What is marriage to you?
- Thread starter Fafnir665
- Start date
I voted for “not enough options”, but could have opted for “legally binding contract”, if I would be sure others understand it the same way as I do. Legally binding contract over what? Over another person who happens to say he loves me? To give him the right to meddle with my life? To prevent him to stop loving me (like he would – following the logic of marriage-pros - in the case of non-marriage)?
Anyway, I would have put in “an outdated form of socializing” or something in that sense for another option.
Anyway, I would have put in “an outdated form of socializing” or something in that sense for another option.
Gay marriage is not equal to straight marriage.
Marriage is fidelity, forever, and family, and according to gay sources fidelity can't be achieved in a gay marriage, actually gay married men end up having more parteneres than single gay men....go figure.
http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editio..._not_the_equal_of_heterosexual_marriage.shtml
Marriage is fidelity, forever, and family, and according to gay sources fidelity can't be achieved in a gay marriage, actually gay married men end up having more parteneres than single gay men....go figure.
http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editio..._not_the_equal_of_heterosexual_marriage.shtml
Raha
Registered Senior Member
Shut up Flores. Your self-righteous approach is well known already. Marriage is bullshit. There is no fidelity, forever etc. tied with marriage. These things are related to something else - to every man/woman personality. How many man in heterosexual marriages are faithful? I do not any one. You husband? How do you know? I can say I have been faithful so far - but I am not married - according to law. As one friend of me once pointed out, I am orthodox monogamist. So marriage does not have anything with it.
So - what is marriage? It is nothing but practical institution. It is a deal and there are three parties in it (yes, three, not only two) - in heterosexual marriage it is a man, a women and the "environment" (government, relatives, society etc.). There are two individuals, with some ties to their relatives, friends etc. at the begging. By the single step of marriage they declare that from that very moment everything is different - mainly property. Yes. Marriage is mainly about property - plus some other things like access to information in case of illness etc. There is no "spirit" of marriage or other crap like that. Marriage is practical thing. It establishes the complexity of relationship of two individuals on legal basis. That is why homosexuals, polygamists etc. should have the right to marry - to put their lives in order. All those nice things like fidelity, love, forever etc. are matters of relationship and commitment. You can have them without marriage and you can miss them in marriage. Marriage is about something else.
So - what is marriage? It is nothing but practical institution. It is a deal and there are three parties in it (yes, three, not only two) - in heterosexual marriage it is a man, a women and the "environment" (government, relatives, society etc.). There are two individuals, with some ties to their relatives, friends etc. at the begging. By the single step of marriage they declare that from that very moment everything is different - mainly property. Yes. Marriage is mainly about property - plus some other things like access to information in case of illness etc. There is no "spirit" of marriage or other crap like that. Marriage is practical thing. It establishes the complexity of relationship of two individuals on legal basis. That is why homosexuals, polygamists etc. should have the right to marry - to put their lives in order. All those nice things like fidelity, love, forever etc. are matters of relationship and commitment. You can have them without marriage and you can miss them in marriage. Marriage is about something else.
Well, Faf, marriage is a promise of two spouses to love each other, in sickness and in health, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, till death does them apart. This implies fidelity, and all the stuff like that. It is a union that is a start of a family, in which children will grow. Im sure someone will call me naive in this thread, but that's all I can come up with.
The reason why gay marriages are not ok with some people is that it goes against Christian, Jewish, and Muslim religion. Since, in our country, Church is separate from state, gay marriages should be allowed.
The reason why gay marriages are not ok with some people is that it goes against Christian, Jewish, and Muslim religion. Since, in our country, Church is separate from state, gay marriages should be allowed.
Well, those oaths are pretty much applicable for normals, not pops. Undaztand?
I'd have to agree with Flores here. Homosexual men are the devil, they are evil and aside from being generally promiscuous, they are all also flagrant cheaters. In fact being in a steady relationship only encourages them to have even more promiscuous sex, they are just that evil, it's true, every last stinking one of them! Leading homosexualologists agree, it's a scientific fact.
Wow, sounds kind of stupid when I say it, doesn’t it?
Wow, sounds kind of stupid when I say it, doesn’t it?
You know, you get people bleating on about the anctity of marriage, and yet in some places in the USA you can get married in a day or two or less. And divorces are too easy as well.
Yet not having those abilitys would trap huge numbers of people into relationships going nowhere that are destructive to themselves.
Of course, in the good old days, in early medieval europe, you could get married just by declaring yourselves married in front of witnesses, little paperwork, no church involved. I dont know about divorce, but given your spouse was likely to be dead in 5 or 10 years or in childbirth, it wasnt so much of an issue. But 50 years together nowadays?
Yet not having those abilitys would trap huge numbers of people into relationships going nowhere that are destructive to themselves.
Of course, in the good old days, in early medieval europe, you could get married just by declaring yourselves married in front of witnesses, little paperwork, no church involved. I dont know about divorce, but given your spouse was likely to be dead in 5 or 10 years or in childbirth, it wasnt so much of an issue. But 50 years together nowadays?
You are obviously not equipped nor experienced to discuss such a serious topic. Come back and discuss marriage after you get your driver license, graduate from college, get a decent job, purchase a house, get married, and have a couple of kids. I used to say the same crap that you say back when I was in LALA days of irresponsibilites.
Raha
Registered Senior Member
aha, that's really good! For your information only, dear Flores:
- driver license: I have one, of course
- graduate from college: I have Master degree in economics
- get a decent job: I have my own business
- purchase a house: I have a house, an apartment and small farm with some land and forest
- Get married: as I wrote, I am not married, but I live in stable relationship for 11 years now
- and have a couple of kids: I have three smart and beautiful children
BTW: I used to have some "romantic" ideas about marriage when I was younger...
Last edited:
Originally posted by Raha
BTW: I used to have some "romantic" ideas about marriage when I was younger...
I'm sorry to hear that ONE or TWO bad eggs might have ruined you forever and ruined for you the beautifull concept of marriage. I hope you find your soul mate one day and change your mind.
Raha
Registered Senior Member
Can't you read, Flores? I have a "soul mate" and we are very happy. I just think that marriage is nothing but practical legal contract which should be available to everybody who wants to use it, regarless his/her sexual preference. On the other hand - it is quite possible to be happy without marriage.
Marriage is a contract between two people and their government that joins the two people into one legal entity for financial and legal purposes. It has little to do with love; people just baselessly tie it to that.
I think gay marriage is a huge issue because a huge amount of people are not gay, and they perceive that the value of heterosexual marriages would drop if gays could legally marry.
I think gay marriage is a huge issue because a huge amount of people are not gay, and they perceive that the value of heterosexual marriages would drop if gays could legally marry.
Last edited:
Raha
Registered Senior Member
Thanks, Zanket - you put in better words what I was trying to say.
To your second paragraph I can only add - and that's because people have this stupid tendency to tie marriage with all that romantic or pathetic crap. Look at marriage from strictly practical point of view and you'll have no problem allowing homosexuals to marry. It is actually the same as preventing them to open private business or anything like that.
To your second paragraph I can only add - and that's because people have this stupid tendency to tie marriage with all that romantic or pathetic crap. Look at marriage from strictly practical point of view and you'll have no problem allowing homosexuals to marry. It is actually the same as preventing them to open private business or anything like that.
kajolishot
Registered Senior Member
I laugh each time I hear a compliment to marriage. Marriage is wonderful, you say.
The divorce rate in the USA is at 49%. These are the same hypocrites that are now defending the idea of "marriage" being between man & woman. Not in a long time have I heard such nonsensical whining. In fact the congressmen who are trying to make marriage a "man/woman" thing have had so much respect for the institution of marriage they themselves have gone through several wives & boned a few interns.
Look at the underlying facts: you are in effect making discrimination legal. It starts with banning same-sex marriage. The next step is up for grabs.
The divorce rate in the USA is at 49%. These are the same hypocrites that are now defending the idea of "marriage" being between man & woman. Not in a long time have I heard such nonsensical whining. In fact the congressmen who are trying to make marriage a "man/woman" thing have had so much respect for the institution of marriage they themselves have gone through several wives & boned a few interns.
Look at the underlying facts: you are in effect making discrimination legal. It starts with banning same-sex marriage. The next step is up for grabs.
I think the whole marriage doesn't work the way we wanted it to.
Partly because we are making it as a promise to be forever in love and blah blah blah. But can we promise someone sameness, ie love forever and stuff like that when we are changing all the time. We cannot predict what's gonna happen even the next minute, and how can we predict what's gonna happen years later. This is just a lie, even though with good intension, but a lie nevertheless.
Also, we all know that love is freedom, if marriage is remove that freedom, ie the freedom to love anyone, do anything that you want to do, while claiming marriage is love, this is contradicting itself.
Therefore, I think to anyone who enter a marriage, instead seeing it as a promise, look it as a choice to be with eachother, loving and freely, not disempowering anyone but as a mean to grow and expand eachother, everyday. If one sees to stop this choice, then just let go, because love is not meant to reduce freedom. Allowing the other to go on and create an even larger, grander self is what love would do and in turn it will create more opportunity for yourself.
Partly because we are making it as a promise to be forever in love and blah blah blah. But can we promise someone sameness, ie love forever and stuff like that when we are changing all the time. We cannot predict what's gonna happen even the next minute, and how can we predict what's gonna happen years later. This is just a lie, even though with good intension, but a lie nevertheless.
Also, we all know that love is freedom, if marriage is remove that freedom, ie the freedom to love anyone, do anything that you want to do, while claiming marriage is love, this is contradicting itself.
Therefore, I think to anyone who enter a marriage, instead seeing it as a promise, look it as a choice to be with eachother, loving and freely, not disempowering anyone but as a mean to grow and expand eachother, everyday. If one sees to stop this choice, then just let go, because love is not meant to reduce freedom. Allowing the other to go on and create an even larger, grander self is what love would do and in turn it will create more opportunity for yourself.
coolsoldier
Registered Senior Member
There are two categories of marriage that aren't really related to each other. There is a romantic/moral marriage that is a personal (sometimes, but not necessarily, religious) commitment to the one you love to be monogamous. There is another, generally unrelated legal marriage that is a contract between a man, woman, and government creating a legal unit between said man and woman (that is an approximation of the legal definition in most states). It has nothing to do with love, commitment, or romance.
The first is undoubtedly open to homosexual partners. Because it is a personal relationship, it is within nobody's ability other than the two partners to prevent. The latter, because of the way it is defined in the laws of most states, is usually only open to a man and a woman.
The first is undoubtedly open to homosexual partners. Because it is a personal relationship, it is within nobody's ability other than the two partners to prevent. The latter, because of the way it is defined in the laws of most states, is usually only open to a man and a woman.
Well there's no denying that they are to separate and distinct entities, the legal contract with associated benefits, and the romantic relationship. They are, however not completely unrelated, as I'm sure you well realize (that'd be one hell of a coincidence to have them both pop up independent of one another, wouldn't it?) but the correlation may be stronger than you realize.
The legal entity of marriage sprung up as a social recogization (and frequency) of the nature of the romantic relationship. It was deemed that out of convenience or necessity, or just for the sake of tidiness, that there should be special conditions and allowances made for two peep in such a relationship, IE shared property rights, joint healthcare coverage, all sorts of legal and financial considerations. The legal entity sprung up to ensure that these considerations were met, and that there was an easy way to keep track of who gets them and who doesn't.
Now as you say it's easy enough for a same sex couple to engage in the romantic long-term monogamous relationship that is marriage (well, as easy as any marriage is, which generally I hear isn't very), and seeing how as they can engage in such a relationship, why should they then be exempt from the legal considerations which society long ago laid down as a set of conditions which should be applied to two people in such a situation? In other words, if the shoe fits, why not wear it? We've got a segment of the population that's in the exact same circumstanses which spawned the legal institution in the first place, so why not allow them to have a part in it?
coolsoldier
Registered Senior Member
Social Contract
OK, I guess I left out the social element that connects the two. Honestly, it shouldn't be that big a deal. IMO organized religion (with a few notable exceptions ) makes it more of a problem than it should be (it's a relatively minor issue in most religious texts).
Unfortunately we have, at the moment, a government populated by religious fanatics who are not likely to change the terms of that contract right now. And it seems, because a marriage contract is legally unrelated to a relationship, they are quite possibly constitutionally entitled to keep the contract the way it is.
OK, I guess I left out the social element that connects the two. Honestly, it shouldn't be that big a deal. IMO organized religion (with a few notable exceptions ) makes it more of a problem than it should be (it's a relatively minor issue in most religious texts).
Unfortunately we have, at the moment, a government populated by religious fanatics who are not likely to change the terms of that contract right now. And it seems, because a marriage contract is legally unrelated to a relationship, they are quite possibly constitutionally entitled to keep the contract the way it is.