Marriage seems to be waning in importance. During the early development of our civilizations marriage was often a necessity to sustain life. It took a tight bond between a husband and wife to provide for the basic necessities of a family. Modern advances have made it possible and very common for one parent to take care of not only his or her own needs but that of any children.

Many people, including the leaders of TSCC, hold onto marriage and defend it based on incorrect principles. The necessity of marriage has nothing to do with some sky daddy or the foundation of society today. They are holding onto something from a bygone era and defending it based on their own mistaken beliefs.

Marriage is an quaint social custom. However, I would argue that it should be stripped of all legal ramifications and cease to be the purview of the court system. A marriage should be a private choice made by a couple that is not recognized by the state. The perks given to married couples actually represent discrimination against single people.

Marriage has many advantages. Today's fluid world has made marriage appear to be superfluous, but I predict it will return to wide esteem in the future.

I totally agree.

I'm 43... and have never been married. On purpose. To me it's an archaic social ritual... seeped in sexism... that gives inlaws the 'ok' to interfere where they shouldn't.

Phuck that!

I like living in sin... waaay sexier. ;-)

In the gay community, Marriage has gained a great deal in importance. It is not just a civil rights issue, in deed, it really became a civil rights issue because of the AIDS crisis. Gays found out how important the rights given by marriage are when a partner of 30 years could not visit his lover in the hospital, when families would be able to invalidate wills and take everything bought in common...

Before the AIDS crisis, it was hard to find a gay man that supported to idea of gay marriage, times have changed.

And I would argue that the protections involved in marriage are neither quaint nor out dated for those that want them.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2011 05:54PM by MJ.

... and your citizenship.

Sexual orientation is not discriminated against in Canada, like it is in the US.

At the time gays in the USA were learning the lessons of which I speak, marriage for gays was illegal in Canada as well.

Yes but they had, and still do, more protection in common-law marriages in Canada, regardless of marriage laws, than in the US. There is really little benefit of legal marriage over common law relationships in Canada (except for Quebec).

But until recently, Canada did discriminate against gays in regards to marriage. Though I am glad they have come to their senses, Canadians you seem to be gloating over the fact that Canada stopped the discrimination a few years before the USA. I do not see where that makes Canada all that special or really gives Canada all that much room to brag, they still have the proverbial blood on their hands for their past digressions. Canadians are hardly pure when it comes to discrimination against gays.

Yes, MOST benefits were extended to same-sex couple since 1999, but most is not all and without it being all, you still have discrimination.

Then again, I repeat, your trying to make Canada out as sooooo much better than the USA does NOTHING TO CHANGE THE POINT THAT I AM MAKING.

Gays in CANADA learned the importance of marriage protections for the same reason that the USA gays did, the discrimination that CANADA practiced against gays meant that gays were denied the privileges and protects straight people enjoyed when they chose to marry.

Don't see all that much difference between the USA and Canada other than the fact that Canada was a bit quicker is stopping their discriminatory practices.

I think I've been clear in stating my point but for whatever reason you're not understanding what I've said.

Actually... you writing, "Don't see all that much difference between the USA and Canada...."

There's the problem right there of you not understanding my point. There ARE differences, legal differences.

I am NOT saying that there are not legal differences, I have stated over and over that Canada only came to those legal differences RECENTLY.

The ONLY difference is that Canada got over their BIGOTED PAST a FEW years sooner than the USA. That is NOT much room for the sort of "Canada is so much better than the USA" sort of gloating you are doing.

You act as if the fact that Canada FINALLY has seen the light that we should all forget the bigotry and harm done in the past and pretend that Canada never had bigoted hateful laws and that ONLY the USA ever did that sort of stuff. BS.

And AGAIN, your gloating has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POINT I AM MAKING. Canadian gays learned about the value of marriage because of BIGOTED CANADIAN LAWS that have only RECENTLY been changed, but they learned because of CANADIAN BIGOTRY TOWARDS GAYS.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2011 04:31PM by MJ.

that Canada is "soooo much better than the US." Spaghetti has simply said there ARE differences. The US still hasn't gotten even close to allowing gay marriage, so I think Canada does have the right to gloat a little. As far as "past digressions"; Why does this generation have to be sorry for something their parents did? It is NOT important that in the past minorities have been discriminated against. What is important is that we realize our need for change and then do it.

I am sorry you have been treated so badly by society and government in the past, but what can any of us do about the past? We can look forward and make positive change so that you will be treated better.

I am an American BTW.

If a society has been abusive to its people in the VERY RECENT past, they should NOT act as if they are better than everyone else because they changed some laws a couple of years ago. You know, maybe they would show a little remorse for the harm thy did and a little humility, rather than brag about how much better the Canadians are, when they really are not all that much better. I mean seriously, the USA is supposed to act all remorseful for what it did over 100 years ago, but Canada gets to ignore their bigotry from just 6 years ago and act all proud for what they are NOW?

bingoe4, BEFORE YOU REPLY PLEASE BE SURE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS, THE ARE THE POINT THAT IT SEEMS BOTH YOU AND SPAGHETTI OH SEEM TO WANT TO IGNORE:

And AGAIN, why is EVERYONE MISSING THE POINT? Are you all trying to DEFLECT from the actual point I am making? My point is about HISTORICAL perspective and you, bingoe4 and more to the point spaghetti oh are yammering on as if what Canada is TODAY changes the HARM that Canada did in THE PAST. My point was, that gays Canada learned the value of marriage IN THE PAST BECAUSE OF the BIGOTED laws that CANADA had, and NEITHER, YOURS or SPAGHETTI OH's yammering about what Canada is NOW changes MY FUCKING POINT.

I don't see why it is so difficult to understand the HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE on this issue. I do not see why ANYONE would think that trying to pimp how good their country is NOW changes the HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE and how that HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE got us to where we are NOW.

Gezzz.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2011 05:34PM by MJ.

MJ wrote: "I have stated over and over that Canada only came to those legal differences RECENTLY."

This is where you are mistaken.

You are assuming that common-law and marriage laws have been the same in Canada as they have been in the US, with the exception of just being on a different timeline. In otherwords, you're assuming that Canada's just been quicker to legalise same-sex marriage but before Canada did, that common-law and marriage laws were just like the US. That was and is not the case.

I don't think I can make my point any clearer.

"I don't think I can make my point any clearer." What POINT? You babbled that common law was different, but nothing that actually showed that that "difference" actually addressed the gay issue. I make NO assumptions that any law in Canada is the same as the USA.

But if you have SOMETHING that shows that gay common law marriages were honored as marriages before 2003 now would be the time to put up or...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2011 06:57PM by MJ.

Now, you're starting to understand my point.

In the meantime, you've been quite rude to me, have put words in my mouth and have accused me of being a gloating Canadian. Do you even know my citizenship?

Your behaviour is not very pleasant.

Anyways...

You could look up Section 15 in the Canadian Charter of right and freedoms.

Also, in the 1990's the Canadian federal gov ensured common-law marriage law could not discriminate against same-sex couples. Until then the laws varied by province. I'm sure that's findable.

The province of Quebec prohibited same-sex discrimination in the late 1970s.

Same-sex sex - the actual sexual acts - was decriminalised in Canada before I was born (I'm 43).

Parts of the bible that talk about killing homosexuals can be considered 'hate speech' in Canada - ie, inciting violence.

Etc, etc.

Legally and just generally, Canadian culture is much more accepting of homosexuality in general (not that there is no prejudice or hate crimes).

The marriage contract is still a constant. It won't die out. Little girls will continue to dream of getting married in their special white dress!

hehe...as I was reading your post, it made me think of marraige like a carpool lane. I think it can be a great thing, but it needs to be available to homosexuals as well. Its depressing to see someone's longterm life partner be denied decisionmaking rights in a hospital setting, and be denied everything that a spouse would have a right to...only to have estranged, bitter and biggoted family swoop in to seal the deal.

Huh? Gays and lesbians can't drive in the HOV Lane? Since when?

Just wonderin'...

Ron

lol...sorry I wasn't more clear.

I was saying that the post, which talked about perks of marraige as a state recognized institution, it made me think of carpooling for some reason. As some type of perk just for having an extra person on board...thats all.

My response was "tongue-in-cheek". :) No worries.

Ron

It's like being a Mormon!

I can't imagine raising my children alone, and I don't think my wife would want to go it alone, either. Like any working task, its easier when two people are working together. I would never want to be a single parent. Hats off to those who are pulling it off.

I have to agree, I wonder why states have to regulate it. Has anybody ever heard of a state that actually looks at the blood test results, and saying, "Nope, sorry, the two of you can't get married."?
As for perks, what perks are you talking about? Whether or not a married couple gets a tax break all depends on their situation, whether one or both work, their living expenses, whether they have children, etc. In some cases, married filing jointly at tax time can create a "marriage penalty".

I like it SO much that I want EVERYONE who wants it to be able to experience it and enjoy it like I do.

From my chair, marriage is kinship by contract which is a very good thing if you choose your partner wisely.

Can't help but laugh when folks say the state should stay out of it. Let's say you shack-up with your soulmate in his or her house and you help pay the bills and the mortgage for, say, twenty-years and your soulmate up and dies on you. Think you'll get to keep the house? Better guess again!

Marriage doesn't mean much when the participants are young and their prospects are limited. Building our life together has been pretty fun for me and beloved.

"I sit looking 'round
I look at my face in the the mirror
I know I'm worth nothing without you
In life one and one don't make two
One and one make one
And I'm looking for that free ride to me
I'm looking for you." -- Pete Townshend

Timothy

The institution of marriage is not forced on anyone. Those that do not like it, never have to marry. Many, but not all, of those that do like it can marry provided they have a willing partner.

People that don't like marriage and want to do away with marriage what to push their values on to others and eliminate one aspect of freedom of choice.

If its not your cup 'o' tea, then don't do it.

Marriage detractors might want to consider how many lengthy and detailed contracts potential "partners" would have to negotiate were it not for the blanket coverage provided by said institution. Lawyer types would love to see it dissolved.

Beloved and I "chose" each other to the exclusion of all others. We signed a very legal and binding contract to that effect. It works quite nicely ifin ya axe me!

Timothy

Your marriage is destroying MY marriage.

Not because you are gay/straight green/blue.

But just because you ARE YOU!

For many cultures, particularly forager cultures, any arrangement like marriage has been little valued. Your assertion that it was necessary in years past for survival is part of a false narrative we've all been fed. It was agriculture and the advent of private property that spawned the institution of marriage. After all, if you have no property to pass on, why does paternity certainty make any difference? Also, small bands of cooperative foragers survive just fine without pair bonds.

Holy Rower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
It was agriculture
> and the advent of private property that spawned
> the institution of marriage. After all, if you
> have no property to pass on, why does paternity
> certainty make any difference? Also, small bands
> of cooperative foragers survive just fine without
> pair bonds.

Some other purposes of pair-bonding and marriage:

Exclusive access to a woman.

Decreased competition among men for exclusive access to a woman. This increases cooperation among men and allows energy and resources to be spent on other concerns.

Defense of the male's genetic legacy (at least most of the time). Assurance that his efforts to care for and defend offspring are for *his* offspring.

Care of two parents for children.

Perhaps it was pair-bonding that brought agriculture and not the other way around.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2011 07:15PM by robertb.

I find myself in a conundrum about this very issue. I am 61 years old (there, I've said it!) I was temple married for 23 years to a man who then came out as a gay man. Divorced. I rebound married a year later (big mistake) and it lasted 7 months. divorced. Left the church. Now, 16 years after the last divorce, I find myself engaged to a man several years younger than me. We've been living together for nearly a year and are no closer to marriage now than we were the day he asked me. We're both so gun shy. We love being together though.

I vacillate about this quite often. I don't want another divorce. I know the stats with 2nd and 3rd marriages. Having said that, does being married help the couple feel more bonded to each other?

My extended family asks me on a regular basis when we are getting married. I know this drives them crazy. LOL

If I DID find a man to have a committed relationship with I rather doubt I'd ever choose to marry him. Then again, my children are grown and I don't think I need any of the the "perks" that can come with marriage.

Of course, that's just for me. I do think that a pair has an easier time raising children than one parent alone -- and I speak from the experience of being a single parent on that one. My children turned out wonderfully but I think we would have all been happier and more relaxed on that journey if I had been partnered with someone.

Ahh well, in a perfect world...

All I can tell you is that sometimes the third time's the charm.

The Best Man Ever™ and I have been married for 24 years next month. He was my first; I was his third. He is my best friend.

True story from 1989:

Nosy old Auntie: "So [snort,snort]which wife are YOU, dear? Second, third, or...?"

Me: "LAST!"

Marriage is not a big deal, especially in Hollywood where people divorce after a few months, or even weeks. Marriage is no biggie to someone who can marry anytime they want. Marriage is a huge deal when someone is denied that basic right.

It is like when black people could not drink from the same drinking fountain or use the same bathroom as white people. Bigots would say it was no big deal, but to the people who are discriminated against, it is a very big deal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2011 03:24PM by piper.

It is possible to raise children by yourself, but it isn't best for the kids. And it's usually done by women who are still making 75% of what men make.

Marriage is a huge benefit to a society. DH and I have taken care of each other through illness, unemployment, child care, elder care issues. We've worked together to provide one of us with more time for community service.

If it weren't for our marriage, we'd have been a much bigger drain on the government. This whole thing has huge implications for our country.

It's very ironic to watch it decline even while gays fight for it.

Problem is that some of the conventions of marriage historically included the subjugation of women as property. Ownership meant that women automatically abandoned their surname, land and other belongings of the wife became the property of the husband and so on. And, sometimes these negative attitudes infiltrate marriages even today.

A whole other level of insanity ensues when you think of marriage as god's sacrament. Holy Cow. It's hard enough with just two people in the marriage.

And it's in the process of changing again.

So it's a particular definition of marriage that's becoming outdated, just like the one before, where wives and children were property, became outdated. C'est la vie, mes amis.

Oh, and the defenders of past forms of marriage were CERTAIN their form was the only correct way.

As soon as you make children with someone else, you are morally responsible for those children. Anyone who thinks otherwise deserves to have their spleen stomped. And yes it's best for children to have two loving parents who keep the family together. You can do that married or not married.

I'm sorry, but two people making a commitment to each other is as valid of a family as those with kids.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sorry, but two people making a commitment to
> each other is as valid of a family as those with
> kids.

Hey, if two people split up the only thing lost is maybe some assets and some feelings. When two parents split up you have the emotional and temporal welfare of children mixed up in it. Sure. If two people want to call themselves a family so be it but there is less carnage in the break up of that relationship than if kids are involved. Add in kids, you add in more responsibility and more repercussions.

Anyways, society has gone downhill because the family has gone downhill. Children aren't raised in the same homes they were and it shows. Too many people nowadays are too selfish to be good parents. So yeah, if you are going to be a lousy parent just find your special partner and never had kids. It would do society a wonderful favor.

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As soon as you make children with someone else,
> you are morally responsible for those children.
> Anyone who thinks otherwise deserves to have their
> spleen stomped. And yes it's best for children to
> have two loving parents who keep the family
> together. You can do that married or not married.

I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. As you state those responsibilities can be fulfilled whether there is a marriage or not. That is the whole premise of the thread. Marriage is a legal contract that does not necessarily mean that a healthy environment will exist or that commitment will be present. Just like any other ceremony such as baptism, temple endowments, etc nothing really changes. If it makes someone feel better about things then they should feel free to engage in such activities for S&G's or whatever reason. Having ceremonies mandated by law and creating other laws to negate such ceremonies is where the problem arises in my opinion.

I disagree. Your assumption that nothing is seriously wrong when two childless people split up is nonsense. How about when one becomes incapacitated and can no longer work, then the bread winner leaves, leaving the incapacitated person without insurance or means of support?

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I disagree. Your assumption that nothing is
> seriously wrong when two childless people split up
> is nonsense. How about when one becomes
> incapacitated and can no longer work, then the
> bread winner leaves, leaving the incapacitated
> person without insurance or means of support?


Dude...you are reading way more into this than I am saying. I appreciate your emotion and vigor concerning the matter but you are carrying on an argument with a strawman.

I don't think "family" will ever be outdated.

BadGirl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think "family" will ever be outdated.


Wait until some sicko comes into power that thinks they can clone all their citizen slaves in a lab.

We started experimenting with the traditional family 45 years ago. Mom left home and went to work. The government loved that because now they had another income to tax. Day care became a booming business. The public schools went to seed because they suddenly became day care centers instead of education centers. Women still make less than men on average but they proved they are just as competent. The thing is honestly look at the situation today compared to 45 years ago and see if we have improved anything.

We have been circling the drain the whole time spinning faster and faster towards the hole. I hear constant complaints on how stupid and lazy our society has become. Gee. I wonder why. The television and video game machine became mom.

Good luck with that.