Marriage ain't what it used to be
Find a Conversation
Marriage ain't what it used to be
| Mon, 05-17-2004 - 5:37pm |
The first couple to receive marriage liscense confirms what critics described as most likely pattern for gay marriage.
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=28184
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=28184
"e says the concept of forever is``overrated'' and that he, as a bisexual, and Rogahn, who is gay, have chosen to enjoy an open marriage. ``I think it's possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner, not in the polygamist sense,'' he said.``In our case, it is, we have, an open marriage.''"

Pages
James
janderson_ny@yahoo.com
CL Ask A Guy
James
janderson_ny@yahoo.com
CL Ask A Guy
"They" have always been able to have kids. "They" have always been able to be married. What? What is that you say? Always been able to be married? Yup, and I don't just mean that "they" could marry someone of the opposite sex. "They" or we have been able to be RELIGIOUSLY married for a VERY VERY LOOOOONNNNGGG time. Just about every faith you could name too. There has always been someone willing to buck the system and marry "them". So, spiritually "they" have been getting married for eons AND having kids. And still the beat goes on. Amazing isn't it?
Awaiting the legal status...
http://www.hrc.org/millionformarriage
http://www.dontamend.com
Oh, wouldn't that be awful? I hate open-mindedness, too. I wish we could just shut ourselves up in gated communities and pretend that everyone is a God-fearing Christian and has sex only for the sake of procreation. NOT.
"And we wonder why people have AIDS....."
I absolutely cannot believe I just read this. Is this 1982? Gay people are not responsible for AIDS. Actually, this is something that is increasingly a concern for heterosexual women.
First gay marriages, then they can have kids.
You are aware that GLBT can adopt children already?
The starting point of marriage begins with a vow of fidelity and that marriage depends on its fidelity to its starting point. Mocking it and proclaiming absolute sexual freedom trivialize the expression of fidelity within marriage and destine marriage for ruin.
On February 25th in the Wall Street Journal Cynthia Crossen explains her viewpoint of the history of marriage in the United States since the 19th century, “The state of marriage in early America: no license, witness, ceremony or even magistrate.” She shows that a formal legal marriage was not necessary for a couple to be considered as married as stated in a 1843 Indiana State law. Many early American settlers were already dedicated to each other and even parents, but later when the negative effects began to manifest themselves in destitution. The government stepped in to regulate marriage and divorce in order to avoid the negative effects especially for women who did not own any personal private property and therefore were left with nothing in a divorce. The Supreme Court outlawed polygamy in 1879. Cynthia considers all these laws regulating divorce and marriage as “technicalities” and burdens. The laws of early America protected the women and children in a new society that tended to forget about them.
Marriage as an institution is in danger of extinction with the consideration of homosexual marriages. Feminists have argued for some time that marriage and family are oppressive for women and do not exist by nature but are social constructs. According to feminist theory, the family is socially constructed and has no natural bonds or responsibilities. Katherine MacKinnon, a well-known radical feminist, argues that there is no nature that defines human beings in gender or sexuality. Therefore, family certainly has no natural roles in society because the family is a social construction and a "unit of male dominance, a locale of male violence and reproductive exploitation, hence a primary locus of the oppression of women."1 The family is no longer a legitimate structure in society for feminists because it is oppressive to women.
The true essence of marriage is the fidelity to the promises that bond a man and a woman in their duty to be faithful to each other, and the conjugal act is a physical expression of the promises made. Marriage is completed by this heterosexual act. The homosexual act is incomplete. Homosexuals run into the problem of fidelity because there are no bonds, physical nor marital. There is a high rate of promiscuity in homosexual relationships as a result. Marital promises among homosexuals will not change this reality because there is nothing inherent in these relationships that favors fidelity.
Of course society’s influence on promoting a promiscuous sexuality does not help preserve marriage or family. A part of society has made a mockery of marriage by taking its most intimate expression of fidelity and exploiting it into something frivolous, as mere fun and pleasure. The modern day view of sexuality is perfectly expressed by the bumper sticker: “my body is not a temple it is an amusement park” that is very popular on the streets of California. If the expression of marital fidelity has so little meaning outside of marriage, then inside marriage the expression has even less meaning and the promises themselves are useless. Marriage becomes something frivolous and trivial, and fidelity less and less possible, due to the trivialization of sexuality.
We can see this direct relation between sexuality and marriage in the legal battles that have recently taken place. The push for sexual “freedom” for homosexuals has clearly affected the nature of marriage when shortly after the Texas sodomy law was thrown out the window, Massachusetts and San Francisco began to hand out marriage licenses to same sex couples. By using the Lawrence decision of Texas as a precedent, the state of Massachusetts could not deny homosexuals a civil marriage. If the courts have redefined sexuality by making homosexual practice legal, then they will be able to redefine marriage.
The issue of gay marriage has caused us all to reflect on the situation and value of heterosexual marriages. It is often the case that we don’t value something until it is threatened. In Spain and Italy, both marriage and the family are protected in the constitution, but the United States Constitution is lacking such protection.
Let us not wait until faithful, permanent, heterosexual marriage is “extinct” to value and defend it. If we want to improve society and marriages, we should have the truth of marriage clear and hold onto it so that nothing can take it away.
http://newoman.org/analisis/articulo.phtml?id=3518
As a reminder,
I don't know....Why are we here at all?????
Yes, conception happens when a sperm cell, which comes from a man's body, meets with an egg cell, which comes from a woman's body. We all know that. No one is disputing the fact that an egg still needs to be fertilized by a sperm in order for conception to take place. But don't you know any straight ppl., maybe happily married ones, who have chosen not to have children? Have you thought of saying to them, "Hey, don't you know why men and women are put on this earth? Have some kids! That's what you're supposed to do!" Something tells me they wouldn't be particularly happy to oblige, and that's b/c they don't HAVE to.
Look, the bottom line is we're NOT all the same and people need to grow up and start accepting that. Not all straight people will have children - does this mean they're not doing their duty as men and women? Nope, just means they don't want kids. Meanwhile, some gay people do want kids, and they provide loving homes for children who need them. And I would love to hear exactly what is so bad about that.
Pages