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.
the same thing that is wrong with gays in general. Marriage is ment to be between a man and a woman. Relationships are ment to be between a man and a woman. Is there anything rigth about gay marriage? No, theres not.
Cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria.
But seriously, let gay couples have all the rights and benefits of married couples. I don't care what label is put on it. You uptight fundies can keep the "marriage" title if you want, all I want is that every loving couple be offered ALL the same rights as any other loving couple. Who cares what the plumbing happens to be? That's such an inconsequential thing.
I don't personally oppose it, but I understand and respect the POV of people who do.
Traditional marriage has been pretty well under attack since, oh, at least the 60s-- the no-fault divorce laws got pushed under the idea that "what difference does it make to YOU if other people choose to get a divorce?" etc.
Well, obviously, it did matter to the institution as a whole, more than most people could have guessed; and now a mere 40 years later, we're hearing the same "what's-it-to-you?" refrain from basically the same radical-elite social quarters who actively disrespect traditionalists and "fundies?"
I'd be suspicious, too.
We really don't know what the ramifications will be... some people are just plain sick of being dragged into weird social experiments.
But I suspect marriage will continue to be experimented with till the only ones left interested in it are hard-core patriarchalists who view it primarily in terms of raising children, not romantic or sexual fulfillment.
I don't personally oppose it, but I understand and respect the POV of people who do.
Traditional marriage has been pretty well under attack since, oh, at least the 60s-- the no-fault divorce laws got pushed under the idea that "what difference does it make to YOU if other people choose to get a divorce?" etc.
Well, obviously, it did matter to the institution as a whole, more than most people could have guessed; and now a mere 40 years later, we're hearing the same "what's-it-to-you?" refrain from basically the same radical-elite social quarters?
I'd be suspicious, too. We really don't know what the ramifications will be... some people are just plain sick of being dragged into weird social experiments.
Really, what IS it to you? Does your neighbor's divorce make your marriage immediately unhappy, or null and void?
It's like complaining that the brand of toilet paper used by the guy down the road causes your brand of paper to chap your hiney.
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.
Really, what IS it to you? Does your neighbor's divorce make your marriage immediately unhappy, or null and void?
It's like complaining that the brand of toilet paper used by the guy down the road causes your brand of paper to chap your hiney.
Not really. If mass numbers of my neighbors divorce, their kids are still living in my neighborhood, relying more and more on taxpayer-funded services, causing more school and community disruption, and generally making life more difficult for me and my own family.
In small numbers, these problems were easily absorbed. In a world where half of all marriages end in divorce, the fallout becomes difficult to handle. In a world where half of all kids are born to people who didn't even bother to marry in the first place... you witness a lot of community disintegration.
Flight to the atomized 'burbs where you think you can hide from the dysfunction.
The value of stable two-parent households to community development are quite well-established. The kids are less prone to crime, drugs, violence, more likely to finish school, less likely to get pregnant as teenagers, blah, blah, blah.
So yeah, easy divorce has been very bad for everyone, even the long-term marrieds.
Not really. If mass numbers of my neighbors divorce, their kids are still living in my neighborhood, relying more and more on taxpayer-funded services, causing more school and community disruption, and generally making life more difficult for me and my own family.
In small numbers, these problems were easily absorbed. In a world where half of all marriages end in divorce, the fallout becomes difficult to handle. In a world where half of all kids are born to people who didn't even bother to marry in the first place... you witness a lot of community disintegration.
Flight to the atomized 'burbs where you think you can hide from the dysfunction.
The value of stable two-parent households to community development are quite well-established. The kids are less prone to crime, drugs, violence, more likely to finish school, less likely to get pregnant as teenagers, blah, blah, blah.
So yeah, easy divorce has been very bad for everyone, even the long-term marrieds.
Those kids would still be using the same services in any case, because if they need them after a divorce it means one or both of the parents are being irresponsible about paying child support. So it's an issue of deadbeat dads or deadbeat moms. I think you need to point a finger at the lack of personal responsibility rather than divorce.
the same thing that is wrong with gays in general. Marriage is ment to be between a man and a woman. Relationships are ment to be between a man and a woman. Is there anything rigth about gay marriage? No, theres not.
Exactly. It is completely unnatural. The fact that our government recognizes gay rights at all upsets me. Even if a gay couple is not legally married, their partner can still receive benefits with certain companies that should be exclusive to married (man and woman) couples. That ain't right!
Exactly. It is completely unnatural. The fact that our government recognizes gay rights at all upsets me. Even if a gay couple is not legally married, their partner can still receive benefits with certain companies that should be exclusive to married (man and woman) couples. That ain't right!
It's a shame isn't it? I'm thinking of marrying a lesbian for the tax breaks.
Those kids would still be using the same services in any case, because if they need them after a divorce it means one or both of the parents are being irresponsible about paying child support. So it's an issue of deadbeat dads or deadbeat moms. I think you need to point a finger at the lack of personal responsibility rather than divorce.
There may be some truth to that, but if divorce was not so easy and not seen as an easy out, people might not enter into as lightly.
Those kids would still be using the same services in any case, because if they need them after a divorce it means one or both of the parents are being irresponsible about paying child support. So it's an issue of deadbeat dads or deadbeat moms. I think you need to point a finger at the lack of personal responsibility rather than divorce.
But the easy-divorce laws made skirting personal responsibility easier in the first place. Anyway, maintaining two separate households is an expense few family budgets can handle without impacting the children-- and that's not even counting in the emotional and social costs of divorce, which no child support check can cure.
Sorry, but some of my husband's family is riddled with divorce. It's absolutely awful on the kids, even as they become adults themselves.
The adults can give them all the material crapola in the world, but none of that even begins to make up for the fact that their families are fundamentally broken. My parents-in-law are hardcore conservatives when it comes to family values stuff, and only now are their 40-year-old children coming to see how right those "boring" old-fashioned values were. Most of the grandkids, reaching their 20s, don't even have to be told. They lived it, and know how ugly it really is.
Shrug. I'm just not all that impressed with the Boomers' "if it feels good, do it" mantra, and this gay marriage stuff seems like a retread of some very dull and familiar ground. When was the last time that kind of thinking led us anywhere good?
Not that I care, of course.
I am much too stodgy to actually oppose gay marriage. I just have a soft spot for reactionaries; they're so underappreciated.
Last edited by coffeehound; 02-14-2008 at 02:26 PM..
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.
