Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Conservative Traditions no one supports anymore

fibber · 11-08-2004, 08:16 AM

What we have here is a group barred a recognition of a religious institution (marriage) with people on the other side claiming it's improper in the context of often the SAME damn religion.

I think having the gov't recognize gay marriage may be silly, but certainly no more silly than recognizing "straight" marriage.

Since when do we need the body politic to condone our couplings?

I realize their are certain financial reasons for this union, but I would be hard-pressed to beleive this is the major or even a substantial reason for why people marry. No one gay or strait drops to one knee and asks if the other person would please accept their retirement investments without penalty if they should happen to die.

To me the issue seems to boil down to the fact that the parties on both sides would see the allowance or disallowance to be a validation for their respective ethos. I'm sure this may be a simplistic outlook, obviously I'm overlooking the monetary angle, no Insurance company in the world wants MORE marriage, straight, gay or extra-terrestrial.

-Sorry for the spelling, not sure if disallowance is even a word
-fibbers

11-08-2004, 08:16 AM	#52 (permalink)
fibber Tilted	Both are Religious institutions. What we have here is a group barred a recognition of a religious institution (marriage) with people on the other side claiming it's improper in the context of often the SAME damn religion. I think having the gov't recognize gay marriage may be silly, but certainly no more silly than recognizing "straight" marriage. Since when do we need the body politic to condone our couplings? I realize their are certain financial reasons for this union, but I would be hard-pressed to beleive this is the major or even a substantial reason for why people marry. No one gay or strait drops to one knee and asks if the other person would please accept their retirement investments without penalty if they should happen to die. To me the issue seems to boil down to the fact that the parties on both sides would see the allowance or disallowance to be a validation for their respective ethos. I'm sure this may be a simplistic outlook, obviously I'm overlooking the monetary angle, no Insurance company in the world wants MORE marriage, straight, gay or extra-terrestrial. -Sorry for the spelling, not sure if disallowance is even a word -fibbers Last edited by fibber; 11-08-2004 at 08:21 AM..