Oh my, that’s priceless. 
Is that of your own making, Juanita? Too cool!
We are in agreement about what she is saying, but I think the juxtaposition of the thrice-divorced groom vs. her own long-lasting relationship is meant to make a point - namely that her theoretical gay marriage would be better than any of the heterosexual divorces.
And she does go on to argue that she and her partner should be allowed to marry, when she complains:
So I think it is a little disingenuous to say she wasn’t trying to make any particular point about gay marriage, especially by contrasting it with this particular heterosexual one.
Regards,
Shodan
My God, Shodan. Do you see more or different words on your screen than show up on mine?
Her point is obviously that she feels her (at this stage theoretical) marriage would have a better chance, and would be more solid, than the marriage she was a guest to. Yet, the guests at the wedding display great pleasure over the marriage she percieves as having little chance, when chances are they would display disapproval of her marriage, should it come to pass: not because it would be seen as more likely to fail, but because it would be seen as wrong.
Not ANY heterosexual divorce. You’re reading a blanket statement where there isn’t one.
Why the hell are you getting riled up over a post that was in no way offensive?
Marriage has two kinds of value. There is legal value - having the government recognise a couple in certain ways (for things such as hospital visitation, taxes, etc) - and symbolic value, showing society that by the act of marriage two people are committed to each other ideally for life, practically for at least the near future.
Since Americans going to Canada for marriage will not have the legal advantages upon return to the US, ergo what is left is the symbolic value. And for two people that truly love each other, symbolic value is important to them. I was not insulting anyone when I said that a couple would be getting married for symbolic value.
And as far as “The list of rights denied same-sex partners is only tangential”, that in no way relates to my post. For the time being same-sex couples will be denied these rights in the US, no matter how many gay couples get married abroad, until legislation to change this is successfully passed.
UnuMondo
Coldfire is right on. I simply wondered, while witnessing the fourth religious wedding ceremony this one particular groom has endured or enjoyed, then “put asunder”, why the same group of people (who accept Bebe and me as nice women who live together and have a pretty garden and sweet dogs but we don’t want to know any more than that) so obviously rejoiced at that ceremony, but – and I’m just assuming here – would probably oppose, on religious or other kinds of grounds, a marriage between Bebe and me.
OF COURSE I don’t think this poor gomer’s bad marriages condemn all hetero marriages. I don’t think the failed union of my friends condemns all gay unions. I just find it hard to understand why anyone celebrates a 4th marriage in 16 years, complete with, so far, one badly damaged child, simply on the basis that it is hetero, and therefore “traditional.”
I think I’m with the OP … serial marriages of devout homo-haters have long annoyed me to no end.
One would think that if a particular body - the Methodists for instance - wants to enforce the letter of the law (the Bible) as regards homosexuality, they’d enforce it as regards remarriage after divorce. And those provisions carry the force of Jesus’s own words, whereas prohibitions of homosexuality don’t.
But I join with the OP’s caveats that we are assuming, here. We’re assuming these fine Methodists would oppose gay unions of any sort. And of course we might be wrong.
[UnoMondo**, thanks. Symbolic value would be nice. It would signify an acceptance level that just doesn’t exist in the US right now. Bebe and I aren’t children who want to belong to a secret club. I had a long marriage and a pile of children. We own our home. We take care of her 90-year-old mother. We pay taxes. We have good jobs. We volunteer in the community. We adopt dogs who are throw-aways.
What my OP means is that I believe the people who applauded the ceremony we attended should be equally accepting of our marriage, should we be able to have one, be less concerned with what happens in our bedroom, and more appreciative of what we do outside it.
Howard Dean said (I paraphrase) that marriage must be very meaningful to gays, if they want it so badly.
AFAIK, the United States is the only country that has created legislation to not recognize gay marriages from other jurisdictions.
Just found out something. My partner tells me the groom’s mother says he didn’t want to get married, knows he’s not good at relationships and doesn’t want commitment, but she insisted because it would be wrong for them to live together, a “bad example” for his children!
Now I get it. Living with wife #4, whom you didn’t want to marry, while quarreling with #'s 1, 2 and 3 over the children is good for them. Now I understand why “traditional” marriage is a “sacrament” and so highly regarded by homophobes, who, of course, must keep this precious thing from being tainted by the likes of me.
Actually, Coldfire, you should add Sweden too. Since 1995 gay people can register as partners with the authorities, virtually giving them equal rights in the eyes of the law, as heterosexual couples. I friend of mine did this a year ago and changed his last name to the same his bew partner had.
There is still debate going on, becuase it really isn’t a ceremony. People here can have a church wedding, or go to City Hall. Gays can’t go to City Hall, just register. Still, it’s a big step forward, since this affects all legal issues like insurance, joint application for loans ASF.
The law was also change not long ago to let gay couples apply to adopt. The problem is, most adoption agencies in the third world, will not let gay people adopt. However, the law says they can, and that’s a huge leap forward.
As to the hate and the stubborness to let gay people marry or adopt (the debate was fierce here too), I think it’s because these people think that homosexuality is sort of a desease, something that’s contagious, but can be cured, given a lot of prayer and clean thoughts. Letting gay people marry will make it more acceptable, thereby infecting more people with the gay lifestyle, and curing fewer. This will of course send them all to hell. :rolleyes:
I should add one more thing. The Swedish Church, Lutheran, now officially recognizes gay partners. They will probably be perfoorming religious mariages between people of the same sex within five years.
But even today christian gays who have registered as partners can go to a church to have a priest say prayer and give the blessing of the church. This is of course a touchy subject and the older members of the clergy are not too keen. The church, then doesn’t force the priests to do this, so the gay couple has to find a priest willing to perform the service.
I was on the fence with regard to Sweden - honest. Meant to look it up, but forgot.
The registration process was the first step in Holland, too. 1995 seems familiar, so both countries are probably on par there. Full gay marriages (for city hall) were introduced in 2000, I do believe.
Your churches have ours beat, though. We’re pretty much split 50/50 with regards to Christian churches, but neither denomination is willing to perform gay ceremonies, barring the odd local exception. I guess in a country with great emancipation, the churches take a more conservative stance to provide “counterweight”. Not completely unexpected.
Thank you, The Gaspode for that information. Sweden rules!