Marriage?

[Dublin2BuenosAires]

You know I find it funny that in your second paragraph you say that a convenience marriage is a slap in the to people such as gay couples, when your first paragraph reads a lot like the justification for barring gay marrige.

If someone else gets married for obra social (or to someone of the same sex), it does not diminish the value of your traditional "old fashioned marriage", so please, let them be.

I really didn´t pick up the same anti gay marriage sentiment I have to say. Seemed to be fairly gender neutral in fairness. I think your taking a meaning from 'old fashioned' which can imply male-female marriage but in this case I think (maybe i am wrong) was a reference to marriage for life long commitment regardless of gender or persuasion.

 

[Vagrant Violet]

You know I find it funny that in your second paragraph you say that a convenience marriage is a slap in the to people such as gay couples, when your first paragraph reads a lot like the justification for barring gay marrige.

If someone else gets married for obra social (or to someone of the same sex), it does not diminish the value of your traditional "old fashioned marriage", so please, let them be.

Wait... What?!? You seem to have misunderstood my point. "Old fashioned" means you get married for love, not for papers. I have absolutely nothing against two consenting, loving, and committed adults getting married, no matter what their sexuality.

When living in the States and working with and teaching adults, I found many legit couples in which one was a US citizen and the other was foreign born, and they were put through Hell to be legally recognized. I think it's wrong when there are couples who get married for the other "stuff"/benefits no matter who/what they are (reasons that do not have to do with love) that are the problem, and give the real couples in complicated legal situations a bad rep and make it even more adverse for them.

I have written as a proponent and supporter of gay marriage on this forum before (http://baexpats.org/...arriage +passes).

Please read carefully next time and do not jump to the wrong conclusion, that insinuation was not nice.

 

[nickname303]

thanks philipdt.

i respect lauren's sentiment, at the least the bit about the difficulties many groups face on the path to marriage. but philipdt is right, theirs is a struggle for rights, not for the traditional institution of marriage, and there I don't see how I'm slapping anyone in the face.

it's totally consistent to be against marriage and in favor of the legal equality to marry. you might note that most advocates of "gay marriage" avoid the term "gay marriage". hell, the law is called matrimonio igualitario. the point is that insofar as marriage confers basic rights on individuals, it should be open to everyone, or alternatively cease to exist.

i don't think it's really a moral question, i.e. the right or wrong actions of individuals. the problem is when rights, in this case granted by marriage, become exclusive privileges. also we should be careful in using the language of "legit couples"; it perhaps unwittingly conjures up the image of the "bad immigrant", the "job stealer", the "free loader".


my two cents

 

[PhilipDT]

I really didn´t pick up the same anti gay marriage sentiment I have to say. Seemed to be fairly gender neutral in fairness. I think your taking a meaning from 'old fashioned' which can imply male-female marriage but in this case I think (maybe i am wrong) was a reference to marriage for life long commitment regardless of gender or persuasion.

Yes I know its gender neutral. I was making reference to the idea that some people hold that if others, who don't look at marriage the same way they do, get married in a non "old fashioned", non traditional manner, then some how this negatively affects.them

 

[PhilipDT]

Please read carefully next time and do not jump to the wrong conclusion, that insinuation was not nice.

I did read carefully and understood what you were saying.

Now, how about if you don't jump to conclusions about my jumping to conclusions. Especially if you're going to admonish me for it.

 

[Ceviche]

Its your life, your decisions, your destiny, your future. So just do, whatever the F**k , you wanna do!

 

[Vagrant Violet]

I did read carefully and understood what you were saying.

Now, how about if you don't jump to conclusions about my jumping to conclusions. Especially if you're going to admonish me for it.

Dually noted. It's all good. Let's let bygones be bygones.

 

[Travelbug0601]

You know I find it funny that in your second paragraph you say that a convenience marriage is a slap in the to people such as gay couples, when your first paragraph reads a lot like the justification for barring gay marrige.

If someone else gets married for obra social (or to someone of the same sex), it does not diminish the value of your traditional "old fashioned marriage", so please, let them be.

She said marriage should be between two loving committed people. How is that a justification for barring gay people from marriage?