|
Author
|
Topic: I still want a different word for 'gay marriage'
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
quote:
People have said that bogus marriages are an option for heteros already so this shouldn’t be a problem. The reason I don’t see it that way is that I didn’t consider a bogus marriage with a girl and only considered a bogus marriage in the light of the gay marriage talk. And I only considered a bogus marriage with a guy and not a girl.
So, lemme get this straight. You want to keep many thousands of gay couples who want to marry from doing so because in your particular, personal case, you would consider abusing the legalization of same-sex marriage while you wouldn't consider abusing heterosexual marriage for some vaguely-stated reason. I have never heard anything so ridiculous.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2006 10:56 AM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
Message 62 of 243 (320879)
06-12-2006 5:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by crashfrog
06-08-2006 1:18 PM
|
|
quote:
I mean, what might give you pause in the situation you describe above is, if your "buddy" gets greedy, he can contest the annullment. He can force you to have to divorce him. Without a prenup, maybe he takes your sweet dirtbike.
...or maybe even with a prenup, he will get a great lawyer and get his sweet dirtbike anyway. Let's imagine that you land a great job with a benefits package way better than your buddy's, and he switches on to your plan. Your buddy gets kind of used to this great benefits package and gets a bit shirty with you when, a couple of months later, you tell him that you have asked your girlfriend to marry you and that you need to dissolve the marriage. You both end up having to get lawyers, he drags the divorce proceedings out for a long time, costing both of you money, your fiance gets fed up and kicks you to the curb, etc., etc....
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 1:18 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
quote:
Schraf was asking for data or somehting to back up this claim but I'm just saying this as an opinion. Its just something I think will happen so I don't support gay marriage, but becuase I lack any evidence, I refrain from actively opposing it. The opinion comes form my views on who I would bogus marry and why.
Well, if your "opinion" isn't based upon any sort of information, data, or knowledge, then perhaps you shouldn't hold it? Call me crazy, but since when are "opinions pulled out of my ass" considered good reasons to think or do anything?
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
quote:
Even just changing the first letter to G and calling it Garriage makes it better. They have their own thing and I have mine (or we have ours). I don't want the current "marriage" to be changed to include something that isn't marriage in my opinion.
Legally, how is your marriage any different from, say, a marriage between Athiests?
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
quote:
Because I think other people will take advantage of it too and WRT healthcare, when enough people buck the system it will have a negetive impact on my healthcare, even if I am blind and deaf to gay marriage.
If you have no data to support this then I suggest that it is nothing more than an irrational fear that I suggest you stop trying to use as an argument.
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
quote:
Don't prohibit their 'marriages' because of religious objection, but do the religious a favor and come up with a new word to describe their union.
Of course. Because the government doesn't already do a great many favors for the religious. Since when do religious people own the word "marriage", anyway, such that they get to dictate to a secular government, and therefore to the entire country, their own definition?
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 67 of 243 (320891)
06-12-2006 5:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by Ben!
06-09-2006 8:08 PM
|
|
quote:
People who don't understand what commitment is are not going to learn it by feeling pressured into staying with someone. On the contrary, I think that leads to less commitment. I would rather see no external pressure to commit, watch people fail and learn from themselves, and then learn to be committed.
One of the most profound things I have ever read regarding how to have a good marriage is that you have to be willing to walk away if you had to. If someone feels like they have no choice, then powerlessness and resentment are the only natural outcomes.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by Ben!, posted 06-09-2006 8:08 PM | | Ben! has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 68 of 243 (320899)
06-12-2006 6:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by Ben!
06-09-2006 8:08 PM
|
|
In a society where failed marriages outnumber the successful ones, I'm not feelin' a lot of the "massive amount of societal pressure" that you're talking about. Well, I didn't say that it was insurmountable. But most people feel bad and embarassed when their marriage falls apart. They feel like they've failed. Maybe they didn't, and I'm not saying that they did. But society definately gives that message, in ways that it doesn't about other kind of relationships. There's not so much a pressure on making a casual relationship "work", for instance. When you break up with your girlfriend, you're rarely made to feel like you failed some ideal.
People who don't understand what commitment is are not going to learn it by feeling pressured into staying with someone. On the contrary, I think that leads to less commitment. I would rather see no external pressure to commit, watch people fail and learn from themselves, and then learn to be committed. Maybe you have to be married to know what I'm talking about. And I'm trying not to divulge a bunch of personal details, here. Believe me when I tell you that I don't love my wife any less now than the first day we met - if anything, I love her more. Much more. But if we hadn't been married, I wouldn't be with her today. And that would have been a mistake - a mistake that being married prevented. A mistake that having made a promise of that level of seriousness prevented.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by Ben!, posted 06-09-2006 8:08 PM | | Ben! has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 70 by nator, posted 06-12-2006 8:44 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
the easy solution.
The easy solution is to take the word "marriage" out of all laws and replace it with "union" -- let churches define and perform "marriages" as they see fit, but register all "unions" with the state. This lets all the religious fanatics think they have saved the 'sanctity' of the 'institution' of "marriage" and it lets all other forms of "unions" have the same legal standards and rights - especially as there WILL be churches that perform "gay marriages" (seeing as there are some now eh?). AND it fits with our constitution and the declaration of independence and the concept of separation of church and state and .... etc. WIN-WIN Now, can we talk about something serious? 
Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 70 of 243 (320948)
06-12-2006 8:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 68 by crashfrog
06-12-2006 6:05 PM
|
|
quote:
Maybe you have to be married to know what I'm talking about. And I'm trying not to divulge a bunch of personal details, here. Believe me when I tell you that I don't love my wife any less now than the first day we met - if anything, I love her more. Much more. But if we hadn't been married, I wouldn't be with her today. And that would have been a mistake - a mistake that being married prevented. A mistake that having made a promise of that level of seriousness prevented.
I can relate, and agree, completely. Zhimbo does too.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 06-12-2006 6:05 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 71 of 243 (320953)
06-12-2006 9:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 70 by nator
06-12-2006 8:44 PM
|
|
I can relate, and agree, completely. I thought that you might. It's just something you have to live through to know, I think. It can't be explained in a way that makes sense.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 70 by nator, posted 06-12-2006 8:44 PM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 72 by nator, posted 06-13-2006 8:54 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 72 of 243 (321067)
06-13-2006 8:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 71 by crashfrog
06-12-2006 9:15 PM
|
|
quote:
It can't be explained in a way that makes sense.
It makes perfect sense to me. 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 06-12-2006 9:15 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 73 of 243 (321258)
06-13-2006 9:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 72 by nator
06-13-2006 8:54 AM
|
|
It makes perfect sense to me. But, not because I've communicated the concept sufficiently clearly; rather, it makes sense to you because I've alluded to a situation we've both been in.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 72 by nator, posted 06-13-2006 8:54 AM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 74 by nator, posted 06-14-2006 6:51 AM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 74 of 243 (321353)
06-14-2006 6:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 73 by crashfrog
06-13-2006 9:00 PM
|
|
It makes perfect sense to me. quote:
But, not because I've communicated the concept sufficiently clearly; rather, it makes sense to you because I've alluded to a situation we've both been in.
Yes! Yes I know. (Hence, the smily in my last post.)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 06-13-2006 9:00 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
do we have to include gays in the STATE'S definition of marriage? well, the federal government, to my knowledge, does not have an explicit definition of marriage --- that's what the amendment is. and I think they are trying to define it as it was originally intended.
but gays WANT to be included Yes, now we have a group that wasn't originally considered in marriage that wants to be a part of it.
and i see no real reason to exclude them I don't think they should be excluded from the benefits of a federally recognized union, I just don't think they should be included in marriages. I don't equate not including with actively excluding. To fail to include someone is not the same as purposfully excluding them. I have reasons for not wanting to include them. They might not be 'good' reasons, but they are still reasons. I don't have any reason for actively excluding them and thats not what I want to do. I just don't think we should lump gay marriages in with marriages beause they weren't originnaly intended in the definition and I think throwing them in there opens it up for problems. We should do something different.
|
™ Version 4.2