posted November 02, 2011 01:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rajji:
Marriage is the only relationship between two people (opposite sexes) which is worthy of respect and honour

---

Wait, all other relationships aren't worthy of respect and honor? No BFFs (Best Friends Forever), mentor and student, mother and child, father and child, grandparent and grandchild, best cousins, business partners, brothers, sisters, and all that don't deserve respect and honor? (And can I include person and pet, too, especially in cases of dogs helping the disabled?)

That makes no sense to me at all. (I could understand it if you said it was the most sacred or most deserving of respect and honor, even if I don't always agree with it, but you said all these other relationships don't deserve to be respected and honored at all which is just too bizarre a concept for me to understand.)

posted February 22, 2012 06:27 AM            

1) A union (in the government's eyes) would be handled via contract. Call it a "Civil Union", call it a "Union" - whatever. It could be formed between any two (or more, perhaps - I don't know...I let the culture warriors deal with that) adults of sound mind and would act much as mutually applicable powers of attorney (with groovy tax and visitation benefits).
That is, it would have all the same legal partnership benefits of a marriage (as currently constructed) but without some of the same constraints. It could be dissolved as could any other legal contract/partnership.
Being the legally/governmental recognized component of a partnership, it would be formed at the courthouse - a contract drawn up, signed, notarized, copied, and filed.

2) Marriage, on the other hand, would be a religious/spiritual bonding. It would be dictated and bound by whatever the rules (or lack of rules) are for that particular religious or spiritual tradition. Its formation and dissolution would be similarly linked to that tradition's rules.
It would not be legally recognized.

People can bound by both, one, or neither.
If someone opted for the first, the civil union component could be completed before the religious marriage - much as someone now must get a marriage license before the ceremony.

fin.

----

That being said, when marriage (in its present form) works, it's wonderful.
When it doesn't...it's its own special brand of Hell.

re: non-religious ceremonies: My husband and I had one - a lovely little elopement with just me, him, and the girls and officiated by the lady who ran the Bed and Breakfast.
It cost $200.
BOO-YAH!

In the US, allowed officiants vary by state:
http://roseministries.org/state_faq.php

posted April 03, 2012 06:19 AM            

I think that too many people, especially my age and younger, have this ridiculous idea about marriage being some kind of little happy fairy tale, like playing house, only for real. Weddings today are really over-the-top and are a chance for women to "play princess". They're basically a more upscale, elaborate, and expensive version of prom. More focus is on the ceremony than on the marriage itself.

I'd also say that maybe divorce should be harder, with exceptions for abuse, infidelity, abandonment, and other things of that nature. I'm on the fence on that one, though, as I would never want to make it difficult for someone to leave a bad marriage.

And as for same-sex couples, just let the gays marry already. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one, simple as that. No one is forcing people who don't want to be in a same-sex relationship to be in one.

posted April 03, 2012 06:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:
I sort of agree with that notion, but partners (of all genders) should still have the right to opt in if they want to. By golly, everyone should have the right to be old-fashioned if they want to

---

--agreed

posted April 03, 2012 06:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Wait, all other relationships aren't worthy of respect and honor? No BFFs (Best Friends Forever), mentor and student, mother and child, father and child, grandparent and grandchild, best cousins, business partners, brothers, sisters, and all that don't deserve respect and honor? (And can I include person and pet, too, especially in cases of dogs helping the disabled?)

That makes no sense to me at all. (I could understand it if you said it was the most sacred or most deserving of respect and honor, even if I don't always agree with it, but you said all these other relationships don't deserve to be respected and honored at all which is just too bizarre a concept for me to understand.)

Many of those relationships I describe can be and are more deeply felt and loving than many marriages. Note, I'm not saying they are superior to marriage, that would be ridiculous, I'm saying some of those I describe are superior to some marriages when it comes to love, loyalty, succor, respect, and help (sometimes even a kidney). In fact, many of those relationships I mention can save the life of someone (and the children) when a spouse leaves an abusive husband/wife with the aid of their relationship with a parent, grandparent, mentor, BFF, etc.

---

posted June 03, 2012 02:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LEXX:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Randall:
[b]Weddings: For the brides, it means showers; for the grooms, it's curtains!

---

Marriage benefits men more than women based on my personal experiences to date.

posted July 06, 2012 06:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
I see no benefit for men.

---

hehe. I see no benefit for women!
http://www.livescience.com/7364-boyfriends-housework-husbands.html

posted July 06, 2012 11:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by pire:
is it because religion is involved that gays cannot be concerned by the marriage?

gay people can not be religious, or spiritual? and religion is not supposed to represent that aspect of human's experience: human's spirituality?

so if being married is a problem because it makes religions recognize gay people getting together, then religion is the main issue behind gay's right to live like others, here read straight. hence religion is not fulfilling it's other role, to include every human beings in a spiritual journey.

in europe, that is what happened. catholicism is dying, surely and definitely, and is being replaced by islam. although france and other european countries have centuries of histories to back up our culture. but I wonder if those conservatives of today in anglo saxon world like the US australia are going to react when the same will happen in THEIR countries and arab countries will habe become democracies like it is begining to happen. islam culture will no longer be a threat. how could a democracy be threatened by another? influenced, but hey what can you do about influence, well, I think not much, especially in individualistic countries...

note that I am looking forward to see the positive sides of islam, that france has a bigger experience than many other wzestern countries, haveing roughly 10 percent of its population being muslim, and personnally having grown up with muslim people as my neighnours clasmates and colleagues. so islam in its good side is great and I am looking forward to see it develop and "infiltrate the western world, because of the decay of catolicism due to its inability to adapt.

---

Have those countries that have abandoned Christianity examined Islam's view on homosexuality? And where are the figures coming from that show this wholesale embrace of Islam by former Christians, particularly, white European ones?

posted July 06, 2012 11:48 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by EverEvolvingSpirit:
I feel like I'd be short changing myself by doing this. I want a real, bonafide marriage before God in front of my loved ones with 2-3 more kids, and a dog with a white picket fence I want to call my man my husband.

---

Thank you. If gays and heteros alike want to gain the societal and legal benefits that marriage affords, don't tear down marriage. The support for civil or "life partnership" unions goes hand in hand with respecting those whom believe in and fully support marriage. That above only holds true, however, absent insidious efforts, born from apparent jealousy and a sense of "second class" citizenship, that are afoot to abolish marriage for those whom qualify for marriage, aka, those meeting the religious tenets that are also a requirement of marriage.
So, if doing away with the privilege of marriage is part of the deal, then it's a no-go on the alternative proposals, particularly when a minority of society is pushing to upheave the foundation and beliefs of the majority. Not how it works.