divorce and gay marriage

[jsluder]

How could we get rid of all of that (social security benefits, child custody issues, tax filing)? Wouldn't that be extremely hard to do?

Theoretically, it's simple: tie all those legal aspects to civil unions, remove them from marriage.

Realistically, it would be extremely hard to do.

[Jack]

How could we get rid of all of that (social security benefits, child custody issues, tax filing)? Wouldn't that be extremely hard to do?

Theoretically, it's simple: tie all those legal aspects to civil unions, remove them from marriage.

Realistically, it would be extremely hard to do.

Oh, ok. I think we'd have to do it on a federal level and make it apply equally to all states instead of a state-by-state level because social security and a few other less-important benifits are, by nature, federal programs, and current civil unions in states like Vermont are not "equal" with marriage because the federal government doesn't recognize them as equal as such.

It would be very complicated to do it that way.

[Jack]

While I cannot feel,first person, what it's like to experience gay issues anymore than I can know the black experience, or the native american experience, etc...I feel, at this point in my life, that if I were in that boat I'd be happy to be able to have a legal union with the rights pertaining to such a union. The name "marriage" would not be something I'd knock myself out trying to obtain. The meaning of anyone's committment is a personal thing between them.

That makes sense except for the issue of some benefits which cannot be had in state or civil unions, like social security moneys to the spouse and children, and other tax issues and join ownerships of federal stuff and certain jobs. Social Security is a federal program and is only available per the federal definitions, regulations, etc., which means "married partner." The word, "marriage," is also important in a few of these important issues that cannot be granted by a civil union.

[Walden]

Well, anyway, after messing up the first post... :roll:

I'll copy and paste:

Something occured to me today. Mabey it's obvious, or mabey I am just slow.

Long story short, I realised that a huge number of people who oppose the rights of gays to be married have themselves been divorced and remarried once or even more than once. In fact, common statistics say that around 50% of heterosexual people who get married file for divorce.

Should devorced people be listened to when they say gay marriage is a "mockery" of traditional marriage? Divorce is just such a mockery, and much more prevalent and common.

It seems to me that getting married, divorced, and remarried is more of a "mockery" than marrying a person of the same gender one time.

From my perspective, I am opposed to divorce, and then I am double opposed to remarriage. Marriage is a lifetime commitment between one man and one woman till death. It is a sacred relation, with serious and solemn vows.

It is too often entered into lightly. Individuals overtaken in carnal desires, wind up married for the wrong reasons, and then are unwilling to go the distance.

[dfernandez77]

The majority said no, and as long as that voice doesn't conflict with either the federal or state constitutions, I'm willing to live with it.

The big problem now is, the "majority" is ignoring, or changing, those parts of the Federal and State Constitutions they find unappealing.

That's bass-ackwards from the original intent of the authors of the U.S. Constitution to protect the rights of the minorities and the individual. You can't get a smaller minority than 1.

Re: the topic. I would assert that "marriage" is a religious institution. (though the term may be used differently in legislative documentation). So the term (and anything having to do with religion) should not be used in legislation.

Call it a "Civil Union" if the laws of the state recognize the commitments made and oaths taken. But then you can't discriminate, based on gender, and on who participates in the union with whom.

[anniemcu]

...For many "traditionalists", marriage is still a religious institution or sacroment, and they believe that the gay-marriage movement is taking civil rights into the religious arena.

Does anyone else see some real irony in that? Civil Rights being somehow contrary to Religion? Not in my upbringing!

[chas]

I was mildly against gay marriage for a long time, but for civil unions. I'm not religious, I was against gay marriage for linguistic reasons. It's always meant joining a men and woman. It would be quite possible to grant gay couples all the rights that het couples have without calling it marriage.

Then San Francisco started marrying gay couples, and I heard a bunch of interviews with them. One point one of them made was, saparate but equal (marriage vs. unions) is never equal. That kinda made sense, but it was something another guy said. Being able to marry his partner was EXTREMELY important to him. And I got to thinking, it makes no difference to me whether they're married or not, but it's EVERYTHING to them. So many people can be made so happy, and here I was quibbling over a word.

[anniemcu]

I was mildly against gay marriage for a long time, but for civil unions. I'm not religious, I was against gay marriage for linguistic reasons. It's always meant joining a men and woman. It would be quite possible to grant gay couples all the rights that het couples have without calling it marriage.

Then San Francisco started marrying gay couples, and I heard a bunch of interviews with them. One point one of them made was, saparate but equal (marriage vs. unions) is never equal. That kinda made sense, but it was something another guy said. Being able to marry his partner was EXTREMELY important to him. And I got to thinking, it makes no difference to me whether they're married or not, but it's EVERYTHING to them. So many people can be made so happy, and here I was quibbling over a word.

I'm so glad you figured that out. Way too many people are stuck back where you were, and not putting as much thought and heart into as you have. Thanks!!

[Jack]

Well, anyway, after messing up the first post... :roll:

I'll copy and paste:

Something occured to me today. Mabey it's obvious, or mabey I am just slow.

Long story short, I realised that a huge number of people who oppose the rights of gays to be married have themselves been divorced and remarried once or even more than once. In fact, common statistics say that around 50% of heterosexual people who get married file for divorce.

Should devorced people be listened to when they say gay marriage is a "mockery" of traditional marriage? Divorce is just such a mockery, and much more prevalent and common.

It seems to me that getting married, divorced, and remarried is more of a "mockery" than marrying a person of the same gender one time.

From my perspective, I am opposed to divorce, and then I am double opposed to remarriage. Marriage is a lifetime commitment between one man and one woman till death. It is a sacred relation, with serious and solemn vows.

It is too often entered into lightly. Individuals overtaken in carnal desires, wind up married for the wrong reasons, and then are unwilling to go the distance.

I have a question, Walden. Seeing that you are opposed to divorce but also gay marriage, would you reccomend that the married gay couples in Massachusets, Canada, the Netherlands, parts of Scandinavia, etc., get divorced?

I understand that you are opposed to gay marriage, but should gay couples who are already married get divorced or stay married?

[Joseph E. Smith]

I was mildly against gay marriage for a long time, but for civil unions. I'm not religious, I was against gay marriage for linguistic reasons. It's always meant joining a men and woman. It would be quite possible to grant gay couples all the rights that het couples have without calling it marriage.

Then San Francisco started marrying gay couples, and I heard a bunch of interviews with them. One point one of them made was, saparate but equal (marriage vs. unions) is never equal. That kinda made sense, but it was something another guy said. Being able to marry his partner was EXTREMELY important to him. And I got to thinking, it makes no difference to me whether they're married or not, but it's EVERYTHING to them. So many people can be made so happy, and here I was quibbling over a word.

I'm so glad you figured that out. Way too many people are stuck back where you were, and not putting as much thought and heart into as you have. Thanks!!

Ditto.

[Lorenzo]

From my perspective, I am opposed to divorce, and then I am double opposed to remarriage. Marriage is a lifetime commitment between one man and one woman till death. It is a sacred relation, with serious and solemn vows.

It is too often entered into lightly. Individuals overtaken in carnal desires, wind up married for the wrong reasons, and then are unwilling to go the distance.

Divorce was fine at one time, biblically speaking.

• Deuteronomy 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

"uncleanness" simply means: nude, naked, blemish, shame, or disgrace.

So, what's changed that has caused you to disagree with the bible?

[anniemcu]

From my perspective, I am opposed to divorce, and then I am double opposed to remarriage. Marriage is a lifetime commitment between one man and one woman till death. It is a sacred relation, with serious and solemn vows.

It is too often entered into lightly. Individuals overtaken in carnal desires, wind up married for the wrong reasons, and then are unwilling to go the distance.

I look at it differently.

I think far too many people equate sex with love, and though ideally, they are closely connected, they are not equivelent. Marriage should be a joining, legal or otherwise, of souls in love, rather than lust. When it is entered into for any other reason, it fails. When denied even though the connection is there, it is still there.

I do not oppose marriage for same sex couples when it is based on mutual, monogamous, committed and devoted love. I oppose marriage for any combination of peoples when it is based on sex.

[Nanohedron]

So, what's changed that has caused you to disagree with the bible?

Oh, please. You're the one always bringing up all the Paulian stuff.

[missy]

Walden, I can respect your beliefs, but sometimes, even with all the hard work in the world, things don't quite turn out that way. It takes TWO committed partners, and sometimes, no matter how much one is committed, the other isn't.
As to being totally against remarriage - again, I respect your beliefs, but again, life doesn't always work out perfectly, and one finds one's soulmate at the least expected time and place.

Missy

[rodfish]

Cranberry wrote: Long story short, I realised that a huge number of people who oppose the rights of gays to be married have themselves been divorced and remarried once or even more than once. In fact, common statistics say that around 50% of heterosexual people who get married file for divorce.

I've heard this argument quite often, that many of those who are against gay marriage have themselves been divorced, thus they are themselves making a mockery of marriage.

But is that actually true? Can you support that statement with some facts, or is it simply based upon the widely held belief (statistics) that since 40-50% of the population is divorced many of those who are against gay marriage must have been divorced? How do we know that it isn't mainly those who hold a high view of marriage and have in fact not been divorced, who make up the majority of those who are against gay marriage? (Sorry for the convoluted sentence) :roll: