Sunday, March 14, 2010

Sunday, March 14, 2010 - 10 comments

How Do You Define Marriage?

I have a delicate question that I want to ask. And I don't want to start any fights or debates. This is more like a poll. I have friends from one end of the political spectrum to the other, and every place on it has a different definition of what they think the legitimate law of the land should be.

How do you define marriage?

The reason that I ask is that two women had a commitment ceremony (got married) several years ago that I know from online. In time they wanted to have a baby and persuaded a gentleman to provide his assistance. (I probably should mention that these women describe themselves as bi-sexual.) Eventually, they invited this man to legally become a part of their family (including another wedding).

In the interest of full disclosure, I should tell you ... I support equal protection under the law for homosexual couples, but I also think that churches should not be pressured to perform wedding ceremonies that are contrary to their definitions of marriage. However, I am concerned about a policy of "anything goes."

What do you think? Where should the line be drawn? Should there be a line?


the decision of two people to live as an exclusive couple, witnessed by a legal/religious ceremony and the accompanying social festivities

No stretch of any imagination can make 3 or more all right without getting into polygamy, which is against the law.

You know I don't know what I really believe in this. My sister and her partner has a commitment ceremony oh I would say 10 years ago. They are still together and I love Renee (my sister-in-law) the same as if she were married to my brother.

Larisa my whole thought on this is if two people love each other call it what you want, marriage, commitment ceremony, play time. I don't care actually. Any two people that commit to each other should be afforded all the same rights and privileges under the law. But right now it's the word Marriage that only provides those. So that needs to be changed if you ask me. If my partner were still alive today, we would have been with each other now for 24 years. The for years that I had the privilege of being with him I was afforded no rights for him from me. It pisses me off and still does.

The 3 thing is a bit much to me there. Yes I know the father might feel left out but he should have known going in what he was getting himself into. I can see the two wahines being provided all the benefits but not him.

Quilly: Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this.

Thom: I'm so sorry about your partner. That is exactly the kind of thing that I was talking about. People who decide to spend their life together should have rights.

I don't know about plural marriages, it always makes me think of polygamy and women and children being taken advantage of

in the case of the trio you describe here - to me they are a family, not a marriage
the 2 women are the marriage

I agree that churches shouldn't be forced to conduct ceremonies that go against their religious doctrine but then they should also not be considered not for profit orgs that reap the benefits of tax deferments and public money

the right to be a married couple belongs to all, as a human right defended and protected by law

Dianne: The thing is they consider it a marriage. However, I cannot help but feel sad when I saw the body language in recent photographs where one of the women appears to be isolated from the group of two. Thank you for your contribution. :)

So far in my very scientific poll of three, I'm seeing a clear line of marriage being about 2 people. I was just wondering, especially as one of the local Methodist churches is sponsoring a rally in conjunction with the approval of gay marriage in Washington D.C.

I know that the pastor there is VERY in favor of gay marriage. (So what do you think of that, Dianne? lol)

Good question, Cherie!

I have to say I'm with the consensus here. I can't begin to come up with a thorough (or legal) definition of marriage but it shouldn't include more than two people. As Quilly said, that constitutes polygamy, which is illegal--in this country anyway. (I won't bother to get into the whole issue of culturally-specific mores.) And it's changed so much over the years. It used to be more about economics and social status, now it's more about love and commitment--most of the time anyway. ;)

I don't see how churches will be pressured to perform ceremonies they don't agree with, though. Of course, I grew up in the Catholic Church, which couldn't be persuaded to do anything that was against church doctrine.

I have no problem with defining a marriage as two consenting adults joining together in a legal commitment and calling it marriage.

Polygamy is illegal.

i also have no problem with people living together in whatever form they choose calling things whatever they want. I don't make emotional distinctions between kinds of family unless their are legal issues involved.

Churches can do whatever they want as long as they follow the law and stay out of government. Can't have it both ways.

Lisa: Yeah, unfortunately with the Catholic church and "infallibility" it sound kinda like the president of Iran saying that they don't have any gay people there. Riiiiiight. Whatever you say. ;)

Nessa: The legal issues do get sticky, like with what Thom was saying above, and with children involved, spouses get legal rights that "partners" do not. My understanding is that most of those things can be arranged in other (numerous, complicated) way legally, but none as simple as getting married. Of course, that's forgetting that planning a wedding can be darn complicated. lol

I say Amen to that pastor Cherie :)

Post a Comment