wife or husband?

The scary thing is he claimed to be a teacher.

Yes, you've made it abundantly clear that you have a problem with this subset of the population. Not only did I understand it, I answered it. Twice. You repeating the question does nothing to help it sink in... it only shows that you enjoy typing.To repeat myself again... whether or not marriage is over-rated is irrelevant. Clearly, those who want to get married think it's good. Homosexuals who think it's good are excluded from doing so. This is a bad thing. And as above, are you saying that because there are flaws in the system, we should not correct these flaws when they arise? Yes, it's very simple. We all get together and say, "Okay... homosexuals? You can get married now." Then we let them do so.See how easy that is? The fact that there are people who refuse to do that means that those people need to correct their behavior, not that homosexuals need to set their sights somewhere lower than full equality.

just one more thingit is offensive to me to see gays referred to as subset. it is what I meant by having a problem.I wish you more happy understanding time.Am I saying that because there are......etc.? Thought you understand what I'm saying.As for people correcting their behavior? No, they do not have to.

Any special reason why? There is the set referred to as "Americans", and then the subset of Americans referred to as "homosexuals". I just like looking at those two sentences next to each other. So I thought it might be fun to quote them. They're the ones who have a problem with basic human equality. So yes, their behavior needs to change if we are to correct the flaws in the execution of the fourteenth amendment.Or I guess technically we could just sidestep them altogether, and get the Supreme Court to get off their asses and start enforcing the Constitution.

the over-ratedness of marriage in general has nothing to do with the gay marriage issue other than as a warning (be careful what you wish for ... )the gay marriage issue has more to do with rights than with the certificate and the relationship -- rights that are denied to people who are not married even though they have the same relationship as married people.these laws when combined with a law or ammendment that defines marriage (per recent efforts in several states), will result in the same legal innequities that led the conservative supreme court to overturn the anti-sodomy laws in texas, and thus will enevitably result in the loss of either the definition or the special rights (and based on precedent I would expect it to be the special rights that go the way of the dodo ... and good ridance imho).these rights are not insignificant: rights to visit a sick loved one in hospital; rights to express what you know are their wishes when they are no longer able to do so themselves; rights to make terminal decisions when necessary; rights to have a say in funeral arrangements; rights to have a say in inheritance issues; rights to income tax and similar benefits ... etc etc and so on (to put it baldly).if these rights only pertain to married people AND one group of people is not allowed to get married even if they want to THEN there is inequity, and it is unamerican.one or the other will go, it is inevitable.and given that there are also households where people live together in a non-sexual relationships, and that would equally benefit from an expansion of rights to be inclusive (defined based on household than on marriage certificate?) and for which the argument is just as compelling, I see the special rights of married couples being the one that goes.I also see marriage as a personal faith issue, and as such it should be left to the various churches to decide who they want to marry together and who they may (rightfully) withold from marriage. As such there is no possible way that this can be used in any secular law to distinguish rights or benefits, as that is mixing church and state (ducks .... looks around for fundies .... ... hi there!).But. none of that has to do with the over-rated issue (there are already gay divorces in MA ... plus a change plus c'est la mme chose eh?) ... marriage is good for 20 years tops, imho (what's the average? 7.2 years -- according to http://www.divorces.com/stats.html, which has some pretty sobering statistics, like on stalking ... {{btw: notice that the state with the lowest divorce rate is that liberal megalith MASSACHUSETTS}} ... there is a lot to digest).all of this reminds me of "cupcakes" law of political irony ....enjoy (even if you don't like mocha-lattes)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

whether they have an "inny" or an "outy" they both have an orgasm

---

not always.

you see that similar to the way I do: the connotations are there even if the definition is attempting to be PC.and in one sense the "resource" being "husbanded" is the wife(s) ... and in this sense there is no question of inequity.and as a test for equity in roles, let either spouse leave for 2 weeks and if at the end of that time there is no difference in the household regardless of who leaves, then they can claim equity.this is a test that should be made early in any relationship ... (ie before children or other dependents)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Dan,suggest you re-read, this time thinking that PG is on your side rather than oppossed. you might see a different light.otherwise you have someone arguing that light is light and the other saying no, darkness is the absence of light.(I'll leave you to figure out who has the lightswitch).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

if these rights only pertain to married people AND one group of people is not allowed to get married even if they want to THEN there is inequity, and it is unamerican.

---

Why can't it just be immoral or wrong or unwise? What does anyones nationality have to do with it? Would it be OK if the person doing this wrong thing were not American?

maybe not at the same time or even the same event,but I was speaking in general terms rather than individual ...such as when Harry met Sally ....

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I recently had the opportunity to kiss someone who likes those lattes. What do you think of that, eh?
Thanks for your wisdom. I'm not hopeful that equity will be achieved. It may exist in the mind and wishes of some few who understand what it is to be denied. But for the charitably unkempt majority I have no hope.

Having read PG's posts and the responses he's getting, I think he is pulling the thread off topic. We've had any number of threads about gay marraige - can we keep this one to the definition and role of male and female spouses, and the differences between them? Otherwise I suspect we'll be rehashing the same arguments all over again.This less a warning and more a nudge in the right direction, guys. Now let's play nice.

As I see it, the only people who should have any say whatsoever in what role the husband or wife (or spouse) shall play in a marriage is the parties to the marriage themselves. It is not a concern to society or to anyone else. If the wife is a lumberjack who makes all the family's decisions and the husband stays at home nursing babies and baking cookies, there is absolutely nothing wrong so long as both of the individuals are satisfied with the arrangement. No one else has any right to pass judgement.

---

Dog is my copilot.

in other words the wife can be the "husband" and the huband can be the "wife" in the traditional role definitions?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

it is wrong and immoral and unwise ... and unamerican. it is unamerican because of the constitutional rights to equal treatment under the law.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}