Not Engaged Yet

Institution of Marriage

This was one of my friends statuses on FB recently - Bside's post got me thinking of it.

"So, Larry King is getting his 8th divorce, and Elizabeth Taylor is possibly getting married for a 9th time. Jesse James and Tiger Woods are, well... you know... Even Newt Gingrich is on his 3rd marriage. Yet the idea of same-sex marriage is what is going to destroy the institution of marriage? REALLY?!?"
 
I agree with this. I personally do not see the big deal with not allowing same-sex marriages. Perhaps it is because I am not religious/ conservative. It also really gets to me when people say that if we allow gay marriages we then have to allow marriages to animals too. Really now how does that even logically make sense?

Anyone have any thoughts they care to share?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
«1

Re: Institution of Marriage

  • edited December 2011
    I don't see the problem with same sex marriage. I know a lot of people will say it's against what the bible teaches, but I think it's more about money. Usually they aren't allowed to have their partners benefits. And they can't get money willed to them by their partners without getting hit hard with estate taxes (married people don't have to pay a tax, at least that's my understanding).
  • paintgirlpaintgirl member
    1000 Comments Third Anniversary
    edited December 2011
    Of course I have thoughts on this (shocking, I know). The straight people have been f-ing it up for years. Let the gays give it a try! "All men are created equal ... with the same unalienable rights" ... "Among these [but not exclusively] are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". So if the straight people get to do it, the gays should get to too.

    Bigotry sucks. It's time our country actually lives by what we say. Of course the Declaration of Independence was signed almost 100 years before slaves were freed and even longer before African-Americans could vote or ride in the front of the bus.

    The U.S. We're a little slow on the draw sometimes.
  • loopy82loopy82 member
    Ninth Anniversary 1000 Comments
    edited December 2011
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_not-engaged-yet_institution-of-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special Topic Wedding BoardsForum:136Discussion:d2e062bb-39bc-4200-9924-d1319be122f3Post:45405a02-3ef2-4866-9855-2f94aa2308df">Re: Institution of Marriage</a>:
    [QUOTE]Of course I have thoughts on this (shocking, I know). The straight people have been f-ing it up for years. Let the gays give it a try! "All men are created equal ... with the same unalienable rights" ... "Among these [but not exclusively] are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". So if the straight people get to do it, the gays should get to too. Bigotry sucks. It's time our country actually lives by what we say. Of course the Declaration of Independence was signed almost 100 years before slaves were freed and even longer before African-Americans could vote or ride in the front of the bus. The U.S. We're a little slow on the draw sometimes.
    Posted by paintgirl[/QUOTE]

    I agree with all of this. You could also throw in there all the things women weren't allowed to do either. We should pick up the pace a bit.
    Image and video hosting by TinyPic
  • paintgirlpaintgirl member
    1000 Comments Third Anniversary
    edited December 2011
    Oh and the Bible references gays in the Old Testament, when they were trying to build a church (people), which is hard to do with two men or two women. The Old Testament also says it's a sin to "spill [waste] seed" - as in m*sturbate. In which case, 99.99999% of all people are destined for h*ll. It was a logistics thing - we need to build a church (people) so be fruitful and multiply. Quit wasting the good stuff.

    If we did everything the Old Testament said, we wouldn't eat pork, would keep slaves, and many of us would be sharing the same husband.

    I didn't start the fire. Innocent
  • zaneopalzaneopal member
    500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    I hate the whole "if gay people can marry, then we can marry animals" argument. First off, that is horrifyingly insulting to people who identify as homosexual--are you saying they're animals, or at least less than human? Secondly, an animal cannot enter into a legal contract, so that argument is null and void to begin with.

    Frankly, I think things like a certain Britney Spears and her, what, 48 hour marriage are more destructive to marriage than letting two people who love each other marry. It makes a mockery of the whole tradition--that marriage is something you can enter lightly and just get out of because you were being drunk and silly one weekend.
  • paintgirlpaintgirl member
    1000 Comments Third Anniversary
    edited December 2011
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_not-engaged-yet_institution-of-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special Topic Wedding BoardsForum:136Discussion:d2e062bb-39bc-4200-9924-d1319be122f3Post:ae841df0-76f4-455e-a9f1-9b3684f2b64f">Re: Institution of Marriage</a>:
    [QUOTE] I think things like a certain Britney Spears and her, what, 48 hour marriage are more destructive to marriage than letting two people who love each other marry. It makes a mockery of the whole tradition--Posted by zaneopal[/QUOTE]

    AMEN! :)
  • zaneopalzaneopal member
    500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_not-engaged-yet_institution-of-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:136Discussion:d2e062bb-39bc-4200-9924-d1319be122f3Post:976f31bb-6fee-4ebf-a5f1-69e832da8542">Re: Institution of Marriage</a>:
    [QUOTE]Oh and the Bible references gays in the Old Testament, when they were trying to build a church (people), which is hard to do with two men or two women. The Old Testament also says it's a sin to "spill [waste] seed" - as in m*sturbate. In which case, 99.99999% of all people are destined for h*ll. It was a logistics thing - we need to build a church (people) so be fruitful and multiply. Quit wasting the good stuff. If we did everything the Old Testament said, we wouldn't eat pork, would keep slaves, and many of us would be sharing the same husband. I didn't start the fire.
    Posted by paintgirl[/QUOTE]

    No shellfish, either.
  • paintgirlpaintgirl member
    1000 Comments Third Anniversary
    edited December 2011
    I'm seriously considering DD'ing my rant above... What are we not supposed to discuss here? Politics - which we kinda are - religion - oops - and sex - well darn... to DD or not to DD???
  • zaneopalzaneopal member
    500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    Eh. Keep it Paint.

    Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a new covenant or something with Jesus that nullified most of the old testament laws? All the quotes used to justify opposition to gay marriage are from the Pentateuch, which is very solidly old testament.

    Well, at least as far as the Christians are concerned.
  • hetshuphetshup member
    2500 Comments
    edited December 2011

    Zane, it was 55 hours, give the girl some credit.


    I have no problem with gays being able to form civil unions and get the benefits that a straight couple has, in fact I am horrified that anyone would say anything to the contrary. It shows just how hypocritical people can be.

    If  a church refuses to recognize a marriage in the non-legal sense, that is their prerogative. But with separation of church and state, I don't know why the gov't would take any stance on this at all.

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • loopy82loopy82 member
    Ninth Anniversary 1000 Comments
    edited December 2011
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_not-engaged-yet_institution-of-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special Topic Wedding BoardsForum:136Discussion:d2e062bb-39bc-4200-9924-d1319be122f3Post:5020cba0-62d8-4659-9cf2-63cd5d51cdfd">Re: Institution of Marriage</a>:
    [QUOTE] If  a church refuses to recognize a marriage in the non-legal sense, that is their prerogative. But with separation of church and state, I don't know why the gov't would take any stance on this at all.
    Posted by hetshup[/QUOTE]

    I have often wondered the same thing.
    Image and video hosting by TinyPic
  • hetshuphetshup member
    2500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    Oh and I say, fine make it so that there can be no same sex marriages. Oh and by the way if you do that outlaw divorce. Boom!
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • katanne9katanne9 member
    2500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_not-engaged-yet_institution-of-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:136Discussion:d2e062bb-39bc-4200-9924-d1319be122f3Post:2358b311-34a0-4285-9440-995916de35c6">Re: Institution of Marriage</a>:
    [QUOTE]Eh. Keep it Paint. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a new covenant or something with Jesus that nullified most of the old testament laws? All the quotes used to justify opposition to gay marriage are from the Pentateuch, which is very solidly old testament. Well, at least as far as the Christians are concerned.
    Posted by zaneopal[/QUOTE]

    Protestant Christian theology says that Jesus nullified the Old Testament law, as in abolishing that you have to do all these things/make sacrifices.

    The apostle Paul addresses homosexuality as a sin several times in his letters in the New Testament.
  • zaneopalzaneopal member
    500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    Thanks Katanne. I'm not too great with New Testament theology--or theology in general really. I know the Pentateuch, a smattering of other books, and that's pretty much it.

    But seriously, whenever I see quotes with respect to laws on homosexuality, it is from Leviticus, which would be nullified by what you told me.

    hetshup -- 48..55...whatever. Doesn't change my point.
  • paintgirlpaintgirl member
    1000 Comments Third Anniversary
    edited December 2011

    Context ... all about the context ...

  • katanne9katanne9 member
    2500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_not-engaged-yet_institution-of-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:136Discussion:d2e062bb-39bc-4200-9924-d1319be122f3Post:b8b06c5a-adf7-443a-a155-5159e0ddb4e3">Re: Institution of Marriage</a>:
    [QUOTE]Thanks Katanne. I'm not too great with New Testament theology--or theology in general really. I know the Pentateuch, a smattering of other books, and that's pretty much it. But seriously, whenever I see quotes with respect to laws on homosexuality, it is from Leviticus, which would be nullified by what you told me. hetshup -- 48..55...whatever. Doesn't change my point.
    Posted by zaneopal[/QUOTE]


    The Old Testament law is outside of the basic biblical concepts of morality.
  • zaneopalzaneopal member
    500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_not-engaged-yet_institution-of-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:136Discussion:d2e062bb-39bc-4200-9924-d1319be122f3Post:ec41eaa4-1ed1-40f1-8790-4efe42a316d4">Re: Institution of Marriage</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Institution of Marriage : The Old Testament law is outside of the basic biblical concepts of morality.
    Posted by katanne9[/QUOTE]

    Which is why it is awesome!!

    OK in all seriousness, the way I see all of this is if two people truly love and care about each other, and are in it for the long haul, then it can only strengthen the institution by letting them marry, to show up what a truly loving and devoted couple can be. Who cares if they have the same bits under their clothes?

    I hate that what little miss "I want to marry my BF so he can't leave me in case the baby isn't his" is doing is considered legitimate, but my lab partner can't marry his long-time BF. Which of these looks more destructive to you?
  • edited December 2011
    Well, to me this isn't even really politics. It's unconstitutional to give some people certain rights and deny the same rights for others. That's what I got from good ol' American History, anyway.

    I think it's just a matter of time before gay marriage is allowed. Pardon me, "civil union." Which is fine by me. I'm pretty certain it will happen in the next few years.

    The thing is, I'm Christian. In my mind, it is a sin. However, it's not my place to judge others for their sins. I'm no angel myself. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and so on. So I won't be throwing any stones.

    BUT. The government has no place enforcing what is essentially (or completely?) a religious law. That is what seperation of church and state is ABOUT. There is no reason two men or two women cannot be legally married (civilly united?) as far as the government is concerned. They are consenting adults and they are citizens of the US. They get the same damn rights.

    If a church refuses to marry them, that's fine. Plenty of Catholic churches won't marry non-Catholics. But gay couples should be able to go to a JOP and gain the same legal status as straight couples.

    I don't see what all the fuss is about. It seems pretty clear to me.
    Anniversary
  • loopy82loopy82 member
    Ninth Anniversary 1000 Comments
    edited December 2011
    Very good valid points Jeana.
    Image and video hosting by TinyPic
  • zaneopalzaneopal member
    500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    I wish I knew more Christians with your attitude about the whole issue, Jeana. However, this notch of the Bible Belt likes to tell us all that we are a Christian nation and should be following Christian law...which I'm fairly certain was something our forefathers were trying to avoid. Imperfect as they were, as we all are, I think they had the nation's best interests in mind when trying to develop a government separate from religion.

    I always liked the "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" proverb.
  • paintgirlpaintgirl member
    1000 Comments Third Anniversary
    edited December 2011
    If it is a sin (not conceding that point), what makes it a bigger sin than, say, swearing? Or telling a fib? Or any other sin? Heck, it doesn't even make the top 10...

    (Not saying I have the answers here - in fact, I'm saying I don't think it's for me to say that a gay is a "worse" sinner than I am. I think we all get to explain our actions in the end.)
  • edited December 2011
    It is really, honestly true. This country was founded on the notion that the government should not be a tool of the church, as it was in many European countries.
    Anniversary
  • edited December 2011
    Paint, I pretty much agree with you. I don't think that there are little sins and big sins. That is why I said even though it is a sin according to my particular beliefs, I'm not going to take it upon myself to judge. And I especially won't be persecuting anybody.

    But that's going a little further over the "talking about religion" line than I care to go. Wink
    Anniversary
  • paintgirlpaintgirl member
    1000 Comments Third Anniversary
    edited December 2011
    And really - we need the gays. Well, I need the gays. I've got one to dress me. One to decorate my house. Another who will put together most of my wedding. And their bars are really much better than the straight ones - better music.
  • zaneopalzaneopal member
    500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_not-engaged-yet_institution-of-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:136Discussion:d2e062bb-39bc-4200-9924-d1319be122f3Post:c298364c-4ee2-4000-b765-a5d3f5970b44">Re: Institution of Marriage</a>:
    [QUOTE]And really - we need the gays. Well, I need the gays. I've got one to dress me. One to decorate my house. Another who will put together most of my wedding. And their bars are really much better than the straight ones - better music.
    Posted by paintgirl[/QUOTE]

    Gay Marriage will save the Economy!!!

    Seriously! Think about it: it might increase their overall level of happiness, which will increase productivity, and you will have less disgruntled employees! More productivity will bring in more money, letting you hire more employees! Unemployment goes down. Everyone wins!

    Oh my lord why are they not getting on this up in DC? I've just discovered the secret to saving the economy.
  • tafft1tafft1 member
    1000 Comments
    edited December 2011
    I don't have any religious ties either way and am all for everyone having the same right to be happy and be married regardless of what life they choose. I grew up in a mixed household of things - my late mother was tolerant of everyone regardless of religion , race , sexual orientation , etc , where as my father..well let's just say he was the complete opposite. Thankfully my mother did 99% of the raising of me and put good values and tolerance into my life , which I am everyday so grateful for.

    I respect this is a very sensitive subject for many people for wahtever reason it may be - however I do wish there were more people with the mindset of tolerance and acceptance. In all honesty I get so sick to my stomach when I see protesters saying how letting gay and lesbians marry will stop all procreation and families , etc. No it won't. You will stll have dumbass women getting pregnant and more worried about their looks bee bee's , we will still have responsible parenting and family choices , we will still have a place for your thoughts and concerns to be heard , but to alienate a group of people because they want to marry not just for money or greed or anything beyond love , makes me sick and makes me want to support them more so there can be a seperation of church and state as it should be.

    Everyone has the right to speak their opinions , however there is a right and wrong way. Those who toss slander and physical and emotional harm at those they do not agree with truly saddens me. Speak your peace if you must but we are all human - we breathe the same air and the same blood flows through our veins. We aren't so different really.
    Photobucket Anniversary www.MyVacationCountdown.com Ticker LilySlim Weight loss tickers
  • BlueBoxBrideBlueBoxBride member
    100 Comments 5 Love Its
    edited December 2011
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_not-engaged-yet_institution-of-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:136Discussion:d2e062bb-39bc-4200-9924-d1319be122f3Post:29cc815e-1b34-4da1-bae4-178c0f79a606">Re: Institution of Marriage</a>:
    [QUOTE] Oh my lord why are they not getting on this up in DC? I've just discovered the secret to saving the economy.
    Posted by zaneopal[/QUOTE]

    <div>DC now has gay marriage. Happened about a month ago. </div><div>
    </div><div>I was almost tempted to start a similar thread before seeing this one, because some of the all yes- or -no attitudes in some of the other posts kind of struck me as those that oppose gay marriage. I was like, "seriously, are these the people voting for Palin, listening to Carrie Prejean and voting to outlaw gay marriage?!" </div><div>
    </div><div>I live and work in Boystown* and in my industry, we have a lot of gay men. I meet a lot of gays that are "married" as in had a ceremony, but aren't legally married. I have a friend that has been "engaged" for years and will continue to be engaged until his fiance and himself can not legally marry in their current state (or this state, where they'll be moving this summer). Most of my gay friends consider me "married" and address my fellow as my husband, because we fit within their definitions of that level of commitment. We've been together almost 7.5 years and living together for seven years. I've moved to two states for him and we now truly share a life. </div><div>
    </div><div>I'm starting a movement (so far, we have 20 people) for my political party, "The Mind Your Own F****** Business" Party. We believe that as long as what you're doing is your OWN business, then get down with your bad self. I don't understand the mentality of people that get upset because someone across the country is sucking a D. </div>
    "I liked it, so I put a ring on it" - future Mr. Box
  • zaneopalzaneopal member
    500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    I know DC has gay marriage. Most of my friends, including my 3 roommates, are from there, I'm up on those laws.

    I meant more like "why aren't the men and women we voted to send to DC making this a universal thing?"

    Also I was completely kidding, as I hoped you could tell.
  • edited December 2011
    There should be a separation between church and state. Fine if it's not ok in the church's eyes, but it should not be a legal matter. How many people get married by a religious officiant who have "fornicated"? That's a sin in the bible.

    As far as it "ruining" the institution of marriage, there are plenty of gay couples who have had more serious, healthier, and longer relationships than plenty of heterosexual couples.  We can take Khloe Kardashian and Britney Spears marriages as legit because they are straight? It's a joke.

    Homosexual couples pay taxes just like the rest of us, who are we to take that legal right away from them? What ever happened to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?
    Wedding Countdown Ticker Number Invited 181image Number Attending 148image Number Declined 23image Number Not Replied 10image RSVP Date July 7 Magic Number:150
  • edited December 2011
    My uncles have been together for 23 years.  The fact that until this year they could not visit each other in the hospital is just infuriating!   I agree with Martin Luther (the German reformer, not King, Jr.), who said that marriage is a completely civil affair and not a religious institution.  He believed that God wanted people to pair up (albeit to create babies) and that the Church had no right to dictate who could and who could not marry.  There is nothing in the Bible, both he and Zwingli argued, that supports religious marriage.

    Also, civil unions do not have the same rights as marriage, at least in our state, so until they are 100% the same as marriages I won't accept them as an "alternative" for Gays.

    Fun fact of the day: Martin Luther said that women were not meant to be virgins, they were designed to have sex and make babies!  He smuggled a dozen nuns out of a nunnery, and then married the only one he couldn't find a husband for within the year.
    imageimageAnniversary
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards