The sanctity of marriage? Good question.

[Caela]

If you have sex there is a chance of a child, use birth control all you want but once you have a child verifiable to the man your married in my book. What about your daughter she has no father and your putting the pressure on the man for your choice to have a child under my guidelines the state would have to do a DNA test, that preserves his right. What about the rights to funds from the father and his rights to his child? What about the childs rights your refusing money she is due for her upbringing being uncaring of her rights to things she needs from the other parent?

And I would make divorce a high bar did he commit adultery, physical abuse or abandonment as in over a period of time refused to support you or the child say 7 years. You could still get child support but I figure 7 years is enough time for you both to get counseling and other measures to form the marriage and give the husband time to bond with the child.

Naturally I also will note you marry or he marries or has another child I would treat it as BIGAMY and apply criminal charges as appropriate so the parents use protection or keep their pants on.

Marriage and having children is a big deal to me and should have consequences and not be easy to get out of once made by living together or having a child.

What about child's right to have parents that LOVE her and WANT to be in her life? I chose my childs emotional well-being as being vastly more important than any amount of money I could ever get from a man that doesn't want to be a father and would just resent being forced to be in her life.  By your reasoning my child should be punished by having to put up with someone who would treat AT BEST as an unwanted obligation and at worst could be abusive, for up to seven years before I could get rid of him!

No thanks.

Yes children are a great responsibility but, as a parent, I am responsible for far more than just her economic well-being. I am responsible for her physical and emotional care as well and neither of those would be serviced by forcing me to be married to man I never saw as "husband" material but was just having a good time with. By your reasoning I and my daughter are supposed to be miserable for up to 7 years simply because I forgot to make him wear a condom one night.

Sometimes it's better for the child NOT to have one of the parents in their lives. Not always. Perhaps not even a majority of the time, but sometimes.

As for child support she's owed, again I chose her emotional well being over money. I make enough on my own for us to be comfortable and with my schedule I am home with her 4 days out of seven and the other 3 she is with my folks. She is surrounded by people who love her, want her, think she is one of the most important things in the entire universe...I'll take that over money any day of the week!

Now, as to the rights of the sperm donor (he's not a father, that requires a presence in the child's life in my book) he has none and we are both happy with that arrangement. He doesn't want to be a father and I let him stay out of our lives and MY daughter doesn't have to deal with the emotional stress of a Mommy who is always upset with the fight to try and keep someone in her life that doesn't want to be there. Again, her well being is vastly more important to me than supposed "rights" that he doesn't even want.

Personally, I'm of the belief that a lot of the problems children from single parent homes face, stems from the emotional, as much as the economic, stresses that a lot single parent homes are under. They are always watching their parents play some kind of tug-of-war about them or money, they watch their primary parent stressing out because the child support check didn't come again, their primary parent is not the best parent they could be because they are stressed out by the other parent all the time, etc. These are all things I watched my own mother go through with my brother's father and they tore a huge rift between us and her when we were younger. We thought she didn't care, but the simple truth was she was just so stressed she didn't get the chance to be the best mother she could have been and that puts any child at a disadvantage.

I don't need the stress, she doesn't need the stress and neither of us is under it. I have an incredibly happy, well adjusted, polite, well behaved (most of the time, we all have our days! lol) daughter who knows she is loved and cared for beyond reason and who doesn't have anyone in her life that doesn't want to be there making her feel badly.

I think my way works just fine thanks.

Marriage should be about two people who love each other choosing to make a commitment to each other.

[Lilias]

I understand that all too often divorce is a snap decision - about as snap as the marriage itself was, actually. Marriage is not for the faint of heart; it's a lot of work to maintain, and people who swan into it expecting everything to be pink hearts and roses are likely to throw in the towel very quickly.

But forcing people to remain married forever is guaranteed to make them miserable at best and lead them to crime at worst (in an effort to enforce the 'till death do us part' bit). I would settle with a set period of adjustment, to work out the issues. British law demands a two-year legal separation before a divorce can go ahead - enough time for the couple to make up or make sure they want to go their separate ways and work out the details. That's something I'd like to see more widely implemented, myself.

[pentarath]

This is my (humble) opinion on the subject:

The promise to protect someone and be true to him/her in whatever circumstances should come to pass (for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health) really is the strongest bond imaginable. A vow like this should never be given lightly, and once given, cannot be withdrawn without expilcit absolvation by the person it was given to.

IMHO this is the essence of marriage. And it has nothing to do with law or religion. Nor does the fact whether any children rely on this bond alter in any way its significance. Everything else is just a matter of social conventions: The gender (and even the number) of people taking such mutual vows has no impact on their relevance.

Today, marriage and divorce is all too often diverted from its intended use of mutual protection from physical and emotional harm. Instead it is used, mainly by persons of public interest like actors and politicians, to circumvent the "moral" convention that you should not have sex without being married. We should throw away those "morals" and let people live together freely for as long as they wish and part whenever they like. If, and only if a couple or a group of people really is prepared for the task of protecting and supporting each other for the rest of their lives, should they proceed to taking the vow of marriage.

As a consequence, the threshold for severing such a bond should be very high. Seven years might be a little too long a time, but IMHO a three years consensual separation barely measures up to the significance of the original vow.

~Penta

[Oniya]

That assumes that one uses the standard RC vows.  Many people write their own vows - mine specifically eschewed the 'forsaking all others' bit (Mr. Oniya and I are poly) and used the line 'As long as love shall last' (admittedly lifted from Roger Daltrey's treatment of Liszt's 'Liebestraum (Nottorno No. 3)' instead of 'Till death do us part'.

[pentarath]

That assumes that one uses the standard RC vows.  Many people write their own vows - mine specifically eschewed the 'forsaking all others' bit (Mr. Oniya and I are poly) and used the line 'As long as love shall last' (admittedly lifted from Roger Daltrey's treatment of Liszt's 'Liebestraum (Nottorno No. 3)' instead of 'Till death do us part'.

I grant you that.
And I admit I exaggerated my point to make it more clear. Of course what has to be done to keep your vows, depends only on what you promised.

Although, I think that using the line 'As long as love shall last' is rather noncommittal and therefore not much of a vow. Your own feelings (love) are governing the promise, so you just might not have given it. Just imagine someone has promised to protect you "while there is no danger". You wouldn't feel very confident being out there in the mountains with a bear on your heels and only said person at your side ...

IMHO a vow should always be a warrant of your actual feelings, sustaining them in a future when they might falter. Therefore it should be taken deliberately and should not contain any loophole.

~Penta

[Scott]

Do whatever you want, the same sex thing... great, more power to y'all, but please for the love of God don't ever use the Kardashians as an example to follow by anyone for anything (besides maybe reasons for birth control).

 

[Iniquitous]

I grant you that.
And I admit I exaggerated my point to make it more clear. Of course what has to be done to keep your vows, depends only on what you promised.

Although, I think that using the line 'As long as love shall last' is rather noncommittal and therefore not much of a vow. Your own feelings (love) are governing the promise, so you just might not have given it. Just imagine someone has promised to protect you "while there is no danger". You wouldn't feel very confident being out there in the mountains with a bear on your heels and only said person at your side ...

IMHO a vow should always be a warrant of your actual feelings, sustaining them in a future when they might falter. Therefore it should be taken deliberately and should not contain any loophole.

~Penta

I actually think that Oniya and her husband have the right idea. No one, and I mean no one, can say with 100% certainty that they will still feel the same way for the person they are marrying 50 years down the road.

Do I think there is no hope for love lasting? No - I understand that it is a full time job. But I also know that there are some things that cannot be saved. Sometimes, the towel has to be thrown in. And it makes more sense to me to say the vows “as long as love shall last” than “till death do us part”.

But then again, I still do not see a reason to get up and pledge anything in front of 50, 100, 250, 500 of your ‘closest’ friends and relatives. It is a private pledge between two people - no one else is involved in it (and shouldn’t be involved in it).

Just my two cents.

[TheGlyphstone]

I actually think that Oniya and her husband have the right idea. No one, and I mean no one, can say with 100% certainty that they will still feel the same way for the person they are marrying 50 years down the road.

Do I think there is no hope for love lasting? No - I understand that it is a full time job. But I also know that there are some things that cannot be saved. Sometimes, the towel has to be thrown in. And it makes more sense to me to say the vows “as long as love shall last” than “till death do us part”.

But then again, I still do not see a reason to get up and pledge anything in front of 50, 100, 250, 500 of your ‘closest’ friends and relatives. It is a private pledge between two people - no one else is involved in it (and shouldn’t be involved in it).

Just my two cents.

It's an excuse to have a party afterwards, and people love to party.

[meikle]

Just imagine someone has promised to protect you "while there is no danger".

Just imagine being married to someone who didn't want to be around you.  I'd much prefer that my SO leave if they're not happy to be with me.  I would hate for someone to be forced to spend their life with me because they have no other option.  It would make me feel pathetic.

[Torch]

It's an excuse to have a party afterwards, and people love to party.

Don't forget the boatload of cash received by the bride and groom. I was suspicious of this Yankee tradition (we Southerners wouldn't dream of giving anything that isn't on the registry), but once I saw the checks and cash starting to roll in at the reception, I was like "Damn, this doesn't suck..." 

[Trieste]

I think that forcing people to jump through more hoops like waiting 7 years before a divorce would mean that fewer people would get married, and would put everyone's rights back. Considering that the gay community has been fighting so hard, it seems like a slap in the face.

And if you think that just because I have sex with a man and my birth control fails, that I'm going to marry the dude, you're nuts. I don't need a man to help raise my child if I have one so badly that any man will do, and certainly not one selected by a) random chance, or b) the state. I don't want the state in my uterus, in my bedroom, in my marriage, or in anything of the sort. Pardon me, but butt out.

[pentarath]

Just imagine being married to someone who didn't want to be around you.  I'd much prefer that my SO leave if they're not happy to be with me.  I would hate for someone to be forced to spend their life with me because they have no other option.  It would make me feel pathetic.

I wouldn't want to force anyone to spend their lives together, if there is no reason left to do so.
I'd only like people to have a deliberate close look at the real meaning of the marriage vows and then either leave them or really mean them. If you promise to protect someone "till death do us part" you should really mean it. If in the end it doesn't work out, this is sad story, but should not lead to even more sorrow by tying people together against their will.

And hey, I don't want to spoil the party 

~Penta

[Torch]

But then again, I still do not see a reason to get up and pledge anything in front of 50, 100, 250, 500 of your ‘closest’ friends and relatives. It is a private pledge between two people - no one else is involved in it (and shouldn’t be involved in it).

Just my two cents.

There's no one "right" way to get married.

Some folks prefer a private ceremony, others prefer to invite friends and family to share in their celebration. One way is no better or worse than any other.

[Envious]

Given the history of marriage, I'm surprised people make such a fuss over same sex folks wanting to tie the knot.

Well, no I'm not. Hater gunna hate hate hate. And history has shown us that any difference between one person and the next is a totally valid reason to cry havoc.

[Trieste]

It's not a big deal for everyone! Some of us live in civilized areas. 

[Oniya]

It's time.

Saw this today - really quite powerful, and shows what it's really all about.

[Caela]

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

It's time.

Saw this today - really quite powerful, and shows what it's really all about.

A couple of my friends posted that on FB, loved it! It's well done and it makes the excellent point that non-hetero's are just as normal as everyone else as well as that marriage should be about the commitment of two people who love each other.

I think some people get so caught up in being AGAINST homosexuality or how they perceive the "homosexual lifestyle" to be that they totally lose sight of the fact that most people really do want the same things in life irregardless of who they love, what job they have, who they worship, what color they are etc.

If there's an award out there for public awareness ad's, the folks that made this one should get it.

[Rinzler]

It's time.

Saw this today - really quite powerful, and shows what it's really all about.

You'd have to have a heart of granite not to be moved by that

[Oniya]

A couple of my friends posted that on FB, loved it! It's well done and it makes the excellent point that non-hetero's are just as normal as everyone else as well as that marriage should be about the commitment of two people who love each other.

I got it off of George Takei's FB page/blog. 

[Samael]

I saw that link posted on another messageboard I regularly visit.
I love how it leaves you pretty clueless at to what gender the other person is till the end.
I think that conveys a powerful message, because it lets the viewer associate these people with themselves.
From there on its a bit more difficult to go "Oh... that's them gays..." instead of "Oh... just like everyone else..."

[Rinzler]

^^I have to confess a twinge of sadness at the end, knowing that there are guys out there who'll watch that and just want to beat those two blokes to a pulp.

[Serephino]

Divorce can be a good thing.  I see that every day from my neighbor.  I don't know if there was any cheating, but if that poor guy had to stay married to that woman, he'd probably end up killing the crazy bitch.  I want to kill the crazy bitch, and I just live in the other half of the duplex.

Rather than getting a job she tries to get him to pay for everything.  He loves his kids, but my god, the screaming!  The walls are thin and it keeps us up at night.  She leaves the kids alone to go out with other men, then tears him a new one for having a girlfriend.  Oh, and the kids are both under 12...

He needs to just take those kids and forget she exists.  The situation isn't good for the kids now, how would it be any better if they had been forced to stay married?  Right now they only have screaming matches when he's over there. 

My boyfriend and I have been together for going on 6 years.  It hasn't been all smooth sailing, but so far we've managed to make it work.  That's a lot more than many hetero couples can say.  Though my boyfriend wanted me to promise him I would never cheat on him.  If I'm that unhappy, he wants me to talk to him about it.

Problem is, I couldn't promise that.  It upset him, but I told him I don't have a crystal ball.  I could be perfectly happy, but meet someone I fall in love with.