Warning!! Don't bother opening if you're not of the Christian Faith:>)

[reinbeau]

The main point was of course that marriage gave some protection to women and children- made a strong unit of diverse talents and abilities in order that a safe haven is made as much as possible. Brought two extended families together to insure the continuation of their genes. Continuation of the kingdom, farm , even business. And yes, women were treated like livestock a lot of the time (not always.) Which is one reason for marriage in those times.

Even gay men usually had wives and made children inside a marriage to a woman- and did whatever they wanted outside of it privately. The point was to have an heir, to not let the line die out, to provide family members to get through rough times and to get society to recognize this child's rights.

Love and marriage only became really expected with the Victorians- thanks to Queen V and Prince Albert.

For a lot of women, being barren was cause for divorce - if the man was infertile, it was still her problem (Henry VIII.) And old people didn't usually live long enough to get remarried- and it was frowned on as silly by society and scandalous by her potential heirs (David Copperfield.)

+1, ETR, you've summed it up nicely. Just because older people and people who plan on not having any children get married (decidedly the minority in society) doesn't take away from the main reason marriage was established.

Take the M word out of it. Go for civil unions. Get all the legality of marriage without trying to wrap it in the religious ceremony, which is what marriage comes from - this is what has so many people enraged. There is no religion that condones homosexuality - now I'm not saying that's right, but it's true. So stop trying to change the very foundation of society (marriage equals one man and one woman) and go for what will work, a union contract between two people. Any two people. That will be doable. Keeping up this fight against the reality of what marriage is will just drag on and on and will never get them what they ultimately want, which are the rights and priviledges a marriage license grants.

 

[ScottyG]

Just because older people and people who plan on not having any children get married (decidedly the minority in society) doesn't take away from the main reason marriage was established.

I hear you, Ann, but I think you could add a couple words to this sentence and it would still have the same meaning:

Just because older people, gay people, and people who plan on not having any children get married (decidedly the minority in society) doesn't take away from the main reason marriage was established.

Still a very true statement.

 

[reinbeau]

True for you and the gay cause, not not true for the vast majority, and, of course, it totally ignores the whole point of my post. It's called logic, Scott, something too many who are trying to force an agenda try desperately to avoid. Now with that I'm leaving this discussion, because it's going to turn into a back and forth resulting in nothing but disagreement.

 

[enjoy the ride]

I do think it makes a difference. It is the service that marriage done well gives to society that makes it a thing of value - it provides future citizens to increase security and quality of life.
Demanding that society use its resources to support that which does not provide that benefit takes resources and focus away from the hard work of people who do.
It is like a single person who does not have a child demanding to have the exemptions in the tax code simply because they want their share of the benefits. They would be demanding the benefits without the work and sacrafice.
It is just greed, not love that's the motivation. Love exists without the benefits. The benefits are to help those who provide what society needs for its future.

 

[enjoy the ride]

Rarely do discussions like these change minds already made up either way. But it does allow exposure for those that are thinking about it to hear more before deciding and allows people to refine their ideas- maybe change their own positions for themselves.
And this has been a really civil exchange- impressive.

 

[MorelCabin]

Gay marriage is nothing more than a perversion and an agenda...I could say ALOT about it but I won't:>) Having raised a gay son and having met alot of his little gay friends, AND grown gay men who...oh, never mind. This whole gay thing is a real sore spot with me and simply shouldn't be allowed to happen in public never mind marriage! Some things were really mean to stay behind closed doors, and unfortunately did not! It is not acceptable, not normal, and that is that.

I can't deal with a man trying to act like a woman...and yes alot of it is practised until they get it down pat...I remember those days well. But they change back to acting like men if required...it is such a gimmick! Yes. parts of it are natural, but huge parts of it are an act that had to be perfected somewhere along the way. There is SO MUCH involved in this whole subject that it cannot even be comprehended by the avergae person who hasn't experienced it. They are trying so hard to exploit the churches and include them into thier agenda.

 

[miss_thenorth]

Rarely do discussions like these change minds already made up either way. But it does allow exposure for those that are thinking about it to hear more before deciding and allows people to refine their ideas- maybe change their own positions for themselves.
And this has been a really civil exchange- impressive.

I agree--while this thread has been entertaining and enlightening to see things from a different perspective, I still feel the way I do, but I thoroughly enjoy hearing other ppls points of view, based on their life experiences.

 

[ScottyG]

True for you and the gay cause, not not true for the vast majority, and, of course, it totally ignores the whole point of my post. It's called logic, Scott, something too many who are trying to force an agenda try desperately to avoid.

Well, I don't think I ignored the point of your post, and it's in fact something I addressed earlier. Ghettoizing gay marriages by calling them civil unions is not a solution to me. "Separate but equal" has never worked in our country, and I don't think it would work now.

Besides, whatever words we'd like to use, there are already "civil unions" in place in America. They're called marriages. Whether or not you like that use of the term, if you look at the non-religious law books in any state in the union, you will see laws about marriage, which have absolutely nothing to do with religious marriage. A good friend of mine was recently married in city hall. And it was called "marriage," no religion involved. It's civil. It's a union. So why make up a new term? When we let blacks and whites marry in the 60s, we didn't insist their marriages be called something different.

And I believe my logic is very sound. When you say "true for you but not true for the vast majority" that's already moving into subjectivity and away from logic. I'm just going on numbers and facts here, logically. If you're all right with MOST marriages being for children but not some (like barren and old people), then adding gay people to that minority will still keep that majority of "traditional marriages" very very large. Whether or not you like gay marriages is beside the point: just in a numbers kind of way, traditional marriage will remain the overwhelming majority in this country.

It is just greed, not love that's the motivation. Love exists without the benefits. The benefits are to help those who provide what society needs for its future.

If it were really greed that motivated gay people to marry each other, then why wouldn't they skip this battle, and just marry strangers of the opposite sex and reap the rewards, while continuing on with their current relationships? It would be very easy to take advantage of the benefits of marriage: find someone else who wants a tax break, marry them, never speak to them again, and PRESTO! Benefits gotten.

But the gay people who want marriage aren't doing that. Because they are in love with someone, and want not only to spend their life with that person, but to be legally bound so that they can co-own assets, preside over wills, grant citizenship to their foreign spouses, and so on.

Some people here have said that it's POSSIBLE to do all those things now, with a good lawyer. Yes, perhaps it is, but those who don't have the money to hire a lawyer, or those who are in love but not very smart, and so on... these people shouldn't be punished.

I just can't understand how folks are okay with the legality of Britney Spears marrying some guy in Las Vegas and getting divorced 55 hours later, but not with my friends Jim and Harry, who've been together for 30 years, moved all across the world to be with each other, bought a farm, and raise sheep together out in the country, moving their extended family into the farm house to care for them. You may think they're immoral, but that they're faking love? Seems preposterous to me, and I think you'd agree if you had met them (Jim passed away about 5 years ago). Again, you might not like either marriage, Britney's or my friends', but not liking them, and refusing them the institution all together are different things.

I don't LIKE when a meek woman gets married to an abusive man. I think it's horrible. But their right to marry is not in question. You may think homosexuals are perverts and sinners. Fine. But, say, promiscuous neo-nazi skinheads are awful people too, yet they can get married by the state without a problem.

 

[FarmerChick]

I think the exchange on this thread is interesting cause it sure shows alot of viewpoints. of course some I agree, some I do not, but it has been kept on a great civil level.

but feelings are feelings and just a short thread is not going to truly change anyone's minds.....it seems like we hit that "agree to disagree" type viewpoint now.

oh well.....

 

[reinbeau]

Sorry, but as I said, this thread has run it's course. A first for Sufficient Self.