Spoken like someone who isn’t directly affected by the issue.
FWIW, I’m already embarrassed.
Embarrassed, enraged, ashamed, aggrieved, bewildered, stymied, perplexed, humiliated, and outraged. Among others.
If you don’t mind my asking, how did that happen?
She’s probably married to someone who got divorced.
Olives - are you discombobulated too? 
Yes! Discombobulated, disillusioned, flustered, affronted, and appalled.
But mostly just pissed off.
If a government or a religion wanted to control a population, it can do it by - controlling food supply - not likely if they want to stay alive - or they can use ‘social controls’.
Effectively these institutions are monopolising something, they are monopolising certain rights by controlling the process of marriage.
They can also use death rituals, birth rituals to access a means to control your rights.
What would happen though if everyone simply ignored them? totally ignored these state controlled marriages? This form of control would become an irrelevance.
The state does not have a legitimate interest in this type of control, it does not need to do it, it doesnot have to do it, which then brings the debate down to the interest groups who do feel it is a threat.
Get rid of state sponsored marriage and suddenly one of the great pillars of the religious nutters is gone, they have lost a monopoly.
I wonder if a living will could be drawn up between partners conferring rights to each other, it would be quite a difficult process legally to deny such a will because to do so would make other types of wills impossible to write and this would affect everyone.Would this effectively be a marriage.
It would be nice if the government’s ability to nullify a marriage was the same as the RCC–nothing for nonbelievers.
Delightful, delicious, and de-lovely? Bewitched, bothered, and bewildered?
Bepissed off!
Since my husband is Catholic, for his marriage to be recognized by the Catholic church he needed to be married in the Catholic church by a Catholic priest. For that to happen, we needed to jump through a bunch of hoops that neither one of us was prepared to do, so we got married by an officiant in a community hall. As far as the government of Alberta and Canada are concerned, we are as legally married as anyone else, and that’s all that matters to us.
jsgoddess, that’s a great way of looking at it. It doesn’t bother us that the Catholic church doesn’t recognize our marriage; we lose nothing. People and churches who don’t believe in gay marriage can just pretend they don’t exist, and get out of the way of gay people having the same marital rights from the state as anyone else.
And may I be the first to snap, “And so what if it is?” You love someone*, you want to build a life together, so just who the hell is any one-else to decide if you should?
- of the same species and legal age, of course.
I got married in the first state to offer Unions and I am proud to live in a state with universal marriage rights.
If your marriage is nullified, come to Massachusetts. Wait a few months until the snow melts.
Why are you snapping at whiterabbit, j666? She’s just saying how it is now, not saying she likes it.
Free at last. Free at last.
Thank god almighty I’m free at last!
Just kidding. ( Even if Mrs. P is not reading this.)
Marriage is, technically, nothing more that a contract. I don’t see why people get so damn upset about who marries who. It’s not going to change their lives one bit. Live and let live.
Unfortunately, no.
Think of a domestic contract between spouses as just an ordinary contract – usually a contract is not binding on third parties. For example, let’s say a same sex couple, in which one is a Canadian and one is an American, marry each other in Canada, and put a term in their domestic contract stating “The United States of America and its constitutent states shall recognize that we are married and shall process the Canadian spouse’s immigration application accordingly.” That would not be binding on the USA or its states.
The closest same sex couples can do in most of the USA’s states is to write cohabitation agreements, powers of attorney, and wills, that greatly affect their rights and obligations between each other, but unfortunately do not trigger the whole enchalada of rights afforded by the USA and its states to married couples.
whiterabbit, I do apologize if you took that as an attack. I did not mean I was snapping at you, but at the attitude.
You’ve just described the situation in the UK pretty much - gay marriage by another name (civil partnership) that can only be conducted by civil authorities. Some people seek to get their partnerships blessed but it’s not required. For those of us like me who couldn’t give two shits about religion it’s completely irrelevant to the process of accessing the same rights that straight people take for granted.
>a lot of people still thinking gay is something you do, not something you are
This point has always fascinated me.
First of all, I don’t remember ever having chosen whether to be attracted to one gender more than the other. I just was. So, logically, if being attracted to one’s own gender is a choice, then being attracted to the other gender would be a choice, too, right? You’re either making a choice or you’re not. You can’t “choose” to be attracted to the same gender, if being attracted to the other gender isn’t a choice. I happen to be heterosexual, but since I can remember becoming attracted to some people as an experience that came over me, and not as something I chose, I already know this isn’t an issue of choice, right? How can people who say they are heterosexual claim that other people’s being homosexual is a choice, unless for them being heterosexual WAS some kind of a choice?
And, if someone claims being gay is a choice, like it is some kind of temptation to be resisted, aren’t they confusing being gay with having gay relationships? I mean, if having gay relationships or acting on gay desires is a temptation for someone, then, they actually are already gay, right?
I just can’t get around this bizarre paradox. It doesn’t seem like there is any way one could believe being gay is some kind of choice or something a person does, if one is more than perhaps 10 or 15 years old. If there happens to be anybody here who can state the side of this debate I’m not seeing, and enlighten me, I’d sure appreciate it.
Because being straight is normal - it’s what God intended for us. Being gay is an abomination unto the LORD therefore one must choose it, as God wouldn’t make us in a perverted form would he? Or it’s Satan’s fault, I forget which. 
It seems at times that the only people who think “being gay” is a choice are people who are in such deep denial about their own gayness that they think that everyone is tempted by gayness instead of it just being, you know, gay people.
You and I both know that, but denial of this point is a critical plank in the gay-hating argument. You’re assuming that everyone’s looking at the issue honestly. They’re not; the gay-haters are coming from one of two (or both) arguments:
- That homosexuality is a sin, in which case it’s necessary to construct an argument for why it’s also a choice. In most religions, sins are generally sins only when they involve a choice; if a person has no choice about being gay it can’t be viewed as a sin. So they have to force themselves to believe it’s a choice, or else they’d have to admit it’s not a sin
Or
- That homosexuality is gross and nobody could possibly be born that way; instead, there’s some moral failing.