"It's my birthday, so vote against 'Gay Marriage'"

Post Reply New Topic

It's probably harmful to them because it makes bigots say hateful things to them about their parents.

...and then it will likely head straight for the ballot this November pending a petition drive. Since you live in Washington, you probably remember Referendum 71. If domestic partnerships were upheld by the voters at a statewide ballot measure, do you think they'd do the same for same-sex marriage?

I hope the progressive spirit of Washington State that led to the voting down of 71 is still alive to defend the rights of all Americans to marry who they like.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

QFT

You would think that those who think of sex before mariage being a sin would suport it or something, otherwise they are encourageing a sin, though there is probably some pretty backwards logic in there.

Because I'm not making that argument.

The point I'm trying to make is that by redefining marriage to make it something that it is not, never has been, and can never be essentially makes the word meaningless. If marriage fails as an institution between two people of the opposite sex--and there are good reasons to be married and stay in committed relationships for male-female couples--then why even bother getting married at all? I'm not just trying to be an old-fashioned, tradition-for-tradition's-sake homophobe here. It's just that when it comes to tradition, sometimes the winners actually deserve to win.

One of the worst things to happen to the institution of marriage in the west has been the legalization of NFD, which I think very well has resulted from the Hollywood mentality idealized romantic love and the idea that you can divorce someone if you no longer love them. Love is important in a marriage, but there's a lot more to being married than love alone--or at least romantic love. All couples hit tough times in marriage and divorce seems like a good, easy way out. Quite often you'll find that couples who hit a rough patch and decide to tough it out are much happier 5 years later. If romantic sentiment or sexual desire are the only things that lead you in the direction of getting married, perhaps it's best not to get married at all since those kinds of things do not make for anything that can possibly last long term.

The way I see it, expanding marriage beyond what it is further weakens the institution, just like NFD did a few decades ago. If the effects of divorce have proven harmful, then traditional marriage should be protected, and it doesn't matter where the threat comes from (whether NFD or redefinition). I'd predict an increase in divorce rate for traditional couples. We'll see if I'm right in 10-20 years.

Defining marriage as anything but between two consenting partners makes it meaningless. For instance, defining it as an item licensed by government and regulated through the tax code makes it meaningless.

The solution to save the sanctity of marriage: get rid of government involvement in marriage. Otherwise it's just a potential tax credit people can argue over.

Agreed. Governments can recognise marriage, but that's about it.

the best option would indeed be for it to have no legal meaning at all,
then offer an actual registered partnership with similar benefits to today, registered partnerships should never be restricted in who can have them.

so if a christian wants to get "married" they can, it just wont do squat unless they also go and register their partnership.

Obviously this is only between adults, though? You don't want people being able to marry a lamppost.

hehe true

But, what if it's a sexy lamppost?

I'm sorry, before I understand and reply to you I need to know what NFD is.

No Fault Divorce

A sexy lamppost you can't take home with you? That's not going to work, is it?

I'm personally glad of No Fault Divorce. I don't see how it diminished the sanctity (which, btw is a religious notion... hmmm) of marriage.