Same Sex Marriage

[WD-40]

Absolutely. That wasn't an argument for a different view of marriage at all, just a look at how it got that way. And on a similar note, another question - why is religion involved in marriage of any sort?

Well, I think a big problem is that we like to view marriage as if it has one definition and serves one purpose. Marriage doesn't have to be a religious act, but that's what it has evolved into for some people. Marriage is discussed in the Bible, particularly in Proverbs, as a positive bonding of two humans. As far as Christianity is concerned, God made man and woman (e.g. Adam and Eve) to live together in pairs, and a marriage is the fulfillment of this obligation. To a Christian, marriage is an intense spiritual connection between two humans. Jesus calls it "a uniting of two into one 'flesh.'" So naturally, religion (at least Christianity) has a justification to involve itself in the marriages of its followers.

Let me stress again, this is not the only type of marriage out there. Some people simply view it as a contract to live together throughout both persons' lifetimes. If somebody doesn't want religion delineating his or her marriage, so be it...

I'd say Samonuh covered it pretty well here from the different angles, however I might add that I believe marriage involving 'Religion', whether Christian, Hebrew or something else involving a 'Higher Power', is symbolically meant to provide a Spiritual Anchor for the couple in good times and bad, richer or poorer, etc., more so in past decades than today.

However, in these times, I believe far too many couples treat marriage as a 'convenience' rather than a 'commitment'. Personally, I could care less whether gays marry, but just so long as they pay the same taxes as traditional couples do (Man and Woman).

I, for one, paid about $10,000 for my oldest Daughter's wedding...in a church...where they made vows before a Pastor and before God. Less than 2 years later, they are now separated and getting a divorce. My soon-to-be Ex Son in Law refused to go to marriage counseling. I'm angry mostly that I pissed away $10,000, because he didn't put the 'commitment' into the marriage or his vows. If two Gay people or regular couples can have commitment, whether it involves religion or not, more power to them. They want to live together and not get married..so be it. But they should not be given the same benefits of married people if not married. I'm just sick of marriage being treated like it can simply be thrown away if it hits bumps in the road not involving the breaking of vows.

[(=DK=)Samonuh]

I, for one, paid about $10,000 for my oldest Daughter's wedding...in a church...where they made vows before a Pastor and before God. Less than 2 years later, they are now separated and getting a divorce. My soon-to-be Ex Son in Law refused to go to marriage counseling. I'm angry mostly that I pissed away $10,000, because he didn't put the 'commitment' into the marriage or his vows. If two Gay people or regular couples can have commitment, whether it involves religion or not, more power to them. They want to live together and not get married..so be it. But they should not be given the same benefits of married people if not married. I'm just sick of marriage being treated like it can simply be thrown away if it hits bumps in the road not involving the breaking of vows.

I don't mean to veer too far off topic, but this makes a good point. I find it insane how much engaged couples are willing to spend on weddings. Media and television have driven this idea that girls need a fairy-tale wedding to commence a good marriage. It's ridiculous. Now, your case is different because you were the person unfortunate enough to take on the cost, but for couples paying for it by themselves: why would you take on such a debt before you even get married?! I know somebody who spent $60 total on their wedding. A little on the opposite extreme, I know, but society needs to learn fiscal responsibility early on is one of the keys to a successful marriage...

[CommanderOtto]

I know, that really bothers me when I see people marry and divorce so quickly. It's almost as if people don't have the maturity to deal with each other's imperfections.


I know I might sound old fashioned, but I prefer the 50's and 60's view of marriage. You marry, man goes to work, wife takes care of children... I don't know, it sounded a lot simpler. Almost no divorces, kids were better raised.... I mean, someone could disagree with me, but I wish it were still that way.

but regarding gay couples, that's not my business. Everyone can choose what they want to do. I believe in man/woman marriage, but no one should impose that view on others.

[(=DK=)Samonuh]

I know, that really bothers me when I see people marry and divorce so quickly. It's almost as if people don't have the maturity to deal with each other's imperfections.


I know I might sound old fashioned, but I prefer the 50's and 60's view of marriage. You marry, man goes to work, wife takes care of children... I don't know, it sounded a lot simpler. Almost no divorces, kids were better raised.... I mean, someone could disagree with me, but I wish it were still that way.

Wow, that's a tad chauvinistic. And the reason why divorce rates were so low in the 50s was because it was still a taboo decision. My parents are divorced, and I think it was the right decision. They fell out of love, and my dad was miserable whenever he had to see my mom. Divorce is fine by me in proper situation. What ticks me off is when two people entering a marriage with the mindset, "we can always get divorced."

[CommanderOtto]

I know, that really bothers me when I see people marry and divorce so quickly. It's almost as if people don't have the maturity to deal with each other's imperfections.


I know I might sound old fashioned, but I prefer the 50's and 60's view of marriage. You marry, man goes to work, wife takes care of children... I don't know, it sounded a lot simpler. Almost no divorces, kids were better raised.... I mean, someone could disagree with me, but I wish it were still that way.

Wow, that's a tad chauvinistic.

I speak good english, but not that good... The free dictionary says:


Prejudiced belief in the superiority of one's own gender

if that's what you meant...i'm not offended lol, but I really don't think that's the case. My mom "worked at home" and I thank god that she decided to take care of us instead of going to work in some office like so many women these days. Just saying...

but i agree with you there. People shouldnt get married if they think they can just get out of it like that.

[(=DK=)Samonuh]

What if a woman wants to develop a career for herself though? Does she need to choose between that or kids?

[CommanderOtto]

What if a woman wants to develop a career for herself though? Does she need to choose between that or kids?

no.. i mean, if she really wants to work. But I have the feeling that women today think it is degrading to stay home. Running the house and the kids is a job too, and it's not a bad thing.

[rg3fever]

Gay and lesbian marriage should stay illegal. It's been like that since our founding fathers started this country. For [m'kay] sake it's in our Constitution. The whole gay marriage issue has done nothing but make people argue, but I suppose that's politics for you.

[Belgarath]

Well, my parents are kind of the opposite of what most would say are 'regular'. My dad is a stay at home dad, who's raised me since I can remember, though he works fixing cousins and friends computers. He makes a good 300 a month, maybe. And my mom, she works as a nurse for Choc. My aunt, currently retired, used to work as a teacher at one of the Cal States. This may not exactly relate to same sex marrage, which I am for, but I thought I'd add to the conversation. The husband doesn't always have to work. The mom can too.

[Mandalore]

Gay and lesbian marriage should stay illegal. It's been like that since our founding fathers started this country. For [m'kay] sake it's in our Constitution. The whole gay marriage issue has done nothing but make people argue, but I suppose that's politics for you.

You're retarded. The constitution says nothing about marriage. In fact to piggy back off that I'm pretty sure that God and religion aren't referenced but maybe once in its entirety. The constitution is not based on the judeo Christian laws and ideals but far more upon the French enlightenment and loosely upon the English bill of rights. The founding fathers, the famous ones at least, were quite liberal and generally unorthodox. Hell, even the hardcore evangelicals just wanted to be left alone.

The Christian parts of the government that some think have been there forever are actually quite young, having been implemented in the fifties mainly. democracy is in fact the antithesis of Abrahamic religion which is clearly a despotic monarchy with a mad man at the helm. But I digress. You are allowed to divorce. You can eat shrimp. You can get tattoos. This is not a Christian nation. But a nation with many Christians. its laws should not be derived from sources as sharia law or biblical law