Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Edit: On the other hand it's important to get this done simply to get some real equal rights going.
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
On June 28 2010 13:52 HaruHaru wrote: I'm for a form of "civil union" but i don't think they should call it marriage. Telling your kids that a man and a man can get married is just weird.
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state?
Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical.
The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means.
But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it.
I just want to chime in to say that whether or not marriage is 'useful' doesn't really have any relevance to the topic. I don't think anyone gets married because it is useful (save for gold diggers etc).
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state?
Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical.
The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means.
But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it.
Alright I see what you saying. Thanks for explaining
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
It's not the same sex part that's useless, I think marriage as a whole is ridiculous, whether it be same sex or not.
If in a certain country, some government benefits are only possible to get through marriage, then ANY couple of two persons (or more for all I care) should be able to fill up some forms and bam, get their tax cuts or whatever.
If they want to be allowed to get married then they should. If they want to have a ceremony then they absolutely should. I think it's an aberration that they even had to fight for so long to get that.
I'm just saying, marriage is kind of silly. I brought this up this up to a friend and one of his points is that if someone is in the hospital for something serious and you've lived with that person for 5 years but you're not married, you'll still have trouble getting to visit them. This is, I guess, a reason to get married. It also shows some serious flaws in the system.
Marriage ain't useless, it gets you better rates for insurance and stuff (at the expense of some liberties, but what isn't a compromise nowadays). lol.
Haha, I'm for same sex marriage, let em do what they want to do - nothing wrong with it. Toronto has gotten to me, used to be opposed to this stuff (like when I was a middle school-er), well not strongly, but yeah... so immature back then.
On June 28 2010 13:49 Djzapz wrote: Yay @ the world moving forward on issues that don't really matter. This issue is special in that it shows maturity for allowing something inoffensive and immaturity for wanting something completely useless.
Wanting something completely useless? If I want to marry a man I should be allowed to just as if I wanted to marry a woman. How is having that right recognized useless?
How is marriage useful in and of itself, not with what we have put with it officially through the state?
Marriage is just really a title. All in all, it serves no purpose, and is really just ceremonial above practical.
The idea of gifts and such, in my opinion, should be for the benefit of raising children, not to commemorate someone's love officially, I think that's silly. Although I don't see anything wrong with marriage and I wouldn't stop anyone, to call it useful is really weird. And I mean this in the official, state-sanctioned sense, not any personal sense. If two people want to be recognized for their partnership, by all means.
But I'm glad that countries are recognizing same sex marriage. People who don't like it won't actually have their marriages ruined because of it.
In my opinion marriage represents an important social purpose. It is a representation of commitment to the community and society in general that you are forming a union with another person. This includes not only the two people getting married but also their respective families and resources. I think this is an important bond that helps keep the fabric of society strong. It is also a commitment to raising a family, and while marriage is not a prerequisite obviously, it is still the most established environment for raising children.
Your complaint about gifts has nothing to do with marriage, but rather weddings. That is an entirely separate issue.
The state-sanctioned aspect of marriage is simply for tax and organizational purposes, (it saves you a lot of money, so it is useful) and if you are not comfortable with that you can simply have a ceremony and remain common-law, enjoying all the benefits of an officially married couple (at least in Canada).
And finally, I don't care who marries who. If two dudes want to get married, it doesn't affect me whatsoever. If they want to adopt... well that is a different story.
On June 28 2010 14:16 Djzapz wrote:If in a certain country, some government benefits are only possible to get through marriage, then ANY couple of two persons (or more for all I care) should be able to fill up some forms and bam, get their tax cuts or whatever.
Uh... why?
The only reason tax benefits are given out is to 'pay' for something that is being done for the state. If a marriage of type A is better for the state than a marriage of type B, the first type of marriage should receive better tax benefits.
On June 28 2010 14:16 Djzapz wrote:If in a certain country, some government benefits are only possible to get through marriage, then ANY couple of two persons (or more for all I care) should be able to fill up some forms and bam, get their tax cuts or whatever.
Uh... why?
The only reason tax benefits are given out is to 'pay' for something that is being done for the state. If a marriage of type A is better for the state than a marriage of type B, the first type of marriage should receive better tax benefits.
EPT
