Anyone want to talk about this?

Be careful what you ask for? You may be stuck with it forever.

Court: Gay couple can't divorce in RI - Yahoo! News

Kudos for Rhode Island.

[Merrida]

Yeah. I wish like hell States made it this difficult for straight couples to get divorced! But see, a man and a woman can get married at a drive-thru in Las Vegas, get their marriage annulled, and get divorced just because they feel like it and grow tired of each other. States accept these as perfectly legitimate reasons for marriage and divorce. Yet gay couples can get married in only a handful of places and are placed under stricter moral guidelines when it comes to divorce.

If heterosexual couples had this much trouble it may make them think more about getting married (if they realized divorce wouldn't be such an easy option where they could jump out of one bed and into another while it's still warm),...and put the straight people through the same hoops (making them at least reconsider divorce in case maybe it can be salvaged,....but it may take work,...much harder to do than the quick way out by bailing when you impulsively feel like it).

All I'm saying is, regardless, gay or straight, put both couples through the hoops so more forethought goes into these very decisions of both marriage and divorce. We make divorce way too easy (for straight couples)....no one respects the institution anymore.

I do not condone staying in a bad marriage, but I do condone jumping through hoops. Sometimes it takes work to discover there may be something salvageable after all.....


.

Originally Posted by Merrida

Yeah. I wish like hell States made it this difficult for straight couples to get divorced!

It used to be that way in the old days.

[Merrida]

Originally Posted by pierini

It used to be that way in the old days.

Yeah, and I also think the value system was a lot higher and there was a greater overall amount of respect, generally speaking,...."in the old days." I may never miss walking to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways, but I do miss the straight forward acknowledgement of what marriage vows meant, of the role parents took in getting involved in the raising of their children, ....there was a simplicity, but it came from respect, not fear that social services would be called on you,.... and marriages were thought out (back when men courted women, and each respected each other more).

I sound old fashioned, I am,...but I see so much decline it saddens me.

.

[MAURER]

i think that the state should just stay out of marriage and divorce as much as possible. let it be a religious thing. that way the whole gay/lesbian thing wouldn't even be an issue.

[Merrida]

Originally Posted by MAURER

i think that the state should just stay out of marriage and divorce as much as possible. let it be a religious thing. that way the whole gay/lesbian thing wouldn't even be an issue.

I agree,.....that it shouldn't be an issue.

Sadly, with so many religions not acknowledging gay marriages, even that becomes a problem. The only resort is to turn to the State to acknowledge the marriage.

It's Pandora's Box.

I honestly don't get it. If you don't believe in gay marriages, then don't marry someone of the same sex. Others who do marry the same sex, it has no affect on you at all. You can still hold the institution of marriage in the very same high regard as you CHOOSE to, and to teach that regard to your children, to participate in it (by marrying heterosexually).

Gay marriages only affect the people being married. If you're going to talk about health insurance benefits rising, they would as well if more straight couples got married, that isn't a very compelling argument to be against gay marriages.

It's like any other belief system, whether it's right to life, abortion, gay marriage, what party you vote for: It's your responsibility to do and behave and conduct your OWN life within your OWN beliefs,.....and as much as you don't want other people pushing their belief systems down your throat, don't push yours down theirs'.

It's so simple, but we're making it so complicated.


.

The term "gay marriages" is an oxymoron (I think that is the correct word), similar to an "honest crook" or a "strong weakling".

[TomG]

As a language person, I don't like the idea that a few people will legally change the meaning of a word that has meant one thing for thousands of years. Words will change over time, but the speed and codification that has made gay marriage a new word seems Orwellian to me.

I propose making up a whole new word, such as "to get g'married," or "garriage." My computer is putting red underlines on those words so they must be good choices.

[Merrida]

Originally Posted by pierini

The term "gay marriages" is an oxymoron (I think that is the correct word), similar to an "honest crook" or a "strong weakling".

Uhm, no it isn't. Gay = homosexual, Marriage = Legal Union

Gay Marriage = Legal Union between two homosexuals

There is absolutely nothing in those 2 words to indicate an oxymoron. If you, personally, choose to believe so, that is your opinion.

The rights to "gay marriage" -- two people who love each other (like you and your wife love each other) wanting to celebrate it legally and have the legal rights (like you and your wife do) for situations such as: Oh let's say your wife is on her death bed, you'd like to know you can visit her given you love her and have committed yourself to her, maybe even raised kids together for a few decades, and may well know what she wants more than your in-laws who may or may not like you (hypothetical,....I'm sure they adore you,...afterall, what's not to adore),...but if they chose to take gripes against you, how'd you like to be blackballed about the right to see your spouse and partake in her choices to treatment which she may have confided in you? How would you like to be told you have no right to get married because someone else, some other group of people who are not even there to, for example, evaluate your love for each other, (like a priest might do), decide you're not right together so, your marriage is vetoed.

If someone brings up my argument about my opinion about the license to have children, it's irrespective of your sex, but it's about your ability. If you have the ability to love your chosen and provide for them, have no history of abuse (so family or religious affiliations cannot assume or judge you as a potential wife beater and thus not "qualified" for marriage,...no history of child abuse,....delinquent behavior,....multiple marriages <Zsa Zsa anyone?> questioning your value of the terms & vows associated with marriage),....so if none of those existed but you were denied being able to marry your wife, how would you feel? I'd hold gay and straight couples to the same standard, especially when it comes to bringing a child into this world.

But back to the topic of gay marriage: Quite honestly, why do you care what other people do? If you're not gay, don't marry a man. It's really that simple. If you're afraid hanging around gay men will rub off on you and they'll turn you or your children gay, regardless of why you'd hold such presumptions,....then don't hang around gay people. It's really that simple.


.

[Merrida]

PS: This is not (necessarily) directed at pierini because in all honesty I don't know him well enough. But why is it, I wonder, are those heterosexual people who are so homophobic, have no problem, and quite often are titilated, at the idea, concept, and visual image of two women making out and getting it on? To whoever that applies to, (as said, THAT comment isn't directed to anyone),.....THAT is what we'd call quite the oxymoron.


.

[Merrida]

Originally Posted by TomG

I don't like the idea that a few people will legally change the meaning of a word that has meant one thing for thousands of years.

And it is this type of Fundamental practice and belief that gets dangerous: Living & believing in the Bible word for word via literal translation (it's in the book, along with how it's okay to beat your wife,...so hey, it must be right). If more people read the Bible and really saw what was in it and held 100% to the LITERAL translation,....they'd be in for a rude awakening (unless you're into some pretty bizarre behavior).


.

[Rufiedodg]

Originally Posted by Merrida

I agree,.....that it shouldn't be an issue.

Sadly, with so many religions not acknowledging gay marriages, even that becomes a problem. The only resort is to turn to the State to acknowledge the marriage.

It's Pandora's Box.

I honestly don't get it. If you don't believe in gay marriages, then don't marry someone of the same sex. Others who do marry the same sex, it has no affect on you at all. You can still hold the institution of marriage in the very same high regard as you CHOOSE to, and to teach that regard to your children, to participate in it (by marrying heterosexually).

Gay marriages only affect the people being married. If you're going to talk about health insurance benefits rising, they would as well if more straight couples got married, that isn't a very compelling argument to be against gay marriages.

It's like any other belief system, whether it's right to life, abortion, gay marriage, what party you vote for: It's your responsibility to do and behave and conduct your OWN life within your OWN beliefs,.....and as much as you don't want other people pushing their belief systems down your throat, don't push yours down theirs'.

It's so simple, but we're making it so complicated.


.

Simple only to the "wise" Merrida.

Your post is as eloquently written as anything I've read on these forums. The message behind the words is-- why cant people see what I see so clearly? Or beyond that even--, why do I feel so "compelled" to have to explain ( so eloquently) what others don't seem to see?

It's the " wisdom" ( noun), coupled with the compulsion to offer the wisdom ( verb) that defines this energy or "archetype".

Is it any different than the teacher having to teach, or the musician having to play?

I realize this is some pretty "out there" stuff for some people but not to me.


Food for thought anyway

Dan

[TomG]

No, I'm only talking words, sounds, not beliefs. Words will evolve, but I want them to do so over a long time. For example, the word veggies - I hate it - it's baby-talk (next we'll be saying dindin for dinner). Well, there is nothing I can do about it, but I don't think laws ought to written, codified, saying for example that "all veggies must have country of origin displayed on packet." You gotta agree that that would be just wierd, right? right? please? right? Someday, let's say 50 years, after y'all keep using that stupid word (I hope your widdle tummies are aw weady for veggies for dindin), well, by then it will have been around long enough to codify. And I'll be byebye.

I'll even accept the word gay marriage as long as gay is put in front of it - or 50 years, that's all I ask.

As for your oxymoron question, there is nothing mathematically equivalent in peoples' relationships or proclivities, so don't expect it to be. I have heard a reasonable explanation of your question, but don't want to put it on this thread as it could drag things in the wrong direction.

I'm going to watch a boxing match so I'll have to get back to this topic later, possibly tomorrow.

I will be back.

[Merrida]

One thing I do want to take care in is presentation and intent. If it comes across that I feel compelled to discuss this, the origination and motivation is derived from a passion regarding something I feel very strongly about. I enjoy debates of all sorts, and do not reserve myself to exclusively, or primarily, wanting to chit-chat only with fellow beings of like minds. All I ask is that the discussion remain productive and include opinions, thoughts, reasons for such feelings,....all to help me understand opposing viewpoints, (again, regardless of whether or not I, myself, agree,...I still enjoy a good debate with people who have many other viewpoints,....as long as ------here's the caveat-------we do not resort to gutteral name-calling, which just goes to show the person on stage ran out of intelligent argument or ways of expressing themselves, so the default mechanism kicks in, and sadly a resort to 2nd grade of "neener-neener-neener," or "I know you are, but what am I?"....and other such sophomoric retorts.

So as I do jump on my soap box(es), whether it's about the discussion of gay marriage, holding the institution, intents, and vows of marriage up to standards that I think are abused as I watch people get divorced out of boredom, or because a more tender doe, or a buck with a nicer antler spread, wandered into your back yard,...etc.,...it's because I'm discussing a topic which I feel passionate about.

In the warmth of my discussions, my intent is not to to try and convince anyone their way is wrong,.....but as this is a forum based on discussion, I,....discuss. I inquire. I seek understanding. I have genuine curiosity. And I am sincerely interested. Plus, I enjoy the back and forth.

In all of this, I am not trying to force my opinions down anyone's throat. I am not trying to "convert" people to my way of thinking. I may strongly disagree with particular viewpoints, but that doesn't mean I cannot respect an intelligent conversation debating all sides of the equation. Like many others, I'll firmly stand my ground. Sometimes, I will even find my mind being opened to new ideas precisely because someone with opposing views was able to present them respectfully enough to give me reason to pause and think. But I never set out with an agenda to convince or convert.

That can't be done anyway, and even if it could, it's not my way, and not my purpose, and not my intent.

But yeah, my passion for topics which I do feel strongly about, will most certainly shine through, and I do not hide protectively behind them.


.