My partner and I (who can’t be legally married because we are both women) attended a wedding Saturday. Small town Methodist church. Went because the mother of the groom is a life-long friend of my partner, and we were planning to be in the neighborhood anyway.
Groom: 35 years old. This is his 4th marriage. Children from each of the three previous. Fifteen-year-old son from first seems okay. Eleven-year-old daughter from second (her mom and the groom despise each other) has a lot of issues. Six-year-old from marriage # 3 adores older sister & tries to take the rap for her mischief.
Bride: 26-years-old, quiet, shy, never married. Whispered to me she doesn’t want children but really likes the 6-year-old. Doesn’t care for the 11-year-old, who lies, steals, has no friends, hates school. Thinks the 15-year-old is a “cute boy.”
One hundred plus attended the ceremony and reception (on the lawn at the groom’s mother’s home). Much joy. Lots of “happily ever after” chat.
Can someone tell me why this marriage is accepted with enthusiasm, while the idea that my partner of eight years and I might want to marry is considered evil?
I foresee her being Wife #4 in a long line of wives, with at least one child, possibly by that “cute boy”.
I foresee the 11 year old having no respect for “mom of the moment”.
Why certain people are more in favor of this kind of thing and violently opposed to gay marriage, I cannot understand. My wife and I aren’t likely to have children, so we certainly don’t fit the concept of the purpose of marriage being to raise children. That argument doesn’t hold a lot of water, unless we want to start forcing childless couples to divorce and institute mandatory divorce after the children leave home; reserving “marriage” solely for the purpose of having and raising children.
And gosh, if you (generic you) hate and fear gay people, wouldn’t you think getting them into monogamous long-term relationships would be a good thing? Then they aren’t sleeping around and spreading their sinful ways! (lol)
Actually, that’s not completely true. The Bible doesn’t really approve of “marriage hopping,” either. So, while society may approve of one and not the other (yet), don’t completely blame the Bible. It speaks out against this. I’ll look it up, if you like, and provide scripture if requested.
The propagation of civil rights is just taking a bit longer for some minorities than for others. Hardly comforting for you, but the cracks are in the ice, and it will happen eventually.
Perhaps you might consider coming up to Toronto, where you can legally get married. The U.S. won’t recognize it yet, but many nations around the world will.
Heloise is right, the New Testament is even more opposed to divorce and remarriage than the Old, which is why I am agog at the number of promoters of “family values” who hate gays on general principle while working on a marriage other than their first.
Pot, kettle, etc.
As for why this kind of thing is acceptable to many for whom gay marriage is not, the best answer was actually spoken by our venerable President Bush not long ago. They’re so busy looking at the speck in their neighbor’s eye, they’re ignoring the log in their own. It’s straight up hypocrisy, nothing more, nothing less.
Whadaya wanna bag on them for? It’s not their fault same sex couples can’t get married. Almost all of the dipshits who disapprove of the wedding you want to have would also disapprove of this one.
… so there’s your answer, summerbreeze: your relationship is clearly evil and destructive, while the delightful wedding you attended reflects a bedrock institution which will single-handedly ensure the survival of the species. Well, duh.
“Many”? How about three in toto, Belgium, Holland, and Canada. If a gay couple wants to get married in Canada for the symbolic value, I can understand that, but you’re fooling yourself if you think the marriage will be recognised in “many” nations for the next several years at least.
“They are preserving the sanctity of marriage, so that two gay men who’ve been together for twenty-five years can’t get married, but a guy can still get drunk in Vegas and marry a hooker at the Elvis chapel! The sanctity of marriage is saved!”
Yeah … no gay couple would ever want to be married for, y’know, the actual value of the thing. It’s purely symbolic. The list of rights denied same-sex partners is only tangential.
I believe we need to add Denmark to that list of countries as well, and I think a lot of EU countries will follow suit in the next 10 years or so. Germany’s already putting legislature in place, for instance.
I do agree that this will be a largely European affair for the first years (and Canada, of course, bless 'em!). Perhaps countries like New Zealand or Australia might be next, too, although PM Howard’s words don’t seem to give too much hope. What a fucking idiot. I’d say if our species is to survive in the long run, we ought to make gay marriage mandatory, fercryinoutloud. I know the Land down Under can seem a little empty at times, but Ye Gads, there’s 6 Billion of us already on this weird little planet. Last thing we need is some intellectually challenged conservative git to try and ensure the survival of the species by banning gay marriages. :rolleyes:
I just thought of another reason why mr. Howard’s reasoning is so flawed. I can understand someone being against gay marriages on principle. I don’t agree, but I can understand it, if the person’s a very strict Christian, for instance. Fine. But… the survival of the species? Let’s assume for a minute that the world’s population was decreasing, and that we’d be nearing a critically low population, only barely enough to survive. What do you think all those gay guys will do? Fuck women all of a sudden?
Coldfire said: “I’d say if our species is to survive in the long run, we ought to make gay marriage mandatory, fercryinoutloud.”
Coldfire said : “Let’s assume for a minute that the world’s population was decreasing, and that we’d be nearing a critically low population, only barely enough to survive. What do you think all those gay guys will do? Fuck women all of a sudden?”
My irony alarm just started buzzing… although I’m guessing that the first quote was slightly tongue-in-cheek. Otherwise, I ain’t sure how we reconcile the notion of “population control through voluntary homosexuality” with the idea that “population regeneration through voluntary heterosexuality” would be out of the question. A fair number of gay guys, taking a WAG, could do the nasty with women if they really had to – a fair number may even be defined by something that George Michael once said (shortly after the famous public toilet bust), that your sexuality isn’t defined by whom you can get it up for so much as whom you prefer. But, if this ain’t the case, it’d be no use telling the world in general it was time to bite the pillow and save the planet. I’ve heard any number of times about how gays don’t choose to be gay – it’s the unchangeable sexuality they’re born with. I assume in the light of this that it’s an exercise in futility to tell straight people to turn gay as much as to tell gay people to turn straight.
Reference the OP: I guess that with a little thought I could come up with a long list of things I want, can’t have, never will have, and see less deserving people helping themselves to every day. Life’s a crock of poo sometimes, no error; but, meanwhile, I’ve not advanced my claim to any of these things that I want. Or I can say “Poor you. How frustrating for you.” Unfortunately, people will think I’m mocking, whether or not I am. It isn’t so long ago that divorced people couldn’t remarry. That had to be rethought because of the inhumanity of depriving them of their rights, or something. What you see now is the result of that. Otherwise, SB, you could have lined up alongside the divorced instead of envying them.
A quick digest of what Christ said on the subject of divorce: Because people were wicked, Moses was obliged to give them a law covering divorce; but that wasn’t the way the Father intended things to be in the first place. Christ said that anyone divorcing his wife made an adulteress out of her – because she would have to remarry for her own survival – except in the one case that the divorce was for unchastity – because then she already was an adulteress, and divorcing her didn’t make her “more” of one; and that whoever married a divorced woman committed adultery. (Explanatory italics mine.) So you can blame whatever you like for a serial divorcer being able to marry when you cannot, but not the Bible.
Just some unstructured thoughts on a hot afternoon.
Yes, the first comment was TIC. And I was merely pointing out how ludicrous Howard’s “survival of the species” argument was. Didn’t think someone would make an empirical analysis of it.
