They are cowards and you can tax the shit out of them as Canadiens love to do.
Do you ever wonder if you’re just plain wrong?
Could you further explain what you mean about divorce being accepted? Rampant in just the US as per the widely stated claim that half of all marriages end in divorce or what? Just curious because I don’t get your meaning from your posting.
Does anybody really believe gay marriage would be taken seriously by *anyone *if divorce wasn’t rampant- and accepted?
Yes, I do. And I think you’re plain crazy to think there’s much of any connection between heterosexual divorce and the desire of gays to be able to marry. But I love you anyway 
i will overstep my bounds and say what i believe he means: the widespread divorce in this country and no fault divorce laws have devalued/undermined the institution of marriage to such an extent that it opens the discussion to same sex marriages. i believe it is vitus’ opinion that if marriage were still held in such high regard and with the respect he believes it deserves(i.e. couldn’t get divorced at the drop of a hat, force people to work it out and stay together, make better marriage decisions at the front end, etc.), there is no way that non-traditional arrangements would ever enter the equation. divorce laws have seriously damaged the integrity of the building block of american society–i.e. the nuclear family–thus opening the door for other types of marriages.
i see his point. i also think he is incorrect.
"if divorce wasn’t rampant- and accepted? ’
Makes me wonder how many battered and abused women had to do the “stand by your man” in the days before divorce was accepted.
My plans are falling into place. If the Republicans are right my lobbying for gay marriage in Spain and Canada will bring the downfall of these two nations. Then I will be unstoppable!
There is/was one country where divorce is almost banned. Peru. Here’s what happens. Relationships fail. People split up and have their empty legal marriages, and their secondary families that they actually live with and continue having children with. It requires the consent of both partners to get a divorce so the ones who want to get out of the relationship are blackmailed by the angry partners into giving up a lot of money and property in order to get released from their marriage. That sounds healthier than our current situation, not.
Instead we should not let people get married so easily. Make people get an education and make an intelligent decision instead of basing it on unrealistic expectations from hollywood or childhood fairy tales.
Makes me wonder how many battered and abused women had to do the “stand by your man” in the days before divorce was accepted.
Gag me.
It makes me wonder how why you think so many men beat women. No doubt twice on Sundays, after dragging them off to sit in church, right?
i see his point.
And you did a passable job describing it, thanks. Soon I can just sit back and let others lay out my arguments for me.
Also, I think it’s important to recognize the mindset and views about marriage that led to easy divorce laws in the first place- the idea that marriage is all about the personal fulfillment and happiness of each of the two** ***individuals *involved in it. (As opposed, say, to an institution that not only serves to fulfill their own needs, but also that of, oh, I don’t know, their childrens’ needs. And society’s needs.) Again, and I know everyone’s tired of hearing me say it, but if the only real reason for marriage is the personal happiness of those two individuals, there’s no reason *not *to get divorced if things hit a rough patch. And, of course, if the only reason for marriage is the happiness of two people, there’s no reason not to allow gays to marry. (Whether there’s any point to marriage at all in this case is questionable, of course.)
I think it’s really inarguable that the rise of divorce as a socially acceptable institution reinforced the above view of marriage to an astounding degree. If it hadn’t happened, I really do not believe we’d be talking about gay marriage at all. In fact, I think if we were having this discussion forty or fifty years ago, and I proposed allowing gays to marry, you’d all take me even less seriously than you do now when I say that if gay marriage becomes available, polygamy and other alternative forms of marriage are virtually inevitable. (Which they are.)
I think you’re plain crazy to think there’s much of any connection between heterosexual divorce and the desire of gays to be able to marry.
I didn’t say there’s any connection between divorce and the desire of gays to marry. For all I know, gays might have *wanted to marry each other for the past 100 years. I said that we, as a society, would not be seriously considering it if divorce hadn’t become widely accepted.
*That’s not entirely true, actually. My belief is that gay men don’t have much of an actual desire to marry each other. Lesbians would seem to me to crave the relationship more, which I think is born out by the numbers in Massachusets, where I think two thirds to three quarters of the gay marriages carried out have been between lesbians. I suggest that as time goes on after gay marriage is allowed, and the issue becomes less of a gay rights issue, those numbers will become even more unbalanced.
But I love you anyway
Aww, me too, you big sap. Where ya been lately?
The discussion persists in the US on many levels and just because you may not like the outcome you run away. That is what I call cowardice.
And that is what I call being a fucking prick. What exactly compels you to be such a shit all the time? Approximately half or more of your posts involve insulting other people, with no useful intellectual content at all, except an illuminating look at the segment of society known as “mouth-breathers”. Perhaps you should seek help during the time you are not on the Internet.
Here’s an idea. Look up the word “troll” in the dictionary. What you find will look quite similar to what you see in the mirror.
re: gay men versus gay women
I think most gay and hetero men would prefer to remain unmarried while most women, gay or hetero would like to get married. I don’t see what bearing at all the preference of people to desire to get married should have on their ability to get married.
Marriage is currently endows a bunch of legal rights upon partners that are not available otherwise without a legal contract. Would you object to having a civil union equivalent to marriage for gays?
I think most hetro men like gay women.
** think most gay and hetero men would prefer to remain unmarried while most women, gay or hetero would like to get married.**
Yeah, that’s what I said.
Kinda puts the lie to the idea that men and women are just the same, huh?
Would you object to having a civil union equivalent to marriage for gays?
I would, because I think it would have the very same effect on attitudes about marriage as full-on gay matrimony. But the interesting thing is that the gays object to it as well- witness California.
mcclamb … I agree.
Makes me wonder how many battered and abused women had to do the “stand by your man” in the days before divorce was accepted.
What does for “better or worse” really mean? Shouldn’t we change the vows to say “First sign of trouble and I’m out …”
What I find interesting that while we the word “discrimination” keeps coming up in regard to gays not being married, no one is proposing the change of the definition of marriage to include any other groups, except gays. A man and 2 women will not be allowed to marry, three women will not be allowed to marry, etc. Essentially what we have is one group demanding to become a part of the “Discriminators”.
As I have said before, and I restate it, if you are going to change the definition of marriage from what it is, change it to one that will include any and all combinations of person wishing to be married and enjoy the legal benefits of being married.
Gays are not the first group to challenge the deifnition of marriage. They are certainly a special group in regards to their influence and ability to get their views open to the public.
mcclamb … I agree.
Dang. I was pretty sure I could count on your support on this issue, at least, teach.