Hey man I’m all for gays getting married, and having the same rights as I do, to be nagged, to spend their weekends working on honey-do list, to put up with mother-in-law. But really, whats the big deal?
In the beginning, God created the earth and rested. Then God created Man
and rested. Then God created Woman. Since then, neither God nor Man has
rested.
Gays should not marry. Hell Straights should not marry. Marriage is a joke so I do not understand what the big deal is. If two people love one another they should not need society/religion based promise to keep each other loyal. If you want the tax break received from marriage then marry a lesbian and say fuck the government. If you want to be accepted by society keep on your “fight for equal rights” and do it intelligently so people will take you serious. When the majority is ready to change…then it will happen.
IMHO I feel that marriage is around for those people who need some kind of contract (crutch?) to feel bound to another person. Granted there are couples out there that sincerely love one another and are married. This is fine, the point I am trying to make is that these people would not need something like marriage to keep one another loyal. It seems that everyone wants to get married eventually for no other reason than they have been told since childhood that when you grow up you get married. FUCK THAT and a bag of chips. Marriage has become:
I do not understand so many women’s fascination with getting a ring put on their finger (other than the bragging rights. Oh look what Bruce gave me…oh my god that ring is so big…oh I know! ARRGH). I do not understand how a man needs to “mark his territory” by putting the ring on her finger. I don’t even understand why you would spend money on jewelry…just a waste.
That’s my $2 bucks, cause .02 doesn’t go far.
Openfist
The hate I bear thee can afford
No better term than this,–thou art a villain.
Equality - there’s a lot more to the institution of marriage than just chores. See below.
My, what a cynical young man you are.
I would never dispute that the institution of marriage needs some help - high divorce rate, bad parents, “Who Wants To Marry A Multi-Millionaire,” and whatnot. But you seem to be reducing all marriages to an ill-fated oath of loyalty by keeping your spouse on a short leash and legal wranglings to keep from getting screwed over, and that’s patently unfair to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.
But even if we go with your stilted way of thinking, marriage also provides much more than just a contract of loyalty - there are hundreds of rights and responsibilities that come with signing that license, from who gets to make your medical decisions for you, who inherits your estate when you die, who gets to share your health insurance benefits, and, yes, who gets what if you split up. These are vitally important from a legal standpoint.
I really think your premise is flawed. I, for one, assume that when people get married it’s because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives with that person, and I’ll keep on assuming that until I am proven wrong. My parents have been married for 42 years this year, and they still make a handsome, happy couple.
Well, now, this part I’ll agree with. When my supposition of love is proven wrong, it’s usually because the woman in the relationship had it in her head that she had to get married, usually at some unreasonably young age, and made a bad choice in husbands. Personally, I don’t think anyone should get married before the age of 30.
Personally, I’m looking forward to sharing rings with my partner simply because I want an outward sign that I love someone and have made it my life’s commitment because I’m proud of that love. Rings, to me, have no meaning in regard to “ownership rights.”
OK, now them’s fightin’ words! Jewlery is never a waste! 
Esprix
Cynical? Who me?
All of these rights and responsibilities can be done through legal council and other means. My insurance (both medical and life) will allow me to put wife or significant other for all of my benefits. All you need is proof that the person lives in the same dwelling. The person who gets all my belongings if I die is my brother and I am not married to him. You do not need marriage to accomplish these things.
42 years and happy…what planet did you grow up on?
Alright Esprix! Its on baby!
You better watch out because I am one bad muthafucka and all my bitches know karate! Ya dig
Openfist
Romeo, the hate I bear thee can afford
No better term than this,–thou art a villain
Perhaps I didn’t make it clear enough.
First of all, you’re concentrating on a few of the most important legal items associated with getting married, but you’re not even close to all. The state of Vermont’s civil union legislation directly affects 400 references to 300 rights. The General Accounting Office identified 1,049 marital-status related federal benefits. So, at least in the state of Vermont, if someone gets married, that’s 1,349 legal statutes are immediately affected. Are you prepared to say that the enormous cost and time involved for a same-sex couple to gain those same rights by means of legal documentation isn’t significant? Further, there may be some legalities that aren’t available by simple legal means.
I’m glad your company has a progressive employee benefits package. Most companies don’t. Civil unions and/or marriages, in today’s society, are necessary.
I’m not saying I disagree with you that the institution of marriage needs help, but slandering all marriages is just that - slander, and completely counterproductive to improving the situation.
Yes, please slander my parents and my family so that I have good cause to rip you a new asshole - I’ve been looking for an excuse to sharpen my claws lately. My point is that you cannot wholly classify every marriage as hollow and intrinsically self-serving.
I might also point you to the various threads on this topic in Great Debates, including “Domestic Partners,” “Gay Marriage/Parenting,” and “Please list the special rights.”
Esprix
I am going to look into this today and find out what the legal costs/time exacally would be. I am now interested in seeing how much it would cost to get all of the rights of a spouse to a “lifepartner”.
Look power puff girl, I am not insulting your parents. If anything I am very much amazed on how a couple can stay together for 42 years. I guess that I was the one who grew grew up on the planet where fathers hit their children when drunk and mothers are full of spite. In my first post I made the point to say that there are many couples out there who marry for love. This is fine. But IMHO the act of marriage in itself is still meaningless. Perhaps the ideas behind it are great but it is just a contract. And stay away from my asshole old or new. I don’t know where you have been…but I have an idea.
Openfist
You know, this isn’t even the point. A legal system has already been established for two people to enter into a binding contract, both legally and religiously significant, that directly affects over 1,000 legal rights and responsibilities. Tearing this institution down because it has some problems and re-constructing an entirely new governmental institution to do the exact same thing is insane, when changing the institution to be fairer to more people would make more sense, besides respecting equal rights and treatment under the law for everyone.
Ooo, that’s a keeper. 
Then you should have posted a little more clearly, or included that all-important " :)" to indicate you were joshing and not slandering. My apologies if I misinterpreted your intent.
And I go back to calling you a cynical young man. How sad that you hold this view, and you look at marriage and married couples with such contempt.
What’s up with your home life?
Oh, how I love making the straight boys squirm… {heh heh heh}
Esprix
FYI, Openfist took this to e-mail, unless anyone else is reading this and wants to hear more.
Esprix
Esprix, I think you may want to change your user name to power puff girl. It kinda has a nice ring to it…
I think he was going for powder puff girl, but it’s funny nonetheless…
Perhaps that’ll be Gay Guy’s faithful sidekick, which is really his secret drag identity!
Oh, the possibilities…
Esprix
After reading through all the posts I still don’t see how or why legally accepting SSM hurts or somehow would infringe on the rights of anyone. The argument that by making it legal would somehow encourage more people to do it (ala Roe v Wade) is bizarre and strange but not really a valid argument. It’s not like a plethora of women got up the day after that decision and said, “You know what, I think I’ll pop off to the local med clinic and get myself an abortion today!” with no reason in their head other than that it had suddenly been declared their right to do so. Anyone who thinks any woman takes such a decision lightly is deranged.
All of the religious reasoning is interesting but also bizarre as well. According to such dictates I am aberrant because I’m a single female who doesn’t want to wed anyone, male or female. I have no desire to reproduce or develop any kind of “family unit” that fits into the Judeo-Christian protocol. Therefore, according to this, I am deviant.
I am also surprised that the religious argument has been mostly Judeo-Christian. What about Hindu, Buddhist, Confucianist, Toaist, Zoroastrian or Mohammedan?
I wish this board was a lot more international in flavor so that we could have some differing religious views on this topic.
Best!
Byz
Voted most sex obsessed. (Yeah, blow me smart ass!)
Agreed. I also haven’t quite figured out how some heterosexual couple that would get married after same-sex marriages were legalized would some how stand at the altar on their wedding day and feel somehow “cheapened by the entire debacle of marriage.” This won’t affect the vast majority of people one whit.
This sounds like a GD topic!
Esprix
For the record, there are some Christian denominations that celebrate SSMs. Or rather, there are clergy in those denominations that are quite happy to preside at such ceremonies, often with denominational blessing. Not to mention the UFMCC…
Hindu, Buddhist, Confucianist, Toaist, Zoroastrian or Mohammedan
because at least 1 of those religions is dead. I know what hindu and buddhist would say though… your coming back as a animal.(and you should be killed) killing people who dont obey their caste is a major part of their religion (or at least was)
the rest… why would anyone care? if its not a major religion it doesent matter in politics
Yup. Sadly, though, some have lost their pulpits or their robes because they did what they thought was right.
Esprix
Huh? Can you clarify this for me? It makes no sense. Are you Hindu or Buddhist?
Well, we’re not talking about politics, we’re talking about religious beliefs. But, as I said, the thread is currently going on in Great Debates, so please, we’d love to hear your thoughts there!
Esprix