You can call it what ever you want. There would be the legal definition and the common term everyone uses.
Right now if you only had a civil union, or even if you were married in the “wrong” church there are people who may not considered you “married in the eyes of God”. But what ever. No one is going to say you aren’t married. (Ironically, my Catholic ex-In-Laws were never married in a church.)
Like I said - originally I thought it was an interesting compromise - a separation of church and state, allowing people who saw it as “sacred” to have their own little specialness, and allowing anyone and everyone to have the same protections and benefits under the law.
Since no one seemed to want to go this route, and having the gov. change like that being unlikely, I’ve since evolved my opinion to “fuck it, marriages for all”.
Yep. It’s all arbitrary words when it comes down to it.
Yes it was really eye opening to me to learn how much this idealized vision of marriage as between a man and a woman, she walks down the aisle a virgin, they have kids after tie the knot, the man earns the money, the woman stays home, he proposes with a diamond ring, etc., etc., etc. really is very new and not at all traditional.
Probably one of the most interesting things to read about for me was how much economic value women had in the early days in American history, how many of the household goods could be traded with other households and so women could build up quite a business making useful items for other people. They could own property in their own names.
Another one that stuck with me was there was a period I think in the late Middle Ages where most English working class people would wait until they had toddlers to get married, and would typically get married in their late 20s, early 30s, once they’d built up enough wealth to afford marriage - and not until having children compelled them to do it. Single moms - not such a big deal in those days.
Let me spell it out for you: same sex marriage is utterly morally and ethically right, and denying legal recognition of same sex marriage is utterly immoral indecent and unethical. Suck on that in the sure knowledge that before you die same sex marriage will be legal across most if not all western democracies, and you can take your pin-headed bigotry to grave along with the dinosaurs motherfucker.
Folks like @votdephuque, Glenn Beck, Rush, Anne Coulter, and their ilk have done more than anyone else to change public opinion on gay marriage and legalize it state-by-state. Thanks, guys. Keep up the vitriol and ignorance!
I can’t imagine why anyone would need any of these things spelled out for them. But perhaps that’s because I can’t think of an actual reason that same-sex marriage wouldn’t be advisable, desirable, or even permissible. Can you?
Voted, I think you read the article, but I don’t think it sunk in.
Marriage is a civil construct that, over time, involved property, hereditary power, disenfranchisement of both African Americans and women of all races. Only recently (in historical terms) has it become a religious sacrament.
Perhaps the author danced around it, but I believe the thing that makes same sex marriage SO important in this day and age is that it makes such a large contribution to the adoption of otherwise unwanted children while, at the same time, makes coital reproduction undesirable - if not impossible.
Put in plain terms, same-sex marriage is mother nature’s very own form of birth control! We heteros aren’t so good at birth control so it falls to our LGBTQ brothers, sisters and comrades to make up for our excesses.
We ought to honor LGBTQ people - not denigrate them!
We also need to never forget that in America today, “marriage” means a tax benefit. So, even today marriage is a financial arrangement with the government. It’s far more expensive to live as a single person in the U.S., even if you choose to cohabit long term with a friend, family member, or romantic partner.
No, all it takes is for the female half of the parental unit to be an educated participant with knowledge of and access to birth control. We heteros can be quite un-excess in those conditions.
I like the bow to responsibility, but there are ways for male partners to make reproductive choices as well. Just saying that one partner shouldn’t always be expected to be “the responsible one”.
Baby steps. Think of Iran, the poster child for successful population control but not immediately thought of as the roiling volcano of feminist conflict that it is. And yes, men should be educated, if only to stop trying to control their partners. Unfortunately, it seems to take about four or five steps to get to the Scandahoovian standard. And rolling back social liberalism and feminism is a very public cause for their fringey wackjobs, just as here.
Men really have no excuse to walk away from the responsibility they have toward not/having children in a relationship. This isn’t just a cultural issue, and honestly it can’t be sidelined by saying “Oh, but take baby steps - think of that country over there.” It’s a problem everywhere.
I know a guy who married, saying he had no intention of ever having children, and his fiancee had that confirmed by both him and his mother before the marriage. She agreed to the condition. During the marriage, he said he intended to get a vasectomy — but he never did. They divorced after seven years of marriage, partially because she wanted children, and living with him spent her life on the pill and childless. He left her in charge of his desire.
He still claims he will never have children, and still hasn’t had that vasectomy.
