If the US does change its definition of marriage, I hope marriage will be taken seriously by those entering into that institution.
Poll: Gay marriage
- Thread starter Quiet
- Start date
@Flavus Aquila
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/63-64/12
----
The Constitution of the United States
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Ninth Amendment — Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-13-unmarriedbirths_N.htm
Out-of-wedlock births on the rise worldwide
The percentage of births to unmarried mothers is increasing worldwide, according to a new federal report that shows a universal upward trend over the last 25 years.
...Among 14 countries analyzed in the report by the National Center for Health Statistics, the percentage of all live unmarried births in the USA – 40% in 2007 – ranks somewhere in the middle. That's up from 18% in 1980. The sharpest rise was from 2002 to 2007, the report found...
...Countries with a higher proportion of births to unmarried mothers include Iceland, Sweden, Norway, France, Denmark and the United Kingdom; countries with a lower percentage than the USA include Ireland, Germany, Canada, Spain, Italy and Japan...
...Demographer Patrick Heuveline of the University of California-Los Angeles...He found that U.S. mothers are more likely to be single parents because the non-married couple relationship doesn't tend to last very long...
..."The relationships of the parents are much less stable in the U.S. than a lot of other countries," she says. "In Europe, where there are high levels of childbearing outside of marriage, when childbearing is not happening in marriage, it's happening in cohabitation. Cohabitations are reasonably stable."...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13mothers.html
WASHINGTON – Unmarried mothers gave birth to 4 out of every 10 babies born in the United States in 2007, a share that is increasing rapidly both here and abroad, according to government figures released Wednesday...
...Much of the increase in unmarried births has occurred among parents who are living together but are not married, cohabitation arrangements that tend to be less stable than marriages, studies show...
...Out-of-wedlock births are also rising in much of the industrialized world: in Iceland, 66 percent of children are born to unmarried mothers; in Sweden, the share is 55 percent. (In other societies, though, the phenomenon remains rare – just 2 percent in Japan, for example.)...
...“In Sweden, you see very little variation in the outcome of children based on marital status. Everybody does fairly well,” said Wendy Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. “In the U.S., there’s much more disparity.”
...Children born out of wedlock in the United States tend to have poorer health and educational outcomes than those born to married women, but that may be because unmarried mothers tend to share those problems...
...Some experts speculate that marriage or cohabitation cements financial and emotional bonds between children and fathers that survive divorce or separation, improving outcomes for children. But since familial instability is often damaging to children, they may be better off with mothers who never cohabitate or marry than with those who form unions that are later broken...
...“There is no consensus on those questions,” Dr. Manning said...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
Marriage Rights and Benefits
Whether or not you favor marriage as a social institution, there's no denying that it confers many rights, protections, and benefits -- both legal and practical. Some of these vary from state to state, but the list typically includes:
Tax Benefits
Estate Planning Benefits
Government Benefits
Employment Benefits
Medical Benefits
Death Benefits
Family Benefits
Housing Benefits
Consumer Benefits
Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships
If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/10-countries-now-allow-same-sex-marriage
10 Countries Now Allow Same-Sex Marriage
...The first same-sex marriages took place in the Netherlands on April 1, 2001. The countries that followed were Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Definitions
Marriage
Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Such a union is often formalized via a wedding ceremony. Many cultures limit marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, but some allow forms of polygamous marriage, and some recognize same-sex marriage. In some conservative cultures, marriage is recommended or compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity.
...Edmund Leach criticized Gough's definition for being too restrictive in terms of recognized legitimate offspring and suggested that marriage be viewed in terms of the different types of rights it serves to establish. Leach expanded the definition and proposed that "Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum"[9] Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to all cultures. He offered a list of ten rights associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children, with specific rights differing across cultures...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's some info. This American is tired of the ethno-sterotypes some non-Americans like to lord over them.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/63-64/12
----
The Constitution of the United States
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Ninth Amendment — Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-13-unmarriedbirths_N.htm
Out-of-wedlock births on the rise worldwide
The percentage of births to unmarried mothers is increasing worldwide, according to a new federal report that shows a universal upward trend over the last 25 years.
...Among 14 countries analyzed in the report by the National Center for Health Statistics, the percentage of all live unmarried births in the USA – 40% in 2007 – ranks somewhere in the middle. That's up from 18% in 1980. The sharpest rise was from 2002 to 2007, the report found...
...Countries with a higher proportion of births to unmarried mothers include Iceland, Sweden, Norway, France, Denmark and the United Kingdom; countries with a lower percentage than the USA include Ireland, Germany, Canada, Spain, Italy and Japan...
...Demographer Patrick Heuveline of the University of California-Los Angeles...He found that U.S. mothers are more likely to be single parents because the non-married couple relationship doesn't tend to last very long...
..."The relationships of the parents are much less stable in the U.S. than a lot of other countries," she says. "In Europe, where there are high levels of childbearing outside of marriage, when childbearing is not happening in marriage, it's happening in cohabitation. Cohabitations are reasonably stable."...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13mothers.html
WASHINGTON – Unmarried mothers gave birth to 4 out of every 10 babies born in the United States in 2007, a share that is increasing rapidly both here and abroad, according to government figures released Wednesday...
...Much of the increase in unmarried births has occurred among parents who are living together but are not married, cohabitation arrangements that tend to be less stable than marriages, studies show...
...Out-of-wedlock births are also rising in much of the industrialized world: in Iceland, 66 percent of children are born to unmarried mothers; in Sweden, the share is 55 percent. (In other societies, though, the phenomenon remains rare – just 2 percent in Japan, for example.)...
...“In Sweden, you see very little variation in the outcome of children based on marital status. Everybody does fairly well,” said Wendy Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. “In the U.S., there’s much more disparity.”
...Children born out of wedlock in the United States tend to have poorer health and educational outcomes than those born to married women, but that may be because unmarried mothers tend to share those problems...
...Some experts speculate that marriage or cohabitation cements financial and emotional bonds between children and fathers that survive divorce or separation, improving outcomes for children. But since familial instability is often damaging to children, they may be better off with mothers who never cohabitate or marry than with those who form unions that are later broken...
...“There is no consensus on those questions,” Dr. Manning said...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
Marriage Rights and Benefits
Whether or not you favor marriage as a social institution, there's no denying that it confers many rights, protections, and benefits -- both legal and practical. Some of these vary from state to state, but the list typically includes:
Tax Benefits
Estate Planning Benefits
Government Benefits
Employment Benefits
Medical Benefits
Death Benefits
Family Benefits
Housing Benefits
Consumer Benefits
Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships
If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/10-countries-now-allow-same-sex-marriage
10 Countries Now Allow Same-Sex Marriage
...The first same-sex marriages took place in the Netherlands on April 1, 2001. The countries that followed were Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Definitions
Marriage
Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Such a union is often formalized via a wedding ceremony. Many cultures limit marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, but some allow forms of polygamous marriage, and some recognize same-sex marriage. In some conservative cultures, marriage is recommended or compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity.
...Edmund Leach criticized Gough's definition for being too restrictive in terms of recognized legitimate offspring and suggested that marriage be viewed in terms of the different types of rights it serves to establish. Leach expanded the definition and proposed that "Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum"[9] Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to all cultures. He offered a list of ten rights associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children, with specific rights differing across cultures...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's some info. This American is tired of the ethno-sterotypes some non-Americans like to lord over them.
[MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION]
You can't do that literally. Not when children, etc. are involved. This can only apply to existing legal contracts. Not the human condition.
Flavus, why don't you just admit you have a problem with Homosexuality? It won't make you one, and you'll be a better person for it.
You can't do that literally. Not when children, etc. are involved. This can only apply to existing legal contracts. Not the human condition.
Flavus, why don't you just admit you have a problem with Homosexuality? It won't make you one, and you'll be a better person for it.
[MENTION=5312]3blackrings[/MENTION]; That info's interesting. Wikipedia always is.
Was there a point to your post?
The only thing I picked up was: an aversion to an opinion about Western Civilisation that can be stylised thus:
The Greeks and Romans developed Civilisation; the Brittish taught everyone how to live Civilisation; the Americans are currently working at making everyone uncivilised.
I might start a thread on that kind of thing later.
Was there a point to your post?
The only thing I picked up was: an aversion to an opinion about Western Civilisation that can be stylised thus:
The Greeks and Romans developed Civilisation; the Brittish taught everyone how to live Civilisation; the Americans are currently working at making everyone uncivilised.
I might start a thread on that kind of thing later.
I am happily married. Can't imagine not being with her. I was proud to take that oath, make the commitment in public; in front of friends and family. So why would anyone want to get married. Maybe because people are different than you and that's what they want.
It not about tax documents. Sad that's all you see.
---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?tnicsk
Well, it isn't polite to post what I think about homosexuality per se. So I won't - except perhaps in a more joking kind of thread, and only in a good-natured way.
@Flavus
You are condescending and patronizing. Wiki was one or two ref's. The rest are news sources. Did you actually read it? The point is obvious. My point is you don't know what you're talking about.
You are condescending and patronizing. Wiki was one or two ref's. The rest are news sources. Did you actually read it? The point is obvious. My point is you don't know what you're talking about.
Don't waste more time talking to the dead. It not like he doesn't get your point. Or know he can't really explain why he hates. He's having fun exercising some ridiculous argument he thought up to defend his backward way of thinking. Going back to the origins of marriage in the US meant nothing other than a dowry passing from a father to a husband. And at the time women were considered property without rights. I'd like to see him start that argument. Because based on the original definitions of marriage we'd all be in contempt. It's silly to entertain this guy.
---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?la0r5m
I see so majority determines what's right and wrong. That idea seems to run counter to the history of any civil rights movement. You aren't personally makig any compelling arguements, just emotionally raging out.
Last edited:
I don't see why Flavus has to admit he has a problem with homosexuality. This thread is about marriage for LGBT persons.
--------------
The fact that even while some states have passed laws recognizing same gender marriages - the Federal tax laws do not - is oppression of a group of people in this country.
I am very much against oppression.
If the US lawmakers had just stuck with the original plan of "Separation of Church from State" - we wouldn't have to go through this heart breaking - hatred forming - alienating - kinds of actions between peoples and their beliefs.
Marriage should have been kept where it belonged - within the religious and spiritual rites of a society. That way people could get married the way they believed was correct for their peace of mind and soul.
Or not.
My second husband and I exchanged vows of commitment to each other on the shores of Lake Michigan. We didn't consider getting legally married until years later when the laws became so complicated - tax wise - privacy wise - medical decisions wise - and so on - that it became necessary to protect us. Otherwise - we didn't need it.
A commitment is a commitment. In your heart and mind. Many people prefer God to be represented in a religious ceremony. I liked hearing God in the waves as they crashed on the beach.
There is real problem in a country that denies some people access to laws based upon religious belief structures. It's as if they're treating them as not having inalienable rights. Not created equal. As if they are not humans capable of love.
The US needs to take the word marriage out of it's laws and replace it with civil unions. Voila' Done deal. Then everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.
Let the churches hammer out what they believe is right in the eyes of their God.
@KGal
Because I don't see facts in his argument. I see quotes claiming facts and knowledge of them, but it doesn't match up. I put his quotes followed by the contradiction. Is that confusing? If there is a point to any of these Forum's, it is education and communication. And I'm becoming convinced that many don't read the whole of what they're forming their opinion on. People are waiting to write, just like they wait to talk, not listen.
Because I don't see facts in his argument. I see quotes claiming facts and knowledge of them, but it doesn't match up. I put his quotes followed by the contradiction. Is that confusing? If there is a point to any of these Forum's, it is education and communication. And I'm becoming convinced that many don't read the whole of what they're forming their opinion on. People are waiting to write, just like they wait to talk, not listen.
Gay people can already do this, there are plenty of institutions that support holding such a ceremony, the argument has always been over the paper part of the equation with gay marriage.
While that may very well be true - what you've written here should be addressed - not changing the subject of the thread by pushing him to admit a belief. That's all I'm trying to point out.
The point of saying that wasn't determining anything, instead merely stating that, though I was claimed to be soliciting pity (a thoroughly pitiful suggestion in itself), 81% of those polled were already on my side. At 81%, nobody needs pity on their side.
This fellow never gave any rational answers to anything. I did what Socrates would have done: I questioned this person's beliefs extensively. I shot them down where necessary. When I posed questions, it wasn't even shaming, it was legitimately asking for answers. I want to know what is in this person's mind about this subject (and some branches outwards), and I want to know all of it.
I do agree with Kgal, Flavus doesn't have to admit he has a problem with homosexuality. It's pretty apparent without the admission, even going so far as to say, and I quote, "Well, it isn't polite to post what I think about homosexuality per se." If it's not polite to post, it's not pretty, and if it's not pretty, it's offensive, it's from some considerable problems. It's basically the same thing as saying, "Well, it isn't polite to post what I think about African-Americans per se." Obviously vehemently opposed to people based on natural variations (skin color, gender), definitely homophobic or racist, respectively.
Not to imply our pal is against our African-American companions, oh no. Why stop at such a benign crowd as homosexuals, however? Hate breeds hate just like love breeds love. Feel the love instead of the hate.
Your comment was
I just explained I am someone that wants to be married.
---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?y3bocl
Ok I like it. I'm sold. But the key is we are all the same. And all afforded the same privileges like being there when the person I love more than anything is on their death bed all alone and needs me to be there but I can't.
Leave
Marriage to the church. Civil unions to the state.
---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?vmr1pc
Im glad this has sparked discussion because it is an important issue for many people. I would like everyone to feel comfortable to post their opinions. This can only happen when we stick to discussing the issues and not the person. Communication fails when we go on a defensive/offensive stance. Everyone holds their opinions for their own reasons, and it is not our place to judge them. It is our place to engage in debate about the issues that we consider important, support our arguements with reasoning, tolerate others views, and try to reach an understanding. Democracy- majority rules at the end of the day- if enough people agree to something than culture changes.
Lets not be like those wankers in parliament with their personal attacks and refusing to listen to and understand each other. The main reason those tools in government cant come up with good policies is because they are too busy trying to argue against each other and not trying to work together. Its great how we have different opinons. We dont know everyones motives and intentions, and we should make sure we know our own. The goal is always to find the solution that is most attune to human rights, and is beneficial for the majority of people.
i dont think the currently accepted 'definiton' of marriage is important. Our cultural institutions should adapt and evolve to suit our culture and the needs of our modern population. There is absolutely no logical reason to stick with something because thats the way it was done in the past. We are trying to move foward in a dramatically changing, shrinking, explanding world. We need to move with it, and our cultural institutions should be flexible enough to allow mobility and progress for all members of our community. But I do see the relevance and importance of those that are conservative and conventional. They provide that balance and grounding, and allow us to move foward in a steady, organic and measured approach. Most people dislike/are bad at dealing with change, although they can cope with it just fine when they have to. There are people that dont want to lose their sense of culture and dont know how they, and their children may fit into a rapidly changing future. I can understand it, its fine to have these concerns and fears. But we need to have the courage to understand our fears and work past them, otherwise we can never have progress.
Equality is pretty simple- all or nothing. Either we all have marriage or we all have civil unions. Im not sure if traditional marriage or the nuclear family ever existed or if it was also just a part of our cultural imagination, particluary relevant to some 'western' communities . Clearly there were many people disatisfied with that paradigm, and that particluar institution wasnt working because we seem to have moved beyond it. There have always been good and bad marriages, relationships, family breakdowns, and unhappy children. There is a lot of divorce, and before divorce there was a lot of unhappy, abusive marriages. Clearly the defintion of marriage has always been idealic and how it plays out in real life is incongruent. This wasnt because of the label or value we gave institutions, its because people are largely un-self aware and do not have the ability/wish to communicate together. And sometimes marriages dont work becaue people enter into them for the wrong reasons, or simply that people grow apart because they grown and changed as a person.
The role of men and women have also changed significantly. Our means of having children, our reasons for having children, and life stage when we have children have also changed. We need to adapt. All we need for a happy, successful society is to raise happy, successful children. The only thing that children need is unconditional love and it doesnt matter who is providing them this love and what the context of the family is. Everyone is capable of doing this. No amount of moralising, legalising, institutionalising will ever change that fact.
I dont personally value marriage but I appreciate that most people do. It is a very important, respected, revered cultural institution and it officialy legitmises a relationship. For this reason I respect the wishes of all people that want to enter into such an agreement.
Lets not be like those wankers in parliament with their personal attacks and refusing to listen to and understand each other. The main reason those tools in government cant come up with good policies is because they are too busy trying to argue against each other and not trying to work together. Its great how we have different opinons. We dont know everyones motives and intentions, and we should make sure we know our own. The goal is always to find the solution that is most attune to human rights, and is beneficial for the majority of people.
i dont think the currently accepted 'definiton' of marriage is important. Our cultural institutions should adapt and evolve to suit our culture and the needs of our modern population. There is absolutely no logical reason to stick with something because thats the way it was done in the past. We are trying to move foward in a dramatically changing, shrinking, explanding world. We need to move with it, and our cultural institutions should be flexible enough to allow mobility and progress for all members of our community. But I do see the relevance and importance of those that are conservative and conventional. They provide that balance and grounding, and allow us to move foward in a steady, organic and measured approach. Most people dislike/are bad at dealing with change, although they can cope with it just fine when they have to. There are people that dont want to lose their sense of culture and dont know how they, and their children may fit into a rapidly changing future. I can understand it, its fine to have these concerns and fears. But we need to have the courage to understand our fears and work past them, otherwise we can never have progress.
Equality is pretty simple- all or nothing. Either we all have marriage or we all have civil unions. Im not sure if traditional marriage or the nuclear family ever existed or if it was also just a part of our cultural imagination, particluary relevant to some 'western' communities . Clearly there were many people disatisfied with that paradigm, and that particluar institution wasnt working because we seem to have moved beyond it. There have always been good and bad marriages, relationships, family breakdowns, and unhappy children. There is a lot of divorce, and before divorce there was a lot of unhappy, abusive marriages. Clearly the defintion of marriage has always been idealic and how it plays out in real life is incongruent. This wasnt because of the label or value we gave institutions, its because people are largely un-self aware and do not have the ability/wish to communicate together. And sometimes marriages dont work becaue people enter into them for the wrong reasons, or simply that people grow apart because they grown and changed as a person.
The role of men and women have also changed significantly. Our means of having children, our reasons for having children, and life stage when we have children have also changed. We need to adapt. All we need for a happy, successful society is to raise happy, successful children. The only thing that children need is unconditional love and it doesnt matter who is providing them this love and what the context of the family is. Everyone is capable of doing this. No amount of moralising, legalising, institutionalising will ever change that fact.
I dont personally value marriage but I appreciate that most people do. It is a very important, respected, revered cultural institution and it officialy legitmises a relationship. For this reason I respect the wishes of all people that want to enter into such an agreement.
It is not a case of it 'not being pretty', but of it 'not being polite'. However, as you want to label me a biggot because I didn't want to say, I'll say:
I think that homosexuality's distinct feature, even more than the same-sex attraction part, is the obsessive need for approval. Which would point to homosexuality being an outcome of developmental influences. Two approaches to this would be: 1. Giving approval, which would reinforce the need; 2. Prompting detachment from other's approval, which would stimulate personal development.
I know this is off topic, but when I'm called all sorts of names, even by implication - I think clarification might have a place.
