What is your opinion ? Please tell us for what state you want to be legal.Would you like same-sex marriage to be legal in you state (and in US) ? What do you think ?
NO! Civil Unions yes... marriage...NO! Marriage should be a religious union! Married couples should have to be Civilly United to get the benefits!Would you like same-sex marriage to be legal in you state (and in US) ? What do you think ?
It is legal in my state already, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be. Saying gays can't marry is labeling them as second class citizens, not deserving of the same rights and freedoms as straight Americans.
By labelling gay unions as ';civil-unions'; or ';civil partnerships'; you are saying that ';marriage'; is too good for one class of citizens.
Marriage is religious in name only, marriage has long been secularized since divorce began. Marriage was supposed to unite two people in holy matrimony as long as they live. When marriages fail 50% of the time because of divorce, how is that abiding by God's Christian law?
You can't say marriage is holy and only for straight people when half of them fail to begin with.
Put Christianity BACK into marriage, then maybe the anti-gay marriage folks will have an argument.
No. Homosexuality is a sin and goes against the law of God. It's bad enough that we've already legislated murder as a legality by way of abortion. To make sodomy legal in any state is an equal abomination that adds insult to injury.
If people want to have certain civil rights to stand in the place of a spouse, that's their business. Let the insurance companies, etc. sort it out. It should not be called marriage because marriage is a heterosexual sanctity for the purpose of procreation. Period.
Depends on what you mean. You see, I strongly feel that anyone should be able to have a legal union with anyone regardless of sex. I even feel no reason why people cannot have three, four, or more way legal unions. To me, the law is secular and should never abridge peoples liberties. I see no reason why a union of two men or two women should have different tax benefits, insurance, or legal representation as a man and a woman. A legal union is a union no matter who is united.
But if you ask me if any church should recognize a marriage as anything other than a man and a woman, then forget it. Christian doctrine is clear on that issue. So no church should ever be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. They should be happy with equal legal status, but I'll fight to keep them from forcing any church to marry them.
There is no such thing as a same sex marriage since marriage is defined a union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. That is like saying do you believe in multi sex females. There is no such thing. A persons with both sexual organs is called a ';third gender'; and has Ambiguous genitalia which is considered a birth defect.
Marriage, in the religious sense, is not a necessity; a Civil Union, where the burden of being a non-recognized partner would be removed would be good. For me, as an older gay woman, I would like to file joint returns and not have to show proof of our long-term relationship to get domestic partner benefits. Just let us have the same privileges for the same pay (translation: taxes!).....
I am opposed to all marriages, I think that the term should only be used by couples in their religous pursuit of a lifetime commitment and it should not be recognized by law. But all couples (gay and straight) who want to have a union should be allowed to have one regardless of sexual orientation.
NC
Like others here, I could care less if it were legalized across the U.S., or just in my state (Oregon). I'm in a happy marriage to a wonderful woman. Whether or not my neighbors are a gay married couple has absolutely no impact on me, my life or my marriage. I think there are issues that we, as a people, have to address right now that are far more important that gay marriage.
If it isn't legalized across the US, then it's worthless because it opens a huge can of worms if one partner changes states and files for ';divorce';.
I don't think the term marriage should be involved, to do so is to encourage a battle amongst the religious.
i wouldnt have a problem if this was legalized as I could care less.
what is really the problem with gay people getting married? this is just one example of how some religious extremist try to enforce their beliefs on others.
Well first I'm straight.
But, if the same-sex wants to get married.. it's their business.
I don't have no say in this, really.
That's my opinion.
x
Well I live in Cali, where it just got ban.. I actually voted no on banning gay marriage.. Even tho I'm a christian, I can't tell someone who they can't get to marry. Not my business anyways
I have no problem with allowing gays the same legal status as other couples. I'm in PA.
I think we have bigger issues to address. I could care less what the decision is.
Absolutely NO. It is wrong and a sin.
I don't think it should be legal in any state.
hell no.
It doesn't matter to me if it is legalized, I can not think of how a gay couple being married would harm me or my family
I live in Texas and I could really care less. If they want to marry, let them, it's not going to affect my life one bit.
I'm not gay so it doesn't matter to me either way really.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
What is it that makes marriage hard work?
I always hear people say that its hard work. What is so hard about it? Don't give me vague answers like ';working on it'; - I want clear and concise answers please. Thank you.What is it that makes marriage hard work?
Two different people trying to work towards one goal, and having very different opinions, needs and tastes. It's the recipe for disaster without love. And even with love, we tend to get tired and behave unacceptably to the one we love the most. Being ';short'; with tempers, aggravated when she doesn't have dinner ready when he gets home, leaving his socks on the middle of the bathroom floor, not making up the bed when he's the last one up in the morning, putting a scratch on his precious car, forgetting to take out the trash, etc. Things just build up over time, and someone gets angry over some little something and BAM, it's blow up time. And we are never really taught how to ';fight fairly.'; We're conditioned to win battles and prove our point. We say hurtful things to each other, and it takes time to get over it.
We can't do what we want, when we want anymore. We have to consider our spouse in all decisions. And that can be a big pain at times.
Need more?
However, it is worth the effort if both parties are committed to making it work. It's the best relationship in the world, and is the most effective way to make us grow up and stop being selfish people.
EDIT: And Dee (below) summed it up quite well..........What is it that makes marriage hard work?
Being with some one under one roof is very hard because we are all different with different lifestyles, habits, needs and values. You must compromise to find common ground. Leave your ego outside. You don't always have to be right even when you are. Make him (or her) fel valued and validated every day by doing little things and giving compliments, a soft touch here and there. This is all hard work but it gets easier and you will get it back if the chemistry is working. Good Luck 60% of marriages fail.
Marriage is a relationship you own in partnership with someone else. Compromise (not meeting halfway but each going 3/4 of the way) is par for the course, and of course there is also the period of adjustment to the reality of the other person. People fall in love with dreams of who the other is, and the reality may require some adjustment.
There are also control issues, even if neither partner thinks of oneself as a controlling person. Someone has to occupy each open role, and there are roles that both will want and roles that neither will want.
You will spend every moment for the rest of your life committed to someone. You won't like everything they do, you won't like everything they say, you won't even like everything they wear. They will annoy you, their jokes might not be funny at times. The hard work is looking past all of that in the best times and the worst times. When you just got a bonus at work and when his dad just died. Knowing that the person you are spending the rest of your life with will give their all to be with you no matter what b/c you're going to do the same to be with them. To make sacrifices and choices to make them happy knowing that they in return will do the same thing for you. And overlooking it if this time they don't.
I'd say its hard because you have to have good communication between each other, respect for each other. If in order for it to ';work'; you have to keep treating that person the way you would want to be treated and do whatever it is that makes them happy and visa versa. If you want that person to be happy and stay happy then you have to do things that will make them happy. I hope this makes sense and that I helped answer your question.
I feel that people use the phrase ';hard work'; when referring to marriage simply because for most couples they just don't want to change. Being married you should compromise, trust, respect, %26amp; most importantly love one another.
I've been married for 6 months this month and dont feel its hard work. My husband and I compromise %26amp; are willing to even change to be happier. I see ppl all the time that never try %26amp; change so their days end in arguments for not changing. (I hope I'm making sense its a lot harder typing.) I'm not saying you should change who you are COMPROMISE is the perfect word to use. For example as a young couple (myself 23 %26amp; my husband 25) I LOVE to club %26amp; dance while on the other hand my husband LOVES to stay home lol. So we meet in the middle we go out @ least once or twice every 2 month. Its enough for me %26amp; perfect for him.
Want specifics? We had an 8 month engagement, prior to our huge wedding. During that 8 month period, my (then) fiance had a cancer scare, all 3 of our kids gave us hell over the marriage and his daughter threw several major tantrums and moved out. She then threatened to boycott the wedding altogether (she was our matron of honour) and I had to find someone else ready to step in if she didn't turn up. Since we've been married, we've both had major health problems, our builder took 12 months to put the extension on our house and all 3 of our kids treat us like dirt, because we are very happy and have a very strong marriage and they've realised that nothing they can do or say will break us up. Our ex's have both been making things very difficult for us, as well. We have hundreds of problems to deal with, including relationships, health and financial problems. Specific enough for you? There's nothing harder than holding a marriage together, day in, day out, through the good days and the bad, but there's also nothing more rewarding, wonderful, glorious or satisfying, than being married to the man or woman whom you couldn't imagine living without. There's a song that is played at the end of the movie Shall We Dance, with Richard Gere and Susan Sarandon, which is, I think, called The Book of Love. Please listen to it and you'll understand exactly what I'm talking about.
In my opinon marrige means trust. You have to work hard at keeping that persons trust or the trust (marrige) is effected. Once that happens it can go both ways. You have to constantly work with the other person so you both stay happy and don't just live boring. Marrige can be difficult. Before you get married, you should discuss it deeply with the person, and maybe move in with them to see if you can live with each other.
When you're single, you make every decision for yourself. What you eat, where you go, when you go to bed, when you spend the whole day watching TV.
When you're married, you have to make decisions with someone else. So it's always compromise. If you love that person, it's fine. But it is more dificlut to do everything as half of a team than to do whatever you want.
is making 2 pple that could be totally different, try to live like if they r only 1!!
is not always the man, or the women is making them to think like one... thats why when looking for a husband/bride try to look for somone that thinks like you, or does not likes to argue every point of view you speak
It can get difficult trying to make important decisions with another person because no two people are going to be exactly the same. You might have different opinions. Plus it's just hard to live with the same person day after day. But if you truly love each other you will always get through it.
God makes marriages work. The world and it's influences makes it hard work.
I think it is because we are both individuals with our own habits and opinions.
The woman.
The man
arguments
Two different people trying to work towards one goal, and having very different opinions, needs and tastes. It's the recipe for disaster without love. And even with love, we tend to get tired and behave unacceptably to the one we love the most. Being ';short'; with tempers, aggravated when she doesn't have dinner ready when he gets home, leaving his socks on the middle of the bathroom floor, not making up the bed when he's the last one up in the morning, putting a scratch on his precious car, forgetting to take out the trash, etc. Things just build up over time, and someone gets angry over some little something and BAM, it's blow up time. And we are never really taught how to ';fight fairly.'; We're conditioned to win battles and prove our point. We say hurtful things to each other, and it takes time to get over it.
We can't do what we want, when we want anymore. We have to consider our spouse in all decisions. And that can be a big pain at times.
Need more?
However, it is worth the effort if both parties are committed to making it work. It's the best relationship in the world, and is the most effective way to make us grow up and stop being selfish people.
EDIT: And Dee (below) summed it up quite well..........What is it that makes marriage hard work?
Being with some one under one roof is very hard because we are all different with different lifestyles, habits, needs and values. You must compromise to find common ground. Leave your ego outside. You don't always have to be right even when you are. Make him (or her) fel valued and validated every day by doing little things and giving compliments, a soft touch here and there. This is all hard work but it gets easier and you will get it back if the chemistry is working. Good Luck 60% of marriages fail.
Marriage is a relationship you own in partnership with someone else. Compromise (not meeting halfway but each going 3/4 of the way) is par for the course, and of course there is also the period of adjustment to the reality of the other person. People fall in love with dreams of who the other is, and the reality may require some adjustment.
There are also control issues, even if neither partner thinks of oneself as a controlling person. Someone has to occupy each open role, and there are roles that both will want and roles that neither will want.
You will spend every moment for the rest of your life committed to someone. You won't like everything they do, you won't like everything they say, you won't even like everything they wear. They will annoy you, their jokes might not be funny at times. The hard work is looking past all of that in the best times and the worst times. When you just got a bonus at work and when his dad just died. Knowing that the person you are spending the rest of your life with will give their all to be with you no matter what b/c you're going to do the same to be with them. To make sacrifices and choices to make them happy knowing that they in return will do the same thing for you. And overlooking it if this time they don't.
I'd say its hard because you have to have good communication between each other, respect for each other. If in order for it to ';work'; you have to keep treating that person the way you would want to be treated and do whatever it is that makes them happy and visa versa. If you want that person to be happy and stay happy then you have to do things that will make them happy. I hope this makes sense and that I helped answer your question.
I feel that people use the phrase ';hard work'; when referring to marriage simply because for most couples they just don't want to change. Being married you should compromise, trust, respect, %26amp; most importantly love one another.
I've been married for 6 months this month and dont feel its hard work. My husband and I compromise %26amp; are willing to even change to be happier. I see ppl all the time that never try %26amp; change so their days end in arguments for not changing. (I hope I'm making sense its a lot harder typing.) I'm not saying you should change who you are COMPROMISE is the perfect word to use. For example as a young couple (myself 23 %26amp; my husband 25) I LOVE to club %26amp; dance while on the other hand my husband LOVES to stay home lol. So we meet in the middle we go out @ least once or twice every 2 month. Its enough for me %26amp; perfect for him.
Want specifics? We had an 8 month engagement, prior to our huge wedding. During that 8 month period, my (then) fiance had a cancer scare, all 3 of our kids gave us hell over the marriage and his daughter threw several major tantrums and moved out. She then threatened to boycott the wedding altogether (she was our matron of honour) and I had to find someone else ready to step in if she didn't turn up. Since we've been married, we've both had major health problems, our builder took 12 months to put the extension on our house and all 3 of our kids treat us like dirt, because we are very happy and have a very strong marriage and they've realised that nothing they can do or say will break us up. Our ex's have both been making things very difficult for us, as well. We have hundreds of problems to deal with, including relationships, health and financial problems. Specific enough for you? There's nothing harder than holding a marriage together, day in, day out, through the good days and the bad, but there's also nothing more rewarding, wonderful, glorious or satisfying, than being married to the man or woman whom you couldn't imagine living without. There's a song that is played at the end of the movie Shall We Dance, with Richard Gere and Susan Sarandon, which is, I think, called The Book of Love. Please listen to it and you'll understand exactly what I'm talking about.
In my opinon marrige means trust. You have to work hard at keeping that persons trust or the trust (marrige) is effected. Once that happens it can go both ways. You have to constantly work with the other person so you both stay happy and don't just live boring. Marrige can be difficult. Before you get married, you should discuss it deeply with the person, and maybe move in with them to see if you can live with each other.
When you're single, you make every decision for yourself. What you eat, where you go, when you go to bed, when you spend the whole day watching TV.
When you're married, you have to make decisions with someone else. So it's always compromise. If you love that person, it's fine. But it is more dificlut to do everything as half of a team than to do whatever you want.
is making 2 pple that could be totally different, try to live like if they r only 1!!
is not always the man, or the women is making them to think like one... thats why when looking for a husband/bride try to look for somone that thinks like you, or does not likes to argue every point of view you speak
It can get difficult trying to make important decisions with another person because no two people are going to be exactly the same. You might have different opinions. Plus it's just hard to live with the same person day after day. But if you truly love each other you will always get through it.
God makes marriages work. The world and it's influences makes it hard work.
I think it is because we are both individuals with our own habits and opinions.
The woman.
The man
arguments
Did Bush win in 2004 by taking a firm stand against homosexual marriage?
If the Dems dump the homosexuals would they become unbeatable?Did Bush win in 2004 by taking a firm stand against homosexual marriage?
Nah Bush won because Kerry was a crappy candidate and Bush was the best out of the 2 to continue on with the war.Did Bush win in 2004 by taking a firm stand against homosexual marriage?
Naw, Bush won by the use of Diebold Electronic Voting Machines. If not, why then were every Diebold Electronic Voting Machine in every state decertified before the next state elections? Not to mention the states where Republicans were caught with the ';hack'; or the Diebold employees who testified they were paid by Republicans to not only tell them how to hack the machines but showed them how.
I was shown how it worked by a former friend inside the Republican ';Machine';. All you needed was a pendrive and a little bit of code.
No.
Bush won in 2004 with two major reasons.
1) Fear. He scared the living sh*t out of people, and then convinced them he was the only one who could protect them. This was especially well-seen in his ';wolf commercial,'; in which he showed a pack of rather hungry-looking wolves looking at the camera. This, of course, was really meant to make the wolves look like they were hungering for us. The commercial eventually hinted that the wolves were representative of terrorists, ready to get us if we let our guard down even a little bit.
Which, of course, suggested that Kerry would let that guard down and get you killed. It was considered Bush's most effective attack.
2) The other main reason was convincing people that Kerry flip-flopped a lot. Kerry didn't help matters with that quote he said, ';I was for it before I was against it.';
What he was talking about was the Iraq War. He was being attacked by Republicans as being too soft on terrorism, as shown by his lack of support for the Iraq War. What Kerry was saying was that he was more than ready to hit the terrorists, but Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. He supported it when he was told it was a fight against terrorists; but changed his mind when he was told the truth later. The situation had changed, and so his stance had changed with it.
Not exactly a flip-flop...but really, what did Kerry think was going to happen when he said that?
Another example of a ';flip-flop'; charge leveled at Kerry was his stance on gay marriage. During the 2004 campaign, Kerry was against gay marriage. The Republican Party represented that as a flip-flop.
Problem is, it was not a flip-flop. Now I disagree with Kerry on his stance, but he has ALWAYS been against gay marriage; and has never changed that stance--whether before, during, or after the 2004 campaign. He didn't flip-flop.
But it was not the Democrat Party line. And so Bush had no qualms about presenting Kerry's stance as a flip-flop, because he knew most people would believe him on it and not actually bother to check on it.
Kerry didn't lose because he was for gay marriage; in fact, he was very much against it. Kerry lost because Bush did something that, while legal, was rather immoral. But hey, that's how the game works when Rove is coach.
As far as gay marriage. Allowing it is still the minority opinion, not the majority. However, that majority is made up mostly of older voters; and the gay marriage supporters are made up mostly of the young.
In essence, for right now the best position is to be anti-gay marriage. However, within a few years (when the older voters have died and the young are the growing section of voters) the best position will be pro-gay marriage.
The Republicans have the advantage in this issue for now; but more and more it will be a detriment to them.
No, he won by having Blackwell give him Ohio.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_鈥?/a>
No, he won by spending tens of millions to slander a war hero, and tens of millions more to rig the Ohio result.
He won by the use fear as used by the master or the GOP Karl Rove.
Nah Bush won because Kerry was a crappy candidate and Bush was the best out of the 2 to continue on with the war.Did Bush win in 2004 by taking a firm stand against homosexual marriage?
Naw, Bush won by the use of Diebold Electronic Voting Machines. If not, why then were every Diebold Electronic Voting Machine in every state decertified before the next state elections? Not to mention the states where Republicans were caught with the ';hack'; or the Diebold employees who testified they were paid by Republicans to not only tell them how to hack the machines but showed them how.
I was shown how it worked by a former friend inside the Republican ';Machine';. All you needed was a pendrive and a little bit of code.
No.
Bush won in 2004 with two major reasons.
1) Fear. He scared the living sh*t out of people, and then convinced them he was the only one who could protect them. This was especially well-seen in his ';wolf commercial,'; in which he showed a pack of rather hungry-looking wolves looking at the camera. This, of course, was really meant to make the wolves look like they were hungering for us. The commercial eventually hinted that the wolves were representative of terrorists, ready to get us if we let our guard down even a little bit.
Which, of course, suggested that Kerry would let that guard down and get you killed. It was considered Bush's most effective attack.
2) The other main reason was convincing people that Kerry flip-flopped a lot. Kerry didn't help matters with that quote he said, ';I was for it before I was against it.';
What he was talking about was the Iraq War. He was being attacked by Republicans as being too soft on terrorism, as shown by his lack of support for the Iraq War. What Kerry was saying was that he was more than ready to hit the terrorists, but Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. He supported it when he was told it was a fight against terrorists; but changed his mind when he was told the truth later. The situation had changed, and so his stance had changed with it.
Not exactly a flip-flop...but really, what did Kerry think was going to happen when he said that?
Another example of a ';flip-flop'; charge leveled at Kerry was his stance on gay marriage. During the 2004 campaign, Kerry was against gay marriage. The Republican Party represented that as a flip-flop.
Problem is, it was not a flip-flop. Now I disagree with Kerry on his stance, but he has ALWAYS been against gay marriage; and has never changed that stance--whether before, during, or after the 2004 campaign. He didn't flip-flop.
But it was not the Democrat Party line. And so Bush had no qualms about presenting Kerry's stance as a flip-flop, because he knew most people would believe him on it and not actually bother to check on it.
Kerry didn't lose because he was for gay marriage; in fact, he was very much against it. Kerry lost because Bush did something that, while legal, was rather immoral. But hey, that's how the game works when Rove is coach.
As far as gay marriage. Allowing it is still the minority opinion, not the majority. However, that majority is made up mostly of older voters; and the gay marriage supporters are made up mostly of the young.
In essence, for right now the best position is to be anti-gay marriage. However, within a few years (when the older voters have died and the young are the growing section of voters) the best position will be pro-gay marriage.
The Republicans have the advantage in this issue for now; but more and more it will be a detriment to them.
No, he won by having Blackwell give him Ohio.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_鈥?/a>
No, he won by spending tens of millions to slander a war hero, and tens of millions more to rig the Ohio result.
He won by the use fear as used by the master or the GOP Karl Rove.
What celebrities remained virgins until marriage?
I think Adriana Lima did, and Jessica Simpson, but there's more, aren't there?What celebrities remained virgins until marriage?
Lisa Kudrow, Katie Holmes, Jordin Sparks, Selena, Taylor, Jo Bros.What celebrities remained virgins until marriage?
other then Michael Jackson idk any others
but Selena Gomez, Demi Lovato, Jonas Brothers, Taylor Swift, and Miley Cyrus Say they will stay pure till marriage. I don't think Miley will tho
Michael Jackson
Priscilla Presley
Donny%26amp; Marie Osmond
the disney kids ( except miley,). i thought brooke shields did loose it till 30 something till she got married
Lisa Kudrow (Pheobe from Friends)
Lisa Kudrow, Katie Holmes, Jordin Sparks, Selena, Taylor, Jo Bros.What celebrities remained virgins until marriage?
other then Michael Jackson idk any others
but Selena Gomez, Demi Lovato, Jonas Brothers, Taylor Swift, and Miley Cyrus Say they will stay pure till marriage. I don't think Miley will tho
Michael Jackson
Priscilla Presley
Donny%26amp; Marie Osmond
the disney kids ( except miley,). i thought brooke shields did loose it till 30 something till she got married
Lisa Kudrow (Pheobe from Friends)
Why do people support gay marriage?
Some people say it destroys the sanctity of marriage, but hasn't divorce and adultery already done that?
Others state it is a sin, but the Bible has only four implied admonishments against homosexuality and over 350 admonishments against heterosexuality. If marriage is a sin, then in theory the gay couple just has to find ';God'; and ask for forgiveness for their sins to get into heaven.
Then there is the argument that gays should have the rights of a married couple, but does not violate equal rights and the separation of church and state?
Who does gay marriage really hurt? The economy could definitely benefit from the money used and circulated for gay marriages?
I would like to know as many arguments supporting gay marriage as possible.Why do people support gay marriage?
I oppose the government having the authority to legislate personal social decisions. I also oppose discrimination.
Those who oppose same-sex marriage are acting purely out of prejudice and bigotry to deny the benefits of state-sanctioned monogamy based purely on the gender of the people involved. It's gender-based discrimination, pure and simple.
When you look at all the arguments against same-sex marriage, only the purely religious ones are even rational. We don't forbid people who are old or infertile from getting married, so it's not about procreation. There's no slippery slope, because marriage between two unrelated consenting adults is between two unrelated consenting adults. We're only talking about eliminating the gender discrimination, not about changing the number of people involved or allowing children to get married.
And though the religious arguments against are valid as far as they go, our constitution forbids the government from acting based purely on religious grounds. If the only reason for something is religious, that cannot be enacted as law.
The final argument is over terminology. Fine. Eliminate the word marriage as having any legal meaning. Make marriage a purely religious ceremony, and grant everyone civil unions if they want state benefits.
Bigots tried for decades to prevent inter-racial marriage, but that finally lost the battle to the equal protection clause. It's inevitable that gender-discrimination in marriage will also stop being legal, regardless of how many states try to limit marriage based on religious definitions.
The only question is how long it's going to take people to realize that prejudice, hatred and bigotry are inherently worse than any expression of love ever could be.Why do people support gay marriage?
First off, the bible doesn't ';imply'; that being gay is wrong- it states plainly in Exodus that if you find a homosexual you are to stone them to death and that their blood is on their own hands.
But that is irrelevant to today's discussion.In today's world marriage has three ';levels',if you will.
1) Legal: Marriage is a legal contract to show fidelity and support to another person.
2)Social: Marriage is to show the community that two people are committed to each other.
3) Religious: Marriage is a pledge to your God to live by His rules as a couple.
Of these three, only religion prevents gays from being married. We, as a people, need to acknowledge love, no matter the source.
If gays can marry then where does it stop. Can I marry my dog or rabbit or chinchilla if I so desire? .
To ask for forgiveness and continue to commit the same sin?Gay marriage chips away at the moral fiber of the youth today by making them think it it acceptable behavior.What next kiddie porn OK? GOOD LUCK %26amp;GOD BLESS.
Ok ,let's change the terminology to civil union, as it's less controversial and best describes what we are fighting for.
First off, let's get rid of the religious viewpoint, as not one that I've spoken to can back up that argument with anything more than a Bible verse. If you can back it up with solid thinking, then let me know.
As for the ';slippery slope'; argument, this can be put at ease with various ideas. First off, this is exclusively for two people, committed to each other, to be recognized as much as any other couple. Not 3, 5 or 15 people. Just two, same as anyone else. As for marrying another species as has been suggested already to this question, please explain to me how you can get a verbal committment from a dog or chinchilla. That's needed to make your point valid. Both main arguments against are now nullified by lack of reasoning.
As for arguments for such a union, benefits for such a thing are many for the couple, and for the state. For the state there is taxes, license fees, reduced number of cases in courtrooms brought by families trying to contest a will or child raising, etc.
for the couple comes legal recognition wherever they are in the US, and all of the basic privileges provided to a heterosexual couple. This includes hospital visiting rights, property rights and healthcare decisions. Yes, these can be obtained with living wills and power of attorney and other documents, but these also cost much more than a marriage license and can be contested in a court of law.
Granting this also falls under a general standard of democracy, of protecting the rights of the few from the will of the many. Let this fall, and who's to say what group comes next?
We also have that wonderful Declaration of Independence and Constitution with phrases like ';All men are created equal'; and ';Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness';. Why not let me have my happiness if it doesn't interfere with yours?
Gay marriage hurts and divorce hurts. I feel that it is sad that divorce, and single parents have become the norm in society. All of these things add up to a degrading society because children do not get the attention they need from two parents.
Gay marriage advocates seem to make marriage a joke. There is no reason for them to be married other than the fact that they want to create a stir.
Since gays have become widely accepted (I can't turn on a single TV show that does not star, or have a gay person in it), they feel like they need to do something else to get attention. Which is all they are after anyways. Show me one gay couple that keeps it to themselves!
i believe that everyone deserves love. period.
Actually gays are not men nor women so they don't have caurage to face the challanges of coming generation.that's why gay couples can't support the economy of family , town and country.
Can any one explain the personalities which don't have any caurage to face the challanges how can they support .
Why is it anyone's business who your neighbor marries? Are they trying to turn you gay? Most likely not. Are they hurting anyone? No. What's the problem? They're consenting adults. Live and let live.
I don't see how it ';destroys the sanctity of marriage';.
If John and Mike down the street get married, do you look at your own spouse as less of a spouse? This is just another example of religion getting in the way of politics.
And the whole constitutional amendment thing highly upsets me. The Constitution is there to protect our basic rights and give freedom, not take away freedom or limit the rights of the citizens.
Let the gays get married. Besides, people shouldn't be the ones to judge-- that's God's job. Christians are supposed to love ALL of God's children, gay or not. Any Christian who looks down upon another human being for any reason will have to answer for it.
In my opinion, marriage is more of a legal thing than a religious thing. What's the difference between a couple who has been together 20 years and not gotten married, and a couple who just met in Vegas and tied the knot? Protecting the ';sanctity of marriage';, my foot.
First gay marriages, then whats next? Hitlers resurected in a giant robot body murdering people on a massive scale!
seriously though, check out those slippery slope arguments... Gay marriage leads to kiddie porn? Gay marriage leads to people marrying pets? NICE arguments, you guys really thought those ones through.
First christians allowed to post biggoted statements on the internet, whats next? Christians going door to door trying to convert people? AAAHHHHH!!!lipstick gloss
Others state it is a sin, but the Bible has only four implied admonishments against homosexuality and over 350 admonishments against heterosexuality. If marriage is a sin, then in theory the gay couple just has to find ';God'; and ask for forgiveness for their sins to get into heaven.
Then there is the argument that gays should have the rights of a married couple, but does not violate equal rights and the separation of church and state?
Who does gay marriage really hurt? The economy could definitely benefit from the money used and circulated for gay marriages?
I would like to know as many arguments supporting gay marriage as possible.Why do people support gay marriage?
I oppose the government having the authority to legislate personal social decisions. I also oppose discrimination.
Those who oppose same-sex marriage are acting purely out of prejudice and bigotry to deny the benefits of state-sanctioned monogamy based purely on the gender of the people involved. It's gender-based discrimination, pure and simple.
When you look at all the arguments against same-sex marriage, only the purely religious ones are even rational. We don't forbid people who are old or infertile from getting married, so it's not about procreation. There's no slippery slope, because marriage between two unrelated consenting adults is between two unrelated consenting adults. We're only talking about eliminating the gender discrimination, not about changing the number of people involved or allowing children to get married.
And though the religious arguments against are valid as far as they go, our constitution forbids the government from acting based purely on religious grounds. If the only reason for something is religious, that cannot be enacted as law.
The final argument is over terminology. Fine. Eliminate the word marriage as having any legal meaning. Make marriage a purely religious ceremony, and grant everyone civil unions if they want state benefits.
Bigots tried for decades to prevent inter-racial marriage, but that finally lost the battle to the equal protection clause. It's inevitable that gender-discrimination in marriage will also stop being legal, regardless of how many states try to limit marriage based on religious definitions.
The only question is how long it's going to take people to realize that prejudice, hatred and bigotry are inherently worse than any expression of love ever could be.Why do people support gay marriage?
First off, the bible doesn't ';imply'; that being gay is wrong- it states plainly in Exodus that if you find a homosexual you are to stone them to death and that their blood is on their own hands.
But that is irrelevant to today's discussion.In today's world marriage has three ';levels',if you will.
1) Legal: Marriage is a legal contract to show fidelity and support to another person.
2)Social: Marriage is to show the community that two people are committed to each other.
3) Religious: Marriage is a pledge to your God to live by His rules as a couple.
Of these three, only religion prevents gays from being married. We, as a people, need to acknowledge love, no matter the source.
If gays can marry then where does it stop. Can I marry my dog or rabbit or chinchilla if I so desire? .
To ask for forgiveness and continue to commit the same sin?Gay marriage chips away at the moral fiber of the youth today by making them think it it acceptable behavior.What next kiddie porn OK? GOOD LUCK %26amp;GOD BLESS.
Ok ,let's change the terminology to civil union, as it's less controversial and best describes what we are fighting for.
First off, let's get rid of the religious viewpoint, as not one that I've spoken to can back up that argument with anything more than a Bible verse. If you can back it up with solid thinking, then let me know.
As for the ';slippery slope'; argument, this can be put at ease with various ideas. First off, this is exclusively for two people, committed to each other, to be recognized as much as any other couple. Not 3, 5 or 15 people. Just two, same as anyone else. As for marrying another species as has been suggested already to this question, please explain to me how you can get a verbal committment from a dog or chinchilla. That's needed to make your point valid. Both main arguments against are now nullified by lack of reasoning.
As for arguments for such a union, benefits for such a thing are many for the couple, and for the state. For the state there is taxes, license fees, reduced number of cases in courtrooms brought by families trying to contest a will or child raising, etc.
for the couple comes legal recognition wherever they are in the US, and all of the basic privileges provided to a heterosexual couple. This includes hospital visiting rights, property rights and healthcare decisions. Yes, these can be obtained with living wills and power of attorney and other documents, but these also cost much more than a marriage license and can be contested in a court of law.
Granting this also falls under a general standard of democracy, of protecting the rights of the few from the will of the many. Let this fall, and who's to say what group comes next?
We also have that wonderful Declaration of Independence and Constitution with phrases like ';All men are created equal'; and ';Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness';. Why not let me have my happiness if it doesn't interfere with yours?
Gay marriage hurts and divorce hurts. I feel that it is sad that divorce, and single parents have become the norm in society. All of these things add up to a degrading society because children do not get the attention they need from two parents.
Gay marriage advocates seem to make marriage a joke. There is no reason for them to be married other than the fact that they want to create a stir.
Since gays have become widely accepted (I can't turn on a single TV show that does not star, or have a gay person in it), they feel like they need to do something else to get attention. Which is all they are after anyways. Show me one gay couple that keeps it to themselves!
i believe that everyone deserves love. period.
Actually gays are not men nor women so they don't have caurage to face the challanges of coming generation.that's why gay couples can't support the economy of family , town and country.
Can any one explain the personalities which don't have any caurage to face the challanges how can they support .
Why is it anyone's business who your neighbor marries? Are they trying to turn you gay? Most likely not. Are they hurting anyone? No. What's the problem? They're consenting adults. Live and let live.
I don't see how it ';destroys the sanctity of marriage';.
If John and Mike down the street get married, do you look at your own spouse as less of a spouse? This is just another example of religion getting in the way of politics.
And the whole constitutional amendment thing highly upsets me. The Constitution is there to protect our basic rights and give freedom, not take away freedom or limit the rights of the citizens.
Let the gays get married. Besides, people shouldn't be the ones to judge-- that's God's job. Christians are supposed to love ALL of God's children, gay or not. Any Christian who looks down upon another human being for any reason will have to answer for it.
In my opinion, marriage is more of a legal thing than a religious thing. What's the difference between a couple who has been together 20 years and not gotten married, and a couple who just met in Vegas and tied the knot? Protecting the ';sanctity of marriage';, my foot.
First gay marriages, then whats next? Hitlers resurected in a giant robot body murdering people on a massive scale!
seriously though, check out those slippery slope arguments... Gay marriage leads to kiddie porn? Gay marriage leads to people marrying pets? NICE arguments, you guys really thought those ones through.
First christians allowed to post biggoted statements on the internet, whats next? Christians going door to door trying to convert people? AAAHHHHH!!!
Could you live in a marriage where your husband ?
lives in another country and visits home.? Could you live with him if he refuses to understand how lonely it it for you? Could you live in a marriage where your husband ?
Yes if I love him I would do itCould you live in a marriage where your husband ?
I'm assuming you mean should you live with your husband if he refuses to understand how lonely it is for you. This arrangement must have been agreed upon before he started traveling. You need to develop a broader circle of friends you can call on when your feeling especially lonely. A hobby that really makes you concentrate on the moment is also a good remedy for loneliness. Of course you should continue to live with him if you love him. Just make better use of your ';down'; time and try to enjoy your independance. This kind of relationship is hard but can be very rewarding. I mean for the time he's away and of course the time he is home.
Is this how your marriage started, did you know this was going to happen before you got married to the man? If you did, you didn't think the marriage through before you did it. What do you want from the marriage and are you getting it? You are the one who has to live with this arangement so no matter what I say or someone else says, it will be you that has to decide what to do about it and you that has to live with the consequences of those actions. I suggest you talk to him about the way you feel and see if there is something that can be worked out to both your satisfactions. If it can't be worked out, then you decide what you want for your life and do it.
yes it could be having the best of both worlds,my independence when he is away and my security when he is home,why not take up a hobby,or join a night school class
Sorry No I couldn't ,could you move to the other country to be closer?
Yes if I love him I would do itCould you live in a marriage where your husband ?
I'm assuming you mean should you live with your husband if he refuses to understand how lonely it is for you. This arrangement must have been agreed upon before he started traveling. You need to develop a broader circle of friends you can call on when your feeling especially lonely. A hobby that really makes you concentrate on the moment is also a good remedy for loneliness. Of course you should continue to live with him if you love him. Just make better use of your ';down'; time and try to enjoy your independance. This kind of relationship is hard but can be very rewarding. I mean for the time he's away and of course the time he is home.
Is this how your marriage started, did you know this was going to happen before you got married to the man? If you did, you didn't think the marriage through before you did it. What do you want from the marriage and are you getting it? You are the one who has to live with this arangement so no matter what I say or someone else says, it will be you that has to decide what to do about it and you that has to live with the consequences of those actions. I suggest you talk to him about the way you feel and see if there is something that can be worked out to both your satisfactions. If it can't be worked out, then you decide what you want for your life and do it.
yes it could be having the best of both worlds,my independence when he is away and my security when he is home,why not take up a hobby,or join a night school class
Sorry No I couldn't ,could you move to the other country to be closer?
If mariage is a strictly religous institution as some opponents of gay marriage claim then why?
is the government involved at all to make it official?If mariage is a strictly religous institution as some opponents of gay marriage claim then why?
What needs to be done is to completely dissociate religious marriage from civil marriage. Where I come from the ONLY marriage recognized by civil law is the civil marriage officiated by a justice of the peace or judge in a court room and that is the ONLY marriage with legal implications.
After that if you want to get married by the church or the satanic rite or the order of the aliens of outer space it's your business. YET if you don't get a civil marriage your other whatever ritual marriage carries no legal implications.
Separate church and state once and for all.If mariage is a strictly religous institution as some opponents of gay marriage claim then why?
Marriage is the foundation of family, and family is the foundation of society, therefore a societies government should be involved in a positive and constructive way to officially sanction and preserve marriage. Much of the official nature of marriage has to do with all the benefits granted to married men and women. Don't confuse the religious nature of the ceremony and meaning of marriage with societies collective support of the institution. Good government should always be involved in maintaining and strengthening the foundation of the society which it governs.
Because the religious institution of marriage cannot affect a citizen's tax filing status and other matters involved with the state, church and state are separate. So really, their is the religious AND the state aspect of marriage.
Simple solution: give gays the same rights, just don't call it a marriage. Those that insist that it has to be called a marriage only want to upset religious people, it has nothing to do with rights at that point. If they want the same rights, they should get them, but I don't see how gays have a right to redefine a religious sacrament.
Government is involved because we have allowed it to be. In my opinion, marriage ought to be a matter of personal contract among individuals (2 or more and of whatever gender suits the individuals). Government only needs to be involved from the standpoint of determining tax rates and other mandated benefits. It is also involved to the extent that it regulates behavior between individuals (for instance, employer benefits).
As you may know from my Q%26amp;A, I oppose all of these government interventions for their own sake. Eliminating them, individuals could embark upon whatever relationships that they wanted without caring what the government called them.
Actually, marriage is strictly a legal institution regulated by the government in the LEGAL sense. Only the government performs or dissolves a marriage legally.
Government authorizes various professional people - judges, mayors, ship captains, religious officials - to perform the marriage ceremony. However, even if a religious official (priest, rabbi, minister, imman, monk, or whatever) officiates at the marriage ceremony, he or she is actually also marrying on behalf of the State only because he is also authorized by the government to do so (the reason for them saying ';by the power vested in my by the State of New York';).
That being said, many religions also recognize some form of religiously governed ';marriage';. The government in the USA is not permitted to interfere and each religious body marries whom it wants according to its own rules. For example, Catholic churches do not allow divorced people to re-marry. Orthodox Jews do not permit a Jew and a non-Jew to marry, etc. Unitarian Universalists and some UCC Churches marry same sex couples now - whether or not the government in that particular location recognizes it. So, religious marriage CAN be in line with LEGAL marriage, often it is not.
The end of a marriage also illustrates this point equally well. When a court approves a the end of a marriage (divorce), the marriage no longer legally exists from a legal standpoint. Religious groups may or may not recognize the divorce (the end of the marriage). Some protestants do, some don't. The Catholic church does not. Jews do, but some require a separate procedure (';get';) for the divorce to be religiously valid. However, the religious view is irrelevant from a legal standpoint, as the two people are no longer married to each other in the legal sense and are free to marry like other singles.
If we were to keep in mind that ';legal marriage'; and ';religious marriage'; are separate institutions, I think the the entire debate around this issue would be less inflamed.
Because nearly all churches and religious orgs are 501c3 non profit corporations, which are created by The State. And the government looks upon marriage as a commercial contract. Face it, our society has been so infiltrated by government it's like Alien. I can't wait for it to chew its way our of our chests.
And as such my friend if the government retains the right to issue marriage licenses then the people who elect said government have the right to decide who gets them and who doesn't.
Not that I give a ratsass who you love and want to marry and will vote against any law that takes rights away from my fellow citizens.
edit: @hopelessly single-can you tell me of a time when man was not constrained by one form of religion or another? Please?
You are asking the same questions that Dick Cheney just answered from his prejudiced standpoint; since his daughter is gay. Of course, if I was a female and Dick Cheney was my Dad, I might approach this gay marriage issue differently. If you know what I mean?
But, marriages in the earlier history of mankind were considered the business of the churches. Why must it be changed now? To placate the desires of a minority of people who choose to reject the norms of the societies in which they live?
I think the claim is only that the term comes from the religious institution.
I'm for freedom and think homosexuals have an opportunity here to be creative and coin their own term for their unions.
You have a bicycle and a motorcycle. They are different yet similar.
It isn't. It's a civil contract with financial implications. So the answer is simple. All ';civil contract'; marriages should be open to all.
Churches can decide who/what can be married in their church.
Perhaps church marriages should be renamed into ';holy marriage'; or some such.
Actually marriage has always been a cultural and religious institution. It has not been practiced uniformly, either. The American description is religious, and nothing else. If there is a true separation of church and state, the government needs to get out of the marriage business.
Because it isn't. Marriage has been part of life long before modern religion. And if it was, we should all be getting civil unions, and if you want to have it ';blessed'; into a marriage, that's your choice.
It's not unless you make it; its primary purpose is about taxes and family wealth distribution. It never ceases to amaze me that gays would want to get involved w. anything so sordid!
becuz property and such after a divorce or such is upheld in gov courts
BINGO
where in the Constitution does it give such authority to the government?
IT DOESNT!
Because the government will get its grubby hands on anything you let it.
Most people, religious or not are against Gay marriage.
Most people, religious or not have morals, ya know.
Commie.
You shall be crushed by the weight of the American Empire!
What needs to be done is to completely dissociate religious marriage from civil marriage. Where I come from the ONLY marriage recognized by civil law is the civil marriage officiated by a justice of the peace or judge in a court room and that is the ONLY marriage with legal implications.
After that if you want to get married by the church or the satanic rite or the order of the aliens of outer space it's your business. YET if you don't get a civil marriage your other whatever ritual marriage carries no legal implications.
Separate church and state once and for all.If mariage is a strictly religous institution as some opponents of gay marriage claim then why?
Marriage is the foundation of family, and family is the foundation of society, therefore a societies government should be involved in a positive and constructive way to officially sanction and preserve marriage. Much of the official nature of marriage has to do with all the benefits granted to married men and women. Don't confuse the religious nature of the ceremony and meaning of marriage with societies collective support of the institution. Good government should always be involved in maintaining and strengthening the foundation of the society which it governs.
Because the religious institution of marriage cannot affect a citizen's tax filing status and other matters involved with the state, church and state are separate. So really, their is the religious AND the state aspect of marriage.
Simple solution: give gays the same rights, just don't call it a marriage. Those that insist that it has to be called a marriage only want to upset religious people, it has nothing to do with rights at that point. If they want the same rights, they should get them, but I don't see how gays have a right to redefine a religious sacrament.
Government is involved because we have allowed it to be. In my opinion, marriage ought to be a matter of personal contract among individuals (2 or more and of whatever gender suits the individuals). Government only needs to be involved from the standpoint of determining tax rates and other mandated benefits. It is also involved to the extent that it regulates behavior between individuals (for instance, employer benefits).
As you may know from my Q%26amp;A, I oppose all of these government interventions for their own sake. Eliminating them, individuals could embark upon whatever relationships that they wanted without caring what the government called them.
Actually, marriage is strictly a legal institution regulated by the government in the LEGAL sense. Only the government performs or dissolves a marriage legally.
Government authorizes various professional people - judges, mayors, ship captains, religious officials - to perform the marriage ceremony. However, even if a religious official (priest, rabbi, minister, imman, monk, or whatever) officiates at the marriage ceremony, he or she is actually also marrying on behalf of the State only because he is also authorized by the government to do so (the reason for them saying ';by the power vested in my by the State of New York';).
That being said, many religions also recognize some form of religiously governed ';marriage';. The government in the USA is not permitted to interfere and each religious body marries whom it wants according to its own rules. For example, Catholic churches do not allow divorced people to re-marry. Orthodox Jews do not permit a Jew and a non-Jew to marry, etc. Unitarian Universalists and some UCC Churches marry same sex couples now - whether or not the government in that particular location recognizes it. So, religious marriage CAN be in line with LEGAL marriage, often it is not.
The end of a marriage also illustrates this point equally well. When a court approves a the end of a marriage (divorce), the marriage no longer legally exists from a legal standpoint. Religious groups may or may not recognize the divorce (the end of the marriage). Some protestants do, some don't. The Catholic church does not. Jews do, but some require a separate procedure (';get';) for the divorce to be religiously valid. However, the religious view is irrelevant from a legal standpoint, as the two people are no longer married to each other in the legal sense and are free to marry like other singles.
If we were to keep in mind that ';legal marriage'; and ';religious marriage'; are separate institutions, I think the the entire debate around this issue would be less inflamed.
Because nearly all churches and religious orgs are 501c3 non profit corporations, which are created by The State. And the government looks upon marriage as a commercial contract. Face it, our society has been so infiltrated by government it's like Alien. I can't wait for it to chew its way our of our chests.
And as such my friend if the government retains the right to issue marriage licenses then the people who elect said government have the right to decide who gets them and who doesn't.
Not that I give a ratsass who you love and want to marry and will vote against any law that takes rights away from my fellow citizens.
edit: @hopelessly single-can you tell me of a time when man was not constrained by one form of religion or another? Please?
You are asking the same questions that Dick Cheney just answered from his prejudiced standpoint; since his daughter is gay. Of course, if I was a female and Dick Cheney was my Dad, I might approach this gay marriage issue differently. If you know what I mean?
But, marriages in the earlier history of mankind were considered the business of the churches. Why must it be changed now? To placate the desires of a minority of people who choose to reject the norms of the societies in which they live?
I think the claim is only that the term comes from the religious institution.
I'm for freedom and think homosexuals have an opportunity here to be creative and coin their own term for their unions.
You have a bicycle and a motorcycle. They are different yet similar.
It isn't. It's a civil contract with financial implications. So the answer is simple. All ';civil contract'; marriages should be open to all.
Churches can decide who/what can be married in their church.
Perhaps church marriages should be renamed into ';holy marriage'; or some such.
Actually marriage has always been a cultural and religious institution. It has not been practiced uniformly, either. The American description is religious, and nothing else. If there is a true separation of church and state, the government needs to get out of the marriage business.
Because it isn't. Marriage has been part of life long before modern religion. And if it was, we should all be getting civil unions, and if you want to have it ';blessed'; into a marriage, that's your choice.
It's not unless you make it; its primary purpose is about taxes and family wealth distribution. It never ceases to amaze me that gays would want to get involved w. anything so sordid!
becuz property and such after a divorce or such is upheld in gov courts
BINGO
where in the Constitution does it give such authority to the government?
IT DOESNT!
Because the government will get its grubby hands on anything you let it.
Most people, religious or not are against Gay marriage.
Most people, religious or not have morals, ya know.
Commie.
You shall be crushed by the weight of the American Empire!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)