|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chieftain Twilight Captain
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:30 pm
Eltanin Sadachbia shandrel i completely agree. >.> it's just ridiculous. It's either religious, and therefore NOT to be governed by the gov't OR it's not, and in that case, the religious reasons for denying people the chance to marry are invalid, not to mention it is a constitutional issue.... This right here would be the strongest argument for nontraditional marriage. Since the state does have their hands in thing, it legally isn't strictly a religious union anymore, so churches against gay marriage shouldn't have any say whether or no a couple is recognized BY THE GOVERNMENT; They might have a say in who gets married under their roof, but not in a courthouse. It is also a decent argument to show how illegal the way the government taxes us is. I love how many different cses the 1st Amendment can be brought up in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:04 am
Chieftain Twilight Marriage as Defined by the Church is outdated, and so is Family as Defined by the Church. That's because "THE" church no longer exists. Sure there's the Catholic church, but there are thousands of splinter groups and splinters of splinters. Plus, with the world getting smaller every day, other religions and cultures are always coming into play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ScarletFrost Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:42 pm
Chieftain Twilight the thing about Marriage, is that it has always been an Institution of pairing up for the sake of becoming a Family. if we are to understand Marriage, we have to understand what a Family is, and the Histories behind the definitions of both words. This I'd argue. In all honesty the institution of marriage is actually relatively new. Prior to the middle ages "marriage" was more of an agreement between based on property rights than the actual raising of a family. It was never really a ceremonial thing before then, and for many different peoples was entirely less formal and may have not existed at all for some. What we know as marriage today emerged mostly a means of regulating sexual behaviour. Chieftain Twilight Family has since shrunk to define only those related by Blood, and then again to only define a single household. this is where Marriage ties in. in the former case, Marriage was a union meant to unify Families; this gave them political strength. in the latter case, Marriage was meant to pair a Man and Woman off for the sake of Procreation. in either case, the Institution was Religiously Sanctioned, because Religion is what guided the People, both Politically and Ethically. There's actually a lot more to this. People would procreate anyways but the function of this in particular limited it to the people within the institution. If we look at the middle ages can easily see why this may be the case. It was time of seriously moralistic attitudes towards sexual behaviour, and a time when the church was rather desperately trying to find a way to regulate behaviour that they viewed as, "deviant." People had kids and raised them; marriage didn't change this. The relevance of certain partners within that dynamic varied by individual groups but the institution of marriage as defined by the church (specifically: premarital and extramarital relations = eternal damnation) radically changed previous cultures' attitudes towards sexuality and courtship in general. A lot of these traditions emerged not so much as a set of principles that people followed initially, but as a means of controlling certain populations. Chieftain Twilight second, let's take a look at the History of Marriage. it has for the majority of it's existence been a Religious Institution. but in modern times a considerable minority of Weddings have been officiated by non-religious figures of Authority, or were purposely conducted as Secular Ceremonies or non-ceremoniously. the idea that Marriage and Religion are co-dependent is false, and also outdated. unfortunately, again, too many people refuse to accept this. It's interesting to think that, prior to the widespread supporting of Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions, what would be called pair bonding was never really a ceremonial thing. Marriage really doesn't have much anymore. It's just a tradition that's left over from a far less secular and more sexually moralistic past. Property rights have changed as well, although it could be argued that to this effect marriage does still have some relevance. I think pair bonding could be kinda nice, and tax benefits are most definitely, but yeah, marriage as defined by any church organization is outdated at best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 2:11 pm
Regardless of how the laws define things, I still think marriage is awesome. I love being married. I never feel particularly oppressed or stifled, and I have no problem being viewed as a "weaker challis" (like a Ming vase compared to a cast iron kettle). I don't mind deferring to my husband, and sex is always getting better and better. Really, I don't see the down side of marriage as an idealistic life long union of two people in love.
I do think that humans have a biological inclination to mate for life (or at least extended periods of time), although that might be jaded by my anthropomorphic love of wolves, birds of prey, and predatory sea mammals, not to mention that I am a Christian, so I am predisposed. I'm also one of those people that thinks it's adorable to see old couples who have been together for 50 years and are still madly in love. 4laugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
ScarletFrost Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:54 pm
I would have to agree with Scarlet's love of the married life.
Although, with the redefining of society's general ideas of love and marriage, I would have to say that most people have deprogrammed themselves to the capabilities of living a lifelong partnership with someone. I would also venture a guess and say that the restriction formally placed on marriage have helped lead to that point.
People love their own freedom, and they spurn the idea of being accountable to anyone other than themselves. They may hate the possibility of being alone, but they hate having to compromise their own self interest more. I think that is why children nowadays are so neglected, and left to their own devices; the parents are too concerned with getting the things they want. It has lead in the general decline of self-discipline, and a rise in total disrespect.
I would love to see a redefining of marriage to include families of any make who will actually take the vows seriously enough to live by them for a lifetime, but that might just be me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:31 pm
Sometimes I think that I am too much of a feminist to be married. I don't really like being married. Of course I did want to get married because I always dreamed of planning a wedding but that was pretty much it for me. I hate the idea that some people get that because you are married the man is in control. I do understand it as a union between two people that love each other but that's about it and I get the bonuses with it, although you don't really get that many if you are married if you have taken care of all necessary paper work when it comes to power of attorney and wills and such. But I just don't see it as something that has to happen in order for a union to be complete.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ScarletFrost Vice Captain
|
Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:19 am
There isn't a lot of paperwork. At least there wasn't for me. But then I got married in VEGAS! WHOOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:26 am
Well to get married there isn't a lot of paperwork, although we did have to have a meeting with a state official when we got our license. It's the afterwards with social security, insurance, wills and such that take a lot of paperwork.
Although, I bet getting married in Vegas was fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:32 pm
Well, i love that Scarlet has such a wonderful marriage....now why can't i have that with a woman? Oh we can have all the feelings......just none of the benefits...>.>
Marriage to me is an equal partnership of two loving HUMAN BEINGS. >.>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:48 pm
Well, to be honest, there was a time when I wondered if being married in the eyes of the state was really such a benefit.... It seems to make more headache when the family is in a hard place.
My husband and I both lost our jobs at the same time last year. He got unemployment and I did not. We lost a vehicle, and we almost lost the house. I had to apply for foodstamps to be sure my family was fed.
We were declined for family medical coverage because my husband's unemployment was $14 over the limit for a household of 4. My children had coverage, my husband and I didn't. Then I got a letter that said I needed to take the kids in for a dental appointment. The way it read, I thought it was a requirement that I take them to a dentist for us to keep the coverage. We finished with my son's appointment, and they handed me an invoice telling me that Medicaid wouldn't cover my children's dental appointments because I was married. They said that if I was a single mother or had a physical defect, I would qualify for my kids to be covered under medicaid.
Later, when I was applying for help to keep our necessary utilities on, I was again told that if I was single, I wouldn't have a problem getting help. I was even asked if I or my husband could be considered a minority, because if either of us were, then the whole being married thing would technically be moot. HOW THE HELL DOES THAT COME INTO PLAY!!!???? Don't know, but I can tell you, I don't think I have EVER been so upset as I was after that appointment.
We are off of any government assistance now, but sometimes we really do need help, but aren't eligible for it anyway, being married and all.
I honestly think that any couples who have been together for a long period of time should get better treatment when it comes to getting help. I honestly think it would discourage the career wlfare baby factories. I also think it would encourage stability in homes and by extension our society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chieftain Twilight Captain
|
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:25 pm
Figuren Chieftain Twilight the thing about Marriage, is that it has always been an Institution of pairing up for the sake of becoming a Family. if we are to understand Marriage, we have to understand what a Family is, and the Histories behind the definitions of both words. This I'd argue. In all honesty the institution of marriage is actually relatively new. Prior to the middle ages "marriage" was more of an agreement between based on property rights than the actual raising of a family. It was never really a ceremonial thing before then, and for many different peoples was entirely less formal and may have not existed at all for some. What we know as marriage today emerged mostly a means of regulating sexual behaviour. Chieftain Twilight Family has since shrunk to define only those related by Blood, and then again to only define a single household. this is where Marriage ties in. in the former case, Marriage was a union meant to unify Families; this gave them political strength. in the latter case, Marriage was meant to pair a Man and Woman off for the sake of Procreation. in either case, the Institution was Religiously Sanctioned, because Religion is what guided the People, both Politically and Ethically. There's actually a lot more to this. People would procreate anyways but the function of this in particular limited it to the people within the institution. If we look at the middle ages can easily see why this may be the case. It was time of seriously moralistic attitudes towards sexual behaviour, and a time when the church was rather desperately trying to find a way to regulate behaviour that they viewed as, "deviant." People had kids and raised them; marriage didn't change this. The relevance of certain partners within that dynamic varied by individual groups but the institution of marriage as defined by the church (specifically: premarital and extramarital relations = eternal damnation) radically changed previous cultures' attitudes towards sexuality and courtship in general. A lot of these traditions emerged not so much as a set of principles that people followed initially, but as a means of controlling certain populations. Chieftain Twilight second, let's take a look at the History of Marriage. it has for the majority of it's existence been a Religious Institution. but in modern times a considerable minority of Weddings have been officiated by non-religious figures of Authority, or were purposely conducted as Secular Ceremonies or non-ceremoniously. the idea that Marriage and Religion are co-dependent is false, and also outdated. unfortunately, again, too many people refuse to accept this. It's interesting to think that, prior to the widespread supporting of Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions, what would be called pair bonding was never really a ceremonial thing. Marriage really doesn't have much anymore. It's just a tradition that's left over from a far less secular and more sexually moralistic past. Property rights have changed as well, although it could be argued that to this effect marriage does still have some relevance. I think pair bonding could be kinda nice, and tax benefits are most definitely, but yeah, marriage as defined by any church organization is outdated at best. actually, the Ceremonial Aspect of Marriage is Ancient. Pre-Biblical in fact. various Animistic, Pagan, Dualistic, and Pantheistic religions held Sacred Rituals and Celebrations for Weddings. they didn't seem as big a deal because of the quieter way in which the Sacraments were made, given the need to conserve precious resources. even the Israelites after a while held officiated Wedding Ceremonies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:36 pm
we have to remember that there is no "one size fits all" policy. People come in all different forms. myself, I'll NEVER understand monogamy. I have tried and tried and tried, and I gave up. it takes alot for me to give up on something. I still occaisionally try to understand, but usually I don't bother.
and I know that far too many people are just simply equally incapable of understanding Polyamory/Polygamy.
still, isn't anyone else going to come up with ideas for getting Gay Rights? I think Shan had left a question on the table that was left unanswered and ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chieftain Twilight Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 7:09 pm
As far as I'm aware, in this country (New Zealand for those who don't yet know) if you've been together for 5 years (as in living together) as a couple, whatever your sexual preference you are considered a de-facto couple under the eyes of the law. If you split-up, regardless of whether or not you're in an official marriage or civil union, you will each be entitiled to 50% of the joint assests. If you are a couple of either type you can enter into a civil union, which has all the benefits (and drawbacks) of a marriage, with none of the religous stuff. In saying that, it's not recognised in every country. I personally have no problem with homosexuality, polygamy, polyamory, or asexuality (I swing in & out of asexuality, which I suppose makes me a (mostly) heteroromantic asexual xd ). If it's love, it's love, and there's usually nothing that can stop you loving the person you end up loving, because sometimes you didn't even get a choice. This happens even if society has deemed such a thing 'immoral', or 'deviant'. I too personally like being married, but in saying that nothing has really changed in our house (except my name). When we were married the celebrant was told we didn't want any mention of the G-word, & we weren't married in a church, I feel so uncomfortable around abrahamic religion, and during their religious ceremonies. Once bitten twice shy I suppose...at least my Nana was happy with the ceremony wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:24 pm
xd
anywho, that sounds like an awesome Law. smile it's realy up to date with the times and how they change. alot farther ahead than the rest of the world! xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chieftain Twilight Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:22 pm
It is an awesome law, but it took a lot of fight to get it through...another reason why I love my country **hugs NZ**.
There were certain...organisations...who held an 'Enough is Enough' rally, and said this law, and the Prositution reform law, would break kiwi families apart. That there wouldn't be any more 'normal' family units, and crime, and sexual disease would run rampant through the streets.
Hmmm, it's been a few years now...where's the chaos Mr. Tamaki?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
