Your probably going to argue with me.. but tell me why?

[LadyTrinity]

I am going to a Rally for man and woman marriage because my bf thinks its the right thing. But considering the divorce rate is higher than ever can someone tell me why we should want to keep marriage for only men and woman? We dont seem to be doing it right anyways since were not keeping our vows :smooch:

[Sleet]

I don't think it should be only for a man and a woman.

A gay feller ought to have the same chance to get half his stuff taken by a divorce lawyer as a straight feller. ;)

[DragonWhispers]

I don't think marriage should be between just a man and woman either. Love does not define, so who are we to try and define it? If people love each other than let them get married, I say.

[LacyRoze]

Look, I come from a strict Southern, Christian upbringing but I don't agree marriage should be just between a man and a woman. Love is love no matter what. Now hubby disagrees with me on this but that's his problem. I think if you love each other and are truly committed to each other then you should be able to marry.In my mind it's about more than just marriage, it's about rights...

[DraoinanDuanaire]

Marriage should be whatever the society in question decides for itself. Anything else is cultural oppression.

[Peacepoet]

I think it is a high level of hypocrisy that the lawmakers would say that gay marriage is immoral as they are banging their secretaries behind their wives backs.

But also, I want to add a concern of mine over the original post....if you do not believe in the rally that you are attending, why attend it simply because your boyfriend thinks it is right? How about how you feel on the issue? Be careful....I know from experience that changing yourself to suit a man will only end in pain. That is why I moved on.

[ravenmyst]

I think it is a high level of hypocrisy that the lawmakers would say that gay marriage is immoral as they are banging their secretaries behind their wives backs.

But also, I want to add a concern of mine over the original post....if you do not believe in the rally that you are attending, why attend it simply because your boyfriend thinks it is right? How about how you feel on the issue? Be careful....I know from experience that changing yourself to suit a man will only end in pain. That is why I moved on. ditto what she said, both parts

[Amethyst Rose]

Yeah, I do too. Never do something just because your SO thinks it's the right thing to do. Do it cuz YOU think it's right.

[LadyTrinity]

I think it is a high level of hypocrisy that the lawmakers would say that gay marriage is immoral as they are banging their secretaries behind their wives backs.

But also, I want to add a concern of mine over the original post....if you do not believe in the rally that you are attending, why attend it simply because your boyfriend thinks it is right? How about how you feel on the issue? Be careful....I know from experience that changing yourself to suit a man will only end in pain. That is why I moved on.


I was going to go with my bf because his mom and dad were going and he needed to show his dad a car bill. As for my opinion on this issue. I think if you love someone you should be allowed to marry them regardless of gender. My bf knows this about me. He says... "well its not fair for kids to grow up without both a mom and dad" I say " well alot of families are single parent households.. and even domestic violence is at an all time high.. " if two people of the same gender can show a child the right way to respect each other it is better than a child witnessing a man and woman fight all the time

[sari0009]

In many countries and times, the state didn't always have the power to grant marriage (licenses) or deem marriages valid or not. The people directly involved did. It's not an unknown that in some times and places that people "simply" declared themselves married before others ... and so they were.

Either way, if the state's power and judgment is involved in marriage and divorce or not, it's problematic...But for purposes of clarity and length in this particular thread I'll leave off that topic except to say that as soon as state was given the right and power to grant and oversee marriages and divorce (not that it should or shouldn't), sooner or later it was bound to get into the murky troublesome waters of state wielding the theological underpinnings power card.

It is in vogue to wield that card now.

That, Lady Trinity, is how I see the marriage "is" a man-woman only proclamation. It is undeniably based in centuries-long entrenched social-religious-political conditioning and understandings that go so very deep that many or most in our society may share it -- whether they are religious or not and even if they are of vastly different religions, some of which have no such restrictions.

I believe many are trying to further entrench such views/values, the word entrench having very interesting meanings and implications in both law and society.

I believe, more than the theological underpinnings card (which is just a tool to them), they (1) fear the disruption of the social order, (2) fear of a sexual expression that is different, and they (3) especially fear the deconstruction of the good ol' boy model from the inside out. That would be a direct threat to their personal power, way of networking, and so on and so forth. So, they try to steer the nation accordingly and it's not always about our best intestests, though they will try to claim just that.

Things are changing, society is changing, not disintegrating. What's happening is as a nation matures the people are trying to redefine both society and their roles for themselves, according to what makes sense in their lives. That, however, challenges political power and structure. Those in the pulpit and in office overreact. Politicians buddy up with the "far right" to push things further "backward". It's an expression of stark fear and denial.

[Rev R]

Abolish marriage completely and kill the lawyers and politicians while at it.

Lady T the only advice for you I have is "know your enemy"

[sari0009]

That would be overreacting to others overreacting--Anarchy isn't a good answer to the good ol' boy power elite fighting to keep things the way they "are."

[Valerie]

I am going to a Rally for man and woman marriage because my bf thinks its the right thing. But considering the divorce rate is higher than ever can someone tell me why we should want to keep marriage for only men and woman? We dont seem to be doing it right anyways since were not keeping our vows :smooch:

(Underlining Mine) Check this out - The Central Bureau of Statistics in the Netherlands publicized their data on gay marriages, which were allowed in 2001 in the Netherlands. Of all the gay couples that got married between 2001 and 2003, 63 couples got divorced, which is about 1 %. Of all heterosexual marriages, about 30% breaks up eventually.
But because gay marriage has only been allowed for a few years and the marriages aren't too ancient yet, and because gay marriage was suddenly allowed (which means that couples that were living together for a long time also have often decided to get married), they anticipate that in time, the divorce rate of gay couples will approximate the one in heterosexual couples.

[DraoinanDuanaire]

What's happening is as a nation matures the people are trying to redefine both society and their roles for themselves, according to what makes sense in their lives. That, however, challenges political power and structure.

And the desires of the majority of the nation for their own future and society. Don't forget about them.

[IvyWitch]

Really, if i's not something that you agree with, then why go because your boyfriend wants you to? It's not his place to ask you rally for something you don't believe in because he does, or he just wants the company. Personally, if you are for gay marriage and you go to a "traditional marriage" rally, I say you are doing yourself a huge disservice.

[FlyingBear]

[QUOTE=LadyTrinity] I am going to a Rally for man and woman marriage because my bf thinks its the right thing. QUOTE]


Ok, bully for him. What do *YOU* think?

[HorseCrow]

I don't think marriage should be between just a man and woman either. Love does not define, so who are we to try and define it? If people love each other than let them get married, I say.

I agree.

[Jenne]

Marriage should be whatever the society in question decides for itself. Anything else is cultural oppression.
And time was when "society" thought women shouldn't vote, people can be owned as slaves, and all sorts of other lovely "freedoms" were for only a select group of people.

I think I'll stick to MY OWN judgment, and not follow the dictates necessarily of those in power. Otherwise, that's governmental oppression, as permitted by the voting majority.

LT, I wouldn't go to the rally were I you. I'd tell your bf that you'll meet him for coffee or a drink afterwards but that you don't believe in it, and while you have your own brain to think with and he with his, you'll stand for what you think is right.

[DraoinanDuanaire]

And time was when "society" thought women shouldn't vote, people can be owned as slaves, and all sorts of other lovely "freedoms" were for only a select group of people.

Yep. And by definition, other people forcing them to change is cultural oppression.


I think I'll stick to MY OWN judgment, and not follow the dictates necessarily of those in power. Otherwise, that's governmental oppression, as permitted by the voting majority.

Also true. It would appear that one size does not fit all.

[Yasmine Galenorn]

I am going to a Rally for man and woman marriage because my bf thinks its the right thing. But considering the divorce rate is higher than ever can someone tell me why we should want to keep marriage for only men and woman? We dont seem to be doing it right anyways since were not keeping our vows :smooch:

Quite frankly, I think that when two strangers can get married when they're drunk (as happens occasionally in Vegas), but when two people who've been together for years who love each other can't get married, then something's seriously wrong with the ethics of this country. Marriage isn't just for procreation--there are a number of child-free (and childless--not by choice) couples who love each other and create a family without children. To stick a heterosexual stamp on marriage is to pretty much consign it to a religious institution, and I simply don't see it as that, so much as a union of two people who wish to share their lives together.

I would never attend a rally for a cause I didn't believe in just because my boyfriend (or in my case, husband) thought it was right. Tacit support when you don't really believe in something is as good as promoting it.

Yasmine G. :colorful:

[Penthesilea]

You've received a lot of good advice on the bf/rally thing. Take it. You can bet that if you don't you will find at some point the bf or his family will decide to do your thinking for you, including what faith you should follow. And that, let me tell you, can get nasty. Now, the question? Should marriage be restricted to a man and a woman? No. While religions have, and would continue to have, the right to decide who would receive the sacrament of marriage, the state should arrange to recognize unions between consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation or gender. What, really, does a civil marriage do? First, it establishes the primary next of kin. Your spouse is automatically your closest next of kin and legally entitled to make decisions for you if you can't. Second, it establishes inheritance rights. Your spouse inherits ahead of your parents, siblings and your adult children. If your children are minors and you and your partner's relationship is recognized by the state, their interests are protected in the event of your death and your partner will become their guardian, barring powerful evidence that she/he is an unfit guardian. Third, it establishes the legal parentage of children. The rights of children born or adopted into a legal marriage are much more secure than those whose parents are not married. Being married also carries some tax benefits as well as being covered by employee benefit plans and such. The loudly proclaimed contention that children raised in anything other than a two parent nuclear household are somehow "inferior" in upbringing is, to put it delicately, a load of fresh, organic fertilizer. I was raised by my widowed mother and I got into less trouble than my cousins raised in the hallowed two parent families. The only thing a religious ceremony does is say: "It is okay for you two to go have sex until your brains fall out. You have our blessing. " Until the fact of the ceremony is recorded with the state, it isn't legal in the eyes of the state. In short, if the person performing the ceremony forgets to file the paper work, it is not legal. Legalizing gay marriage or civil unions will not undercut the foundaton of marriage. It will simply make those uncomfortable with the thought of two people of the same sex being intimate, more uncomfortable. I say: deal with it!

[enchancea]

I dont think marriage should be just between a man and woman, it should be for any 2 individuals who love each other

[melantha rose]

Marraige should be between two people who have proclaimed their Love for each other, and determined that they want to grow old together. It should not matter what gender those two people are. The divorce rate among heterosexual couples is so high, it can no longer be considered "sacred" to wed. It is not the act of marraige that makes a relationship sacred. It is the relationship itself.

I have known quite a few gay couples in my time, both male and female. When I was a teenager, I spent the night at my cousin's best friend's house (in another town, not the Bible-thumper town I grew up in). Her mother was a lesbian, and in the household were the mother, the 2 kids she had adopted (incl. my cousin's friend), the Love of her life for over 20 years (a woman), and the 2 kids she had adopted. There were 2 women, 3 girls and 1 boy in that house. And it was the most wonderful, fun, loving household I have ever been in. I didn't want to leave. The women, who are both physicians, could not openly admit their relationship to anyone for fear of losing their positions at the hospital they worked at, and of having the 4 children they had raised since infants taken from them. They were just thought of as "roommates". My grandfather's sister was also a lesbian and lived with the same woman for over 30 years, until her death. They were also considered "roommates". A good friend of mine today has lived with his "roommate" for over 10 years now. Although, he is the kind that says "to hell with them, He's my husband!" They said their own vows to each other, wear wedding rings, and have had wills made up, to ensure that they are each other's primary beneficiary upon death. But, legally, they have no grounds to stand on in the "marraige" realm. This sucks!! Why can't they be married just the same as me & my husband are?? My friend loves his husband just as much as I love mine. And, they raised my friend's beautiful daughter (now 21 yr old, from his unfortunate marraige to a female years ago) together. She just recently got married to the love of her life--a guy. And for those who think homosexuality is not natural, think again. Homosexuality is in every species of animal on the planet. I know. I had a gay dog--well, actually, he was bisexual.

[ap Dafydd]

Something that no one's mentioned is whether all marriage ought to be civil and thereby taking a lot of the argument out of the moral arena.

Two people want to enter into partnership with the various legal implications of marriage go to the local authority and carry out the ceremony.

Afterwards, if they are of a religion, they go to their church/temple/mosque/stone circle/whatever and do whatever ceremonies and vows to their divinities they think appropriate.

Some European countries do this already, makes a certain sense.

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

[wyrdmage]

I'm for whatever works between anyone. Why worry? What would it accomplish to be so structured? I say this as I am expecting to give away my mother at her civil union ceremony. It didn't hurt me one bit and my mother is happy. I think that is what counts. Getting married is a lot of pressure that needn't be there. Many people don't realize what they are getting into and they have problems with many issues. I think everyone would be better with a simple agreement between the parties involved and be able to dissolve it when it is over. No legality, no fuss, no muss. Fineto

[ajna]

I wish americans would stop putting such a moral spin to a legal union. I live in Oklahoma at the moment -- one of those states that banned same sex unions "unanimously" -- so my opinion is in the minority here. It just seems like here, of all places, people should see how bad it is. We don't produce many lasting marriages in this state.

[LadyTrinity]

EQUALITY FOR ALL :clapping:

[ajna]

EQUALITY FOR ALL :clapping:
:woot:

[monk3y]

I agree with you wyrdmage,

and yes indeed EQUALITY FOR ALL

:ringaroun

[DraoinanDuanaire]

We have equality now. This has been done to death in other forums.

I have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex, of a given age and not related to myself. Homosexual Henry has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex, of a given age and not related to himself.

I do not have the legal right to marry anyone I love. Neither does Homosexual Henry. Sucks, huh? That's what happens when you let the state control things like this.

[monk3y]

We have equality now. This has been done to death in other forums.

You seemed to be annoyed that others don't share "This is how it is, just shut up about it" attitude.

Hows about you just let other people have their opinion without tearing that opinion apart.

If you want to be happy about the way things are thats your business.

If you want to be piXXed of about the way things are, again thats your business.

But for those of us that feel that our rights as gay citizens from whichever country we live in isn't being looked after thats our business and if you don't like it then thats tough.

We are fighting for our equality, our equality will be defined by who we are, not by your biased opinion.

If you don't agree with me I accept that as your opinion but I am not going to agree with it. That is your right as a free indervidual.

The argument of gays marrying in a same-sex union affecting anyone else but the couple in question is rediculous. Those two people will be of the highest impact of that decision. Who cares if it offends other people ?! They need to get over it .. YES THEY DO!

Strangly enough bigots still have a problem with interacial marriage.

Strangly enough bigots still have a problem with women having a career.

And no doubt those same bigots will have a problem with gay marriage till death does them part from this life.
etc.

Although that isn't entirely fair as I know alot of people learn valueable life lessons along their way and evolve into better people. And I pray that everyone is on that path of self betterment.

Canada has moved in the right direction as has other places, we are evolving into a better society, people are uniting over things that years ago would have caused conflict. Unfortunately there are still people that like to be stuck with their old ideas and expect that other should be stuck in the mud with them.

Equality For All !! :fpeace:

[DraoinanDuanaire]

You seemed to be annoyed that others don't share "This is how it is, just shut up about it" attitude.

Dissenting from a popular slogan due to the illogic involved is not annoyance. :)


Hows about you just let other people have their opinion without tearing that opinion apart.

I haven't torn anyone's opinion apart. If you feel pointing out the facts at hand is "tearing" your opinion "apart", perhaps your "opinion" isn't thought out very well.


But for those of us that feel that our rights as gay citizens from whichever country we live in isn't being looked after thats our business and if you don't like it then thats tough.

It's also tough if you can't handle reality. Chant all the slogans you want, it's no skin off my nose.


We are fighting for our equality, our equality will be defined by who we are, not by your biased opinion.

My biased opinion...? As opposed to yours? Sorry I didn't jump on the bandwagon...:rolleyes:


If you don't agree with me I accept that as your opinion but I am not going to agree with it. That is your right as a free indervidual.

I don't care if you agree with my opinion. I simply stated the facts.


The argument of gays marrying in a same-sex union affecting anyone else but the couple in question is rediculous.

I don't believe that argument has been brought up here save by yourself. Who are you arguing with?


Equality For All !!

[insert empty slogan here]

[BrigidMoon]

I think marriage is something that's personal. I don't think it should be dictated as to who we can marry or not. But that's me.

[monk3y]

So now the question is DraoinanDuanaire ..

What kind of emotional expression are you making by trying invalidate my views ?
The emptiness your picking up on isn't coming from my direction. Redirect your Angsty attitude back on yourself. I will not welcome it

I'm here to grow as a human, if that amuses you then so be it but regardless I am growing and helping to teach others.

I just think your childishly ridiculing what you don't understand. You have an opinion about something so you feel the need to retionalise it by dumbing down my opinion. I get the feeling you will deny this but it is quite clear in your approach that you want to amuse yourself by ridiculing me, all you are achieving is showing a lack of respect for another person that is your equal.

There is a difference in people having a difference of ideas to people minimising other peoples points to validate their own.

We should try and give each other as much respect as we can because nothing can be gained from negativity. I'm adding to the thread to discuss the original topic.

I ask for your respect.

I won't be further drawn into a word war with you as I already feel it's a waste of both of our time.

[DragonsChest]

I wish americans would stop putting such a moral spin to a legal union. I live in Oklahoma at the moment -- one of those states that banned same sex unions "unanimously" -- so my opinion is in the minority here. It just seems like here, of all places, people should see how bad it is. We don't produce many lasting marriages in this state.


We produce a few -- my hubby and I met and married in Oklahoma, and we will be celebrating our 23rd anniversary this year. :smoochypo If I had the right to marry my choice, why shouldn't everyone?

That being said, I am aware that homosexuality is present in all species on earth. At the same time, if the balance of between same sex marriages vs hetero marriages were to shift drastically in favor of same sex unions, say an outlandish percentage of 80%, where would the next generations come from? Nature created humans to have children between man and woman in order to perpetuate the species. If we were all or mostly gay, we'd die off as a species.

[monk3y]

If we were all or mostly gay, we'd die off as a species.

I understand the point your making but it needs to be pointed out that alot of gay people have children. And not all hetrosexual couples have children for whatever reason.

[DragonsChest]

I understand the point your making but it needs to be pointed out that alot of gay people have children. And not all hetrosexual couples have children for whatever reason.


True, lots of gay people have adopted kids or had assistance in having kids themselves. But if the percentage were to shift to something like 80% gay and 20% hetero, I don't think those 20% could produce enough kids for the species to continue and still have a few left over for gay couples to adopt.

And if some of those 20% don't have kids, what then?

Still, the balance isn't like that, it was only an example, so the population isn't really in danger. I still think that even if a homosexual union isn't for me, it may be for others and it really doesn't hurt me to say, let love win out.

[monk3y]

I still think that even if a homosexual union isn't for me, it may be for others and it really doesn't hurt me to say, let love win out.

I think that's very cool and open minded :)

[Sleet]

Still, the balance isn't like that, it was only an example, so the population isn't really in danger.

If global underpopulation ever becomes a problem, it won't be homosexuality that causes it.

[DraoinanDuanaire]

So now the question is DraoinanDuanaire ..

I am not the question. :)


What kind of emotional expression are you making by trying invalidate my views ?

What makes you believe I'm looking for an "emotional expression?" I'm simply pointing out that the government holds everyone to the same marriage criteria. This is a fact.


The emptiness your picking up on isn't coming from my direction.

What emptiness?


Redirect your Angsty attitude back on yourself.

What angsty attitude?


I'm here to grow as a human, if that amuses you then so be it but regardless I am growing and helping to teach others.

Utter non sequitur. Are we reading the same thread?


I just think your childishly ridiculing what you don't understand.

I think you're just making things up that you believe sound pithy. "Emptiness?" "Angsty attitude?"

Why not address what's said instead of your own fantasies?


You have an opinion about something so you feel the need to retionalise it by dumbing down my opinion.

No, my opinion stands on its own. It needs no relative "retionalising."


I get the feeling you will deny this but it is quite clear in your approach that you want to amuse yourself by ridiculing me, all you are achieving is showing a lack of respect for another person that is your equal.

This has nothing to do with ridiculing you. Why do you believe any thought different from your own is ridicule? How fragile.


I won't be further drawn into a word war with you as I already feel it's a waste of both of our time.

Ok. :)

[Sleet]

I am not the question. :)

(snip)

You know, DD, there's a lot of people who look at this problem differently and approach it differently than you do. Constantly browbeating people who do whenever they open their mouths until they run away or modify their thoughts to fit yours it isn't helping you win many converts.

[DragonsChest]

If global underpopulation ever becomes a problem, it won't be homosexuality that causes it.


Not sure I'm following you here, but maybe you are inferring controls such as China (one child only) has enforced causing an unnatural balance?

[IvyWitch]

Sleet does have a point DD.

I think the problem is that you're speaking from the stance of "this is how it is, and nothing will change that". But, that's not true. Right now the government may have certain critera and homosexual marriage doesn't fit very well into it doesn't mean that it's the end all be all of decision on the matter and that people who feel that the critera should be changed are stupid and living in fantasy. That's the nice thing about our government - there is room for changing things, and a way to go about changing them. Really, why argue that things should stay the way they are because "that's just the way it is"?

[DraoinanDuanaire]

You know, DD, there's a lot of people who look at this problem differently and approach it differently than you do.

Same applies to us all, I'd think.


Constantly browbeating people who do whenever they open their mouths until they run away or modify their thoughts to fit yours it isn't helping you win many converts.

I'm not looking for consensus, I'm looking for reason. "Equality for all" is a catchy slogan, but without any sort of logical basis, that's all it is...a slogan.

[Sleet]

Not sure I'm following you here, but maybe you are inferring controls such as China (one child only) has enforced causing an unnatural balance?

Biological or nuclear war, or some enviornmental disaster of a scale as yet unseen in human history, was what I had in mind. China's one child policy will lead to problems, but mostly of the political and social variety, I think.

[Sleet]

I'm not looking for consensus, I'm looking for reason.

You're browbeating people to get it. It's not getting you anywhere.

[DraoinanDuanaire]

Sleet does have a point DD.

They usually do. :)


I think the problem is that you're speaking from the stance of "this is how it is, and nothing will change that".

Not in the least! I'm simply saying "this is the way it is, and if you don't like that, at least know what you don't like."


Really, why argue that things should stay the way they are because "that's just the way it is"?

I'm not suggesting that. My points in these discussions (homosexual marriage discussions) are usually a simple two: we're all held to the same, equal standard; it's no more right (or wrong) for homosexuals to try and shape our shared society than it is for, say, evangelical Baptists to. That's all.

What bothers me personally is that so many people focus on the fact that a man can't marry another man (with the following idea being that the government should allow it) and not the fact that the government has no place in such a thing at all.

It's like the idiots that call for gun control when a Muslim criminal shoots a bunch of people. The gun isn't the problem, the terrorist is. Similarly, the problem isn't that homosexuals aren't allowed in the marriage club favored by the government, but that the government has such a club to begin with. If this was really about "equality" or freedom, that would be the perceived problem.

But that's going outside the scope of this discussion, especially being in "Just Talk" as it is.

[Nighthawk]

Well, I figure do what you will. Whoever you love. Love them.

[DraoinanDuanaire]

You're browbeating people to get it. It's not getting you anywhere.

I'm happy with the progress thus far, actually. If you don't like it, you're free to skip my posts. Gods forbid anyone upset the happy "equality" circle.

[Sleet]

I'm happy with the progress thus far, actually. If you don't like it, you're free to skip my posts. Gods forbid anyone upset the happy "equality" circle.

This is what I'm referring to:


What bothers me personally is that so many people focus on the fact that a man can't marry another man (with the following idea being that the government should allow it) and not the fact that the government has no place in such a thing at all.

This is what I'm talking about. Your constant demands for ideological purity, from any who deviate in the slightest from your personal vision, really poison the well for further discussion.

Different people have different approaches to the problem.

Edit: Point taken on the original topic and location of this thread. I'll leave it at that.

[DraoinanDuanaire]

This is what I'm talking about. Your constant demands for ideological purity, from any who deviate in the slightest from your personal vision, really poison the well for further discussion.

But the demands that I not rock the boat...don't?

Interesting idea of "discussion."

[Cadabuz]

They usually do. :)



Not in the least! I'm simply saying "this is the way it is, and if you don't like that, at least know what you don't like."



I'm not suggesting that. My points in these discussions (homosexual marriage discussions) are usually a simple two: we're all held to the same, equal standard; it's no more right (or wrong) for homosexuals to try and shape our shared society than it is for, say, evangelical Baptists to. That's all.

What bothers me personally is that so many people focus on the fact that a man can't marry another man (with the following idea being that the government should allow it) and not the fact that the government has no place in such a thing at all.

It's like the idiots that call for gun control when a Muslim criminal shoots a bunch of people. The gun isn't the problem, the terrorist is. Similarly, the problem isn't that homosexuals aren't allowed in the marriage club favored by the government, but that the government has such a club to begin with. If this was really about "equality" or freedom, that would be the perceived problem.

But that's going outside the scope of this discussion, especially being in "Just Talk" as it is.

Reading this thread I did not think I would agree with your opinion at all. And truthfully I would have used more tact than you did to emphasize my opinion.

I do agree with what you said one of your points were though. I think the underlying problem is there for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. I do lean towards the thought that the government has no business in anyone's love life or marriage.

There is a problem with this though. Divorce is something that has been around a long, long time and I do not see the world shifting to where only people who will be married until death will actually be the only people getting married. So Divorce on some scale is inevitable. So when divorce happens between two people, who is to decide who gets what. Which is why when two people get married they sign a contract with the government stating that the government will settle any disputes if the marriage should not work out.

In the perfect world we would all love and respect each other and would do what was best for the majority all of the time. This simply is not the case.

Truth be truth, I say what is good for the goose is good for the gander. As we have to accept the laws of the government we live under until those laws are changed or suffer the consequences if caught breaking those laws.

So yes I agree there is an inherent problem with the way marriage is in the US, but it is how it is.

Now here in the US when enough people are informed with the truth of something and agree to stand together in change then that change is possible.

So in this regards I do disagree with you. You say this subject has been "talked" to death (I forget the exact wording you used) I firmly disagree as if that were the case then a change would have already taken place.

I think that if there is a subject that one feels strongly enough about to take time out of their day consistently to discuss it then that is something that is important to that person. If that person can share their views honestly with another person and gainful information is exchanged on that topic how can that be wrong?

I think the reason that some people "went after you" was purely based on the way you stated your opinions. With the typed word it is easy to say something that you mean one way but is taken another as the inflection and body language have been removed.

I think this topic is a very good topic and I agree that homosexual couples should have the availability to all the benefits and hardships allowed by the government as heterosexual couples do including marriage.

[Jenne]

Biological or nuclear war, or some enviornmental disaster of a scale as yet unseen in human history, was what I had in mind. China's one child policy will lead to problems, but mostly of the political and social variety, I think.
From what I hear, Sleet, China already reaps what it's been sowing for 30 years or so with that one-child rule. Together with the export of what little girls are allowed to live and the preponderance of boys born there, there's a huge shortage of females to carry on the family names! Pretty soon, Chinese men will have to IMport their wives (perhaps from Taiwan?).

[Illuminatus]

Your Boyfriend sounds like a real winner! Good luck with that fellow of yours.....



cause you'll need it!

[DragonsChest]

Your Boyfriend sounds like a real winner! Good luck with that fellow of yours.....



cause you'll need it!


That was the original intent of the thread, wasn't it? That her bf wanted her to attend a gathering for something she doesn't believe in.

To answer that: say yes, if he will attend something that means a great deal to you in return. If he demurs, then find something else to do that day. A relationship should have give and take in it, and if he's not willing to do something for you, then why should you for him?