 |
| |
|
|
Wittlich
|
 |
A Wyandot lost in "The City" SF,CA
Dec 2000
time: 21:33
|
|
Well, my partner John and I just had a discussion.
John asked me if I wanted to go to San Francisco City Hall tomorrow to get married. 
After an long discussion, we've decided to hold off for a while.
Why?
Well, we are already registered as Domestic Parners with the State of California (for what good that does), but if we were to get married (and yes, we both want to), we need time to plan for it. We don't want a rush job.
I want a ceremony (nothing big or special) but I want a fabulous reception with my whole family and John's whole family present (along with various friends, of course)....but to plan for something like this takes time.
So, even though in my earlier posts, I stated that I don't care if they call my union between my partner and I a "marriage" or something else....I was not being fully honest with myself and Starchild's earlier post helped me to open my eyes to the entire issue at hand (ie, seperate but unequal).
Any how, John and will be married (laws allowing), but after being together for almost 14 years (hows that for a dating period!), we want and need the time to plan for our special day.
I don't want the entire process to end up being a rush job, that's all. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
How exactly would it corrode any marriages?
|
Very fair question. In my analogy, I argue that marriage being a contract denies the connection between men and women who get married ought to continue after the marriage. That you can flip a switch off and on between marriage and not marriage.
This change now removes any concept of marriage with respect to gender roles. You are changing the very nature of the connection. I can see plenty of confusion, as to what would be expected, from the husband and the wife, and how they are to live with one another.
You also deny that there are differences between men and women, and that these differences not only should be respected, but embraced. Husbands will get frusterated with wives, and wives with husbands as to why they act differently, then the way in which they expect.
quote:
And why would other people embrace the philosophy, treating marriage as anything less than they do now?
|
Why? Because they are good liberals. They do not want to offend anybody by saying anything different, from what they are told. The cost to them, is that they have less justification for affirming their own decision to get married, and to stay married.
quote:
You admit that it wouldn't change your opinions on it, why would it change others?
|
Why wouldn't it change mine? Because I draw my comfort from other sources than secular society. Those who do not, would find it much more difficult to maintain their convictions, given the current hostile climate to these ideas.
quote:
I can unequivocably tell you that whether or not I get married and how I treat a marriage has absolutely nothing to do with how the government views them from a legal perspective.
|
How do you view marriage, then? Why would you want to get married? What expectations would you have for your partner?
quote:
Well, I'm not arguing a libertarian position like LoA, but it's still a non-starter. Most of those benefits are built in to the government recognizing the contract and/or the contract itself. (survivorship, implied POA, visitation rights, etc).
|
Yeah, or so we would think. But that's not going to be enough to refute the libertarian position, that question of why have any benefits surrounding marriage whatsoever?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wittlich
Well, my partner John and I just had a discussion.
John asked me if I wanted to go to San Francisco City Hall tomorrow to get married.
After an long discussion, we've decided to hold off for a while.
Why?
Well, we are already registered as Domestic Parners with the State of California (for what good that does), but if we were to get married (and yes, we both want to), we need time to plan for it. We don't want a rush job.
I want a ceremony (nothing big or special) but I want a fabulous reception with my whole family and John's whole family present (along with various friends, of course)....but to plan for something like this takes time.
So, even though in my earlier posts, I stated that I don't care if they call my union between my partner and I a "marriage" or something else....I was not being fully honest with myself and Starchild's earlier post helped me to open my eyes to the entire issue at hand (ie, seperate but unequal).
Any how, John and will be married (laws allowing), but after being together for almost 14 years (hows that for a dating period!), we want and need the time to plan for our special day.
I don't want the entire process to end up being a rush job, that's all. |
  
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
That's just....whoa....don't even know where to begin....confusion over gender roles? Difficult to maintain convictions?
Does this stuff actually make sense to you?
Yikes.....
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wittlich
|
|
A Wyandot lost in "The City" SF,CA
Dec 2000
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
This change now removes any concept of marriage with respect to gender roles. You are changing the very nature of the connection. I can see plenty of confusion, as to what would be expected, from the husband and the wife, and how they are to live with one another.
You also deny that there are differences between men and women, and that these differences not only should be respected, but embraced. Husbands will get frusterated with wives, and wives with husbands as to why they act differently, then the way in which they expect.
|
Ah....I see Ben's reasoning. Women should be bare-foot and pregnent in the kitchen while the Man is the lord of his house and his rule is law. Of course, why didn't I think this all through?! 
And why should this be so? Because, by God, this is the the way that it has always been! 
But now with homosexuals wanting to start their own "families," this will put into ruin the enire basis of marriage and the heterosexual's roll of the expectations of a husband and a wife....
Please Ben. Give it a rest. How we live our lives should have no barring as to how you live yours.
 Now that I think more on it - Are you actually saying that you are threatend by us?!?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
This change now removes any concept of marriage with respect to gender roles. You are changing the very nature of the connection. I can see plenty of confusion, as to what would be expected, from the husband and the wife, and how they are to live with one another.
You also deny that there are differences between men and women, and that these differences not only should be respected, but embraced. Husbands will get frusterated with wives, and wives with husbands as to why they act differently, then the way in which they expect.
|
Yes it's been downhill since they did away with the concept that a wife was her husband's property or chattel (from which we derive the word cattle).
Of course these days, what with them working and voting, all sorts of nonsense gets into their heads that wouldn't if they were chained to the kitchen sink or handcuffed to the bedposts.
Some of them even think they can be judges, and mathematicians, and doctors, and lawyers, and lawks-a-mercy, politicians.
It's the thin end of the wedge- next they'll be allowing gay and lesbian marriages.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
gopher
|
|
I eat my own poop
Dec 1999
time: 00:33
|
|
According to the AP, 665 Gay Marriges have occured in SF:
Here
665 huh? One more, and the Fundies will have quite a field day.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:33
|
|
I can see THIS case going at least to the California Supreme Court.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-02-2004 02:54
Though I doubt that it's because of NancyBoy products....I guess it doesn't hurt either! 
|