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.
Well, the option should not be there to think about.
You mean you want to only allow straight people who are "in love" to get married? Liz Taylor is going to have a few problems with that. Britney is going to throw a tantrum.
You mean you want to only allow straight people who are "in love" to get married? Liz Taylor is going to have a few problems with that. Britney is going to throw a tantrum.
I don't think marriage traditionally had a whole lot to do with "love." It's primarily an economic partnership that furthers the interests of the children that arise from it, and the interests of the extended family in general. Love is nice, but it has a tendency to wax and wane. The waning phases can seem interminable. The old folks knew this was a fact of life. The younger ones seemed to view that as a crisis meriting divorce.
I think as long as people view marriage as primarily a romantic/sexual partnership, it's going to have a rough time remaining relevant to the low-fertility chattering class.
The whole thing matters more to people with kids than without them (and people tend to become more socially conservative the more kids they have.)
I'm not in favor of it because it alters one of the key institutions of our society. I am in favor of civil unions that grant all rights and privileges.
There are many "religious" people that would favor gay marriage. Not everyone that does not favor it is "religious." Looking at it that way just makes it easier to dismiss their point of view.
that may be true (that some would favor gay marriage), but for the most part, those that want to push their anti-choice, anti- gay union/marriage etc. on us are RELIGIOUS. So I will clarify my statement and say that I don't want anything to do with evangelical, conservative "religious" people.
There are very few religions that I have respect for, amongst them Unitarians and Buddhists (more of a philosophy than a religion). They actually practice what they preach. Most people don't.
If it is decided that marriage should be a religious institution entirely with no civil aspects whatsoever, then that would be reasonable enough to me. Couples, regardless of gender, can be married in their churches. Some churches will marry gay couples and others will not.
I just have a soft spot for reactionaries; they're so underappreciated.
Almost every civilization in the history of mankind has opposed homosexuality. I think that the Mayans were OK with it, but then the Aztecs and then the Spanish put a stop to that. No the Greeks and Romans didn't approve - it was more about power and domination - for example, it was against Roman Law for a Roman citizen to be penetrated...
If someone can add to the historical aspects of this discussion I'd like to hear it...
There are very few religions that I have respect for, amongst them Unitarians and Buddhists (more of a philosophy than a religion). They actually practice what they preach. Most people don't.
Unitarians really don't, either. I had to quit attending a nearby UU church when the lily-white membership got all snitty about the racism of "the Religious Right" regarding Segregation in America, given that the entire Religious Education program is white and that virtually all the membership lived in equally lily-white suburban areas.
Gee, you'd think they were... hypocritically deriding "Republicans" without taking the log out of their own eyes first. But nice progressive types never do THAT, do they?
It was just too hilariously rich for me to handle politely.
Unitarians really don't, either. I had to quit attending a nearby UU church when the lily-white membership got all snitty about the racism of "the Religious Right" regarding Segregation in America, given that the entire Religious Education program is white and that virtually all the membership lived in equally lily-white suburban areas.
It was just too hilariously rich for me to handle politely.
I guess I was drawing conclusions from a Unitarian church in the DC Metro area that I went to a couple of times, with friends.
Thanks for clearing that misconception up.
I guess I was drawing conclusions from a Unitarian church in the DC Metro area that I went to a couple of times, with friends.
Thanks for clearing that misconception up.
Doesn't that make the point that they're not all the same and fit into little boxes?
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.
