So I guess if you're not married you're not in love and I guess people just are retarded because they choose not to get married and get those benefits. Yay!!!

-Rudey

Rudey,
I would just second this post. You keep asking why anyone would marry if they don't want kids, as if it is a ridiculous thing to do. Well, first, some very valid reasons have been suggested that you have not been able to discount (you simply sputter that they are ridiculous) AND the fact remains that it happens, whether it makes sense to YOU or not. Obviously, your thoughts that the only reason to get married is for kids is not unequivocally true. Just because you fail to understand the value childless couples find in the institution of marriage does not mean that no value exists.

You are making a false dichotomy here to make the opposing argument seem ridiculous. You say no one should get married if there will be no children, she said that people do find value in getting married without children and somehow you jump to the idea that people who don't get married are stupid because they don't choose to obtain those values/benefits? Hardly what she or anyone else insinuated. There are also some reasons that people may not WANT to get married. That value judgement is for the individual couple to make, based on their individual situation and needs. Except for gay couples, of course, who have no choice.

So none of you have answers. I see OK. Lots of people just don't want benefits. They are stupid I guess. Yay!!! Lot's of people want marriage and not civil unions because I guess they don't want just benefits but wait they do. I'm so so confused.

Let's use big words instead of simplicity to top it off and say we're debaters too.

At the end of the day, the majority votes no to Gay marriage. Enjoy that.

-Rudey

At the end of the day, the majority are also against a constitutional amendment to ban it. Enjoy that.

P.S. "Separate but equal" didn't work before. Why is there reason to believe it would/should now?

Just making an off-topic correction. The Latter-Day Saints Church (Mormons) do not allow polygamy or polyamory. It became grounds for excommunication in 1890. On the contrary, Mormons have probably one of the strictest policies on marriage of most Christian religions.

There are sects in Utah (mainly) who practice polygamy and borrow some of their beliefs from the LDS church, but they are in no way recognized, affiliated, or accepted by the Church itself.

Sorry for the tangent, but this mis-conception is one of my biggest pet-peeves.

Just for Ginger....

WILLINGLY couples who want multiple wives or husbands.

I couldn't imagine putting up with the isht of two husbands, no thanks ;)

Is anyone hearing rumblings in their own communities or religious groups (for either side)?

With my church (sageofages you're ELCA if I remember right), out this way many pastors have been performing these unions for years, so it is not anything new, and I know I read in The Lutheran about some back east as well. However you're closer to the hotdish/jello salad motherland, and I believe not in a big city. I think we're going to have another schism over this, and ordination of homosexuals/gays. To my knowledge we allow it as long as they agree to be celibate :rolleyes: , and I think we're going to have to make a decision one way or the other, and soon church wide.

Yes, ELCA, live in a small Iowa town, just south of Des Moines...

The ELCA church is currently working on a position statement in regard to homosexuality and the church. There was a practice, committed pastor at the church in Ames that was "relieved" of his pulpit (not a fun effort :( because of his committed longtime relationship, and not celibate.

I think the ELCA is going to watch the Episcopal Church closely following the gay bishop installation, to see what falls out. (I was raised Episcopal, which went through h*ll when they decided to ordain women, and h*ll again when they started having "Holy Unions" for same sex couples...and they survived, I think they will survive the bishop in the end)

Speaking of Lutheran, look in the front of the March Issue, I had an anectdote published!

:D Thanks! I just took issue with the idea that it existed within the Mormon faith, because it doesn't :)

Carry on!

Rudey, I don't want to have children. I will probably want to get married for the same reason many homosexual people want to get married -- for example, right now, my boyfriend has health insurance and I don't because I'm unemployed. If we were married, I could be covered by his health insurance. Also, if I became seriously ill, I'd want him to be able to see me in the hospital -- stuff like that.

Aside from that, although I have some issues with the concept of marriage and I am not at all religious, it just seems like a nice thing to do. It's not always based in logic. Sometimes people want to do things just because. I would hope that nobody would deny me that just because I don't want to breed, and I would hope that nobody would deny anyone else that because they are homosexual.

Will you marry me? I have much better insurance than he does.

-Rudey

Rudey,

Surely you realize that people are talking about legal benefits to marriage in addition to making a long term commitment to love each other and be faithful to each other because they are in love. People who love each other in that way want to be able to share their lives, their money, their benefits, etc. Heterosexuals have those perks, homosexuals do not. Most people do not get married for the sole reason of having children. Why would you see senior citizens who are beyond child bearing years getting married if that were true? There are numerous financial and legal benefits to being married. However, that doesn't mean that people get married for only that reason. Sometimes those benefits aren't worth putting up with the person, which is why some people choose to divorce. From sharing Social Security income to visiting your partner in ICU, there are numerous benefits to marriage, to someone you love.

Dee