The new capital of discrimination

tonksy said:
I mean, we let the straight folk change spouses every other year and don't bat an eye. Who really cares?
Click to expand...

I think, if you look carefully, you'll see that many of the people fighting against gays getting equal marital status are also fighting to whoa up the divorce stats too.
 
tonksy said:
Is it validation or just respect? I am not sure myself.
Most of the homosexual folks I've known have not been in long committed relationship, either....but the ones I have known that were weren't overly concerned with societies views of the legality of their relationship. It was real to them and their partner and that's all that mattered to them.
Click to expand...

Validation. I am sure.

tonksy said:
As far as medical benefits and taxation purposes etc go, I'm not sure I see a problem with it. I mean, we let the straight folk change spouses every other year and don't bat an eye. Who really cares?
Click to expand...

Who is this "we" you speak of? Society, or someone you know personally?

Anyway...divorce is prevalent because society decided that marriage was too hard, and there might be something better someplace else. Instead of valuing your choice, now you can choose someone else, and nobody is hurt, right? That's a total crock. If you have problems with your spouse, and it does not involve infidelity or abuse, then you need to remember that you chose him/her, and I'll quote here..."I, (Bride/Groom), take you (Groom/Bride), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part."...

Those aren't "just words". They mean something...or they used to...As a society, we throw everything else away, right? Here's a clue for you, since I am feeling a bit emotional on this topic...If you had to stick with your choice, with no cheating, and no abuse, would you get married in the first place?
 
All I mean is that if we allow some of the folks to abuse the system we should let all of them do it :shrug:
I just find it hippocritical to say that the gays are destroying the institution of marriage while the straights are doing just that and it's accepted.
I am not calling for an end to divorce, I am a 2 time divorcee myself but I prefer not to go around being the pot that calls the kettle black.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Those aren't "just words". They mean something...or they used to...As a society, we throw everything else away, right? Here's a clue for you, since I am feeling a bit emotional on this topic...If you had to stick with your choice, with no cheating, and no abuse, would you get married in the first place?
Click to expand...

Valued right up there with the speed limit, dude. All part of the same disolution of values.
 
Other than those that have a specific, arbitrary religious objection, I don't understand why anyone who isn't gay (queer, homosexual, whatever) even cares. :shrug: The reasons that keep getting rehearsed ad nauseum on this and other forums are spurious at best and they all boil down to one thing. Objectors don't approve of and refuse to accept (there's that word again) gays (queers, homosexuals, whatever). As Tonks points out, gay marriage is a drop in the ocean on the "destroying traditional marriage" front. Traditions and the societies they are part of change constantly. Your (or my) approval or disapproval will do nothing at all to mitigate this.

Keep whining about it though. It's all part of how the universe exists just to keep me amused. :lol:
 
tonksy said:
All I mean is that if we allow some of the folks to abuse the system we should let all of them do it :shrug:
I just find it hippocritical to say that the gays are destroying the institution of marriage while the straights are doing just that and it's accepted.
I am not calling for an end to divorce, I am a 2 time divorcee myself but I prefer not to go around being the pot that calls the kettle black.
Click to expand...

Therre is your justification, in a nutshell. Abuse. Just because somebody abuses the system, everybody should be able to do it. Now do you see where I'm coming from? No more lowering the standard. It's time to raise it back up to where it should be.

1. I never called for an end to divorce...just said that divorce should be for either abuse, infidelity, or both. Irreconcilable differences are something you should've found out about before you said "I do".
2. Just because you may have made some bad decisions...note the word may, it doesn't mean I have to validate those decisions, or agree with them. I respect them, but I don't have to like them.
3. I never said that gays were destroying the institution of marriage. I said that marriage is a church function...always have. I've also mentioned that there are ways to get the financial and emotional support from a "life partner" without being married, but nobody listened.
 
1. I know you didn't, I was referring to the fact that countless straight folks divorce without a thought about it. How do we stop that? end divorce? Not feasible.
2. I don't need your validation, nor would I imagine that anyone who felt good about their lifestyle and decisions would need it.
3. I never said you did...others have alluded to the fact. Also, I think you will find that I have gotten "the financial and emotional support from a "life partner" without being married"...not that it came from listening to you, but still...
 
tonksy said:
1. I know you didn't, I was referring to the fact that countless straight folks divorce without a thought about it. How do we stop that? end divorce? Not feasible.
Click to expand...

And I agreed with that with a caveat. ;)

tonksy said:
2. I don't need your validation, nor would I imagine that anyone who felt good about their lifestyle and decisions would need it.
Click to expand...

Then why is this an issue?

tonksy said:
3. I never said you did...others have alluded to the fact. Also, I think you will find that I have gotten "the financial and emotional support from a "life partner" without being married"...not that it came from listening to you, but still...
Click to expand...

Did I say you needed to listen to me?
 
Divorce is a sacred institution between a man and a woman who hate each other. Same sex couples should use a different word.

and only a man and a woman should be joined in a drunken drive-through wedding by an Elvis impersonator. Same sex couples should have to walk up to the counter.
 
chcr said:
Oh, and saying "I'm not really against homosexuals" is exactly the same as saying "some of my best friends are colored." If you are (and you clearly are, every post screams it), don't say you're not. Stop trying to be PC.
Click to expand...

Seems PC is a problem here. However, I'm one of the few not suffering from it. I can differentiate the person from the agenda.
 
chcr said:
Objectors don't approve of and refuse to accept (there's that word again) gays (queers, homosexuals, whatever).
Click to expand...

Incorrect kimo sabe. That's the argument trying to be made but it is simply & utterly untrue.
 
chcr said:
Traditions and the societies they are part of change constantly.
Click to expand...

Do you know what the final change for every society that ever existed and didn't resist change was?

Feel free to add new traditions as you like. But leave the old ones traditional
 
Professur said:
Do you know what the final change for every society that ever existed and didn't resist change was?
Click to expand...
Do you know what the final change for every society that ever existed was? That would be the actual definition of "final." Many if not most lasted a lot longer than this one has (so far). I doubt that resistance to or acceptance of change was the determining factor in any case.
 
What was that delightful phrase from SnP's tax deduction?

You're entitled to your doubt. But I'll just give you a couple of things to think about over the weekend. Yes, there have been societies that have lasted much, much longer than the US. They've managed it ..... by not allowing changes to their fundamental core. I'll name three of the longest :the Templars, the Masons, and the Holy Catholic church.
 
You are certainly wrapped up in the popular mythology, aren't you? Bogeymen, conspiracy theory and a politically expedient "religion." :rofl:

No changes, huh? I was forced to attend catholic church during the time they were dropping the Latin mass. I know that a few years later they stopped discouraging casual reading of the bible. I guess since you didn't think of them they weren't really changes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top