men were any less deserving of acknowlegment than Brittney Spears 2-day marriage, or John McCain’s or Newt Gingrich’s 3rd marriage. This is a concrete and devastating example of why marriage equality is necessary.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2010, 09:02 AM
 
6,563 posts, read 13,252,506 times
Reputation: 3183
Quote:
Originally Posted by thosemeninlove View Post
Rhett_Butler said, "My point was that in legal terms of marriage "love" has nothing to do with it and can in no way be quantified. So for gays to try to claim they should be allowed to marry because their "love" is the same as a hetero couple's doesn't work as far as I'm concerned."

Lol, stay away from Canada, then. Let's lok at some figures, shall we? In Canada, gay marriage has been in effect for about 6 years . In that time there have been over 10,000 marriages. In that that time the number of divorces among gays have been......................2.

-Doug of thosemeninlove

As for love, I would die if necessary, for Bill and he I.

"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13

In this case each other; we are each others' best friend as well as true love. We celebrated being together (monogamous) for 20 years this last December.

...anything you'd like to know Rhett? We'll be happy to answer.

kindly, -Doug of thosemeninlove
An absolute and 100% misinterpretation and mischaracterization of my argument...

My point there was simply that "love" CANNOT be used as any sort of LEGAL measuring stick on which to base whether a couple can be married or not. PERIOD.

You're drawing conclusions that I was not making with your implications here.... Gay love could be GREATER than heteros for all it matters. Point is that if you attempt to allow marriage based on "love" then you've just instituted one of the biggest legal slippery-slopes in the history of the United States...

Last edited by Rhett_Butler; 02-01-2010 at 09:20 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2010, 09:10 AM
 
6,563 posts, read 13,252,506 times
Reputation: 3183
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
The point is that there is a long history of same-sex unions around the world.

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A decent read.... You'll notice that Rome seems to be the only society where potentially this "marriage" was seen on par with a hetero one, although (not surprisingly) the Wiki fails to address whether this is true or not....

Funny that your proof of how extensive gay marriage is appears kind of limited in scope.... Greece and Native Americans had some homosexual unions of sorts and Romans had "gay marriage" that was banned in about the 4th Century BC (and again, it is vague on whether these were seen as "the same" as hetero marriages)....

The "history" is neither long, nor is it extensive...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2010, 09:15 AM
 
6,563 posts, read 13,252,506 times
Reputation: 3183
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
Opposite-sex couples can marry for just about any reason they want, including "love".

What your side has to prove is that allowing same-sex marriage will somehow harm society or provide no social benefit. So far, the lawyer representing your view is having a tough time doing that:
The lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, has studied the matter deeply, and his erudite briefs are steeped in history. He cannot have been blindsided by the question Judge Vaughn R. Walker asked him: What would be the harm of permitting gay men and lesbians to marry?

“Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know,” Mr. Cooper said. “I don’t know.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/us/27bar.html
"My side" doesn't have to prove anything. "Your side" is trying to ram through legislation that would not differentiate the coupling of man/woman and man/man.... Call me what you will, but you can attempt to legislate that they're the "same" all you want, but you'll have a hard time convincing me of it and I don't think it should be legislated under the same law.....

As I've already stated, I don't take issue with giving gays the rights they are asking for however...

I'm tired of this argument that we somehow have to prove how it's harmful or we MUST allow it... There's "no harm" in me peeing in the woods either, but if a cop happens upon me I can be arrested... Oddly enough it is not required of him to tell me what harm I was causing...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2010, 09:24 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
23,392 posts, read 15,102,212 times
Reputation: 6485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
Government does not support, endorse and promote marriage thru the use of taxpayer dollars, out of an emotional concern over whether or not two people experience companionship with each other. Governments, and private charities do it because of the future generations of children, men and women create.

This story only helps reinforce the notion that homosexual couples do nothing to benefit society even if they are "married". Fifteen years these two men lived together, and not one child. The vast majority of married men and women, after fifteen years together, have produced children. It's why governments support and encourage marriage between men and women.

I have yet to meet a married couple who did not get married out of an intense desire to be lifetime companions, but being companions is not the beneficial reason behind thousands of years of human societies and governments supporting marriage, and viewing marriage as playing a vital role in their future.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:59 PM.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top