Straight Guys Getting Married

[rogue06]

Look back in history. Marriage rarely had anything to do with love. It was usually arranged for political reasons. Joining of two families through the union and eventual offspring of that union. Even today Marriage for love is mostly a western concept.

Or financial reasons. The son of one farmer marries the daughter of his next door neighbor so that they can combine the land.

Also, especially in rural areas, communities were generally rather small and often it was who was available.

[fm93]

To be clear, I also disapprove of what these two guys are doing. I disapprove of it for the same reason you do (trivialization), but also because I believe it violates the very definition of marriage (a man and a woman).

So you would also disapprove if a straight man and straight woman, both of whom hate each other, decided to marry because they were promised free rewards if they did so, correct?

Since marriage is being/has been redefined in most modern contexts, I find it ironic that the very people who pushed for that are opposed to a further redefinition, which would make marriage even less exclusionary than it is now. And exclusivity seems to be otherwise strongly condemned by the very people who are now, ironically, arguing for it.

But that's the thing--in this incident, there isn't anything being re-defined. People are sticking with the new definition of marriage as "a type of relationship between two unrelated consenting adults." To be re-defined means that something has to change about this, and nothing has changed.

Additionally, I thought of a better analogy than the Muslim theocracy idea. Suppose that everyone in your family for generations has been unable to afford college. No one has ever progressed beyond high school. But you desperately yearn for the opportunity to receive a higher education, so you work tirelessly towards achieving this goal. You thoroughly study every note and textbook page, fill your schedule with extracurricular activities, endlessly take practice SAT tests, etc. You achieve a perfect test score, have the highest grades in your class, and write a phenomenal application essay. Finally, you're rewarded with a hard-earned scholarship to a certain university.

I, meanwhile, have done absolutely nothing worth boasting about, yet an official from that same university offers me a scholarship anyway. (Let's say this particular school has an extreme affirmative action policy and needs someone like me to fulfill its diversity quota.) I don't enjoy academics and have no plans to further my education, but I accept the scholarship and attend the university simply because I find its female students highly attractive.

I think most people would be deeply upset at me for doing this, especially in light of what you had to go through to obtain what I got. Technically, this isn't illegal. Nothing has been re-defined. It's just that I am a shallow, terrible person and should be ashamed of myself. If you're one of the people who pushed for universities to offer scholarships in the first place, there's nothing hypocritical about you personally disapproving of my reception of a scholarship. That's because its the motivation for receiving scholarships that's the main factor.

[Jedidiah]

Not by me. My wife of 21 years agrees too.

Sounds like my wife and I after 50 years of marriage.

[lilpixieofterror]

Marriage is overrated.

I wouldn't say that.

My folks are currently separating and it's been a long time coming. A lot of people feel pressured to get married for fear of looking like they can't commit, which itself is not always a good thing. People get married and stay married for all the wrong reasons all the time and my parents are a testament to that.

While true; I tend to find marriage is always a work in progress that is never finished.

I would never get married myself. Why would I? All I'd be doing is signing over my rights to the state and giving my woman legal right of way to potentially wreck my life if she gets vindictive after a break-up. I've seed it happen to way too many guys, and it put years on their life. I'm not trying to bash women, I love em'. But they courts system is set-up so that ninety percent of the time the guy gets screwed over, even if they woman makes as much money as he does, and even if they had a prenup! I know not all chicks are like that but so many are that guys are hesitant to get married.

I've seen that happen before and I would have to agree with you that is crap and totally wrong to do to anybody (man or women) and can't quite get why anybody would want to be vindictive after any sort of break up, but you need to listen to clues too. I have zero intentions of breaking up and would put in huge amounts of energy into making a relationship work and have absolutely no desire for revenge. Listening to subtle clues, knowing relationships with ex's, or paying attention is a huge help. Do they bad mouth people they previously dated? Are they in general good standing to those they dated before? What is their attitude towards marriage? What is their relationship with their family? How do they treat the staff at a place you are attending together? These are all important clues for both men and women to look for that says a lot about the person, without them even knowing about it.

[lilpixieofterror]

Exactly. In my wife's grandmother's retirement home, it was not uncommon to see two 80+ year olds get married just because they are lonely and tired of being alone. There is no sex involved, and very little romantic love. Just friendship and companionship. I suppose Peggie thinks that is a mockery too...

After my grandmother died, my grandfather found another widow to hang out with and go places with. I don't know quiet all the details of their relationship (I really don't want to either), but they primarily want somebody else to be with and I don't see a problem with that. It keeps them around for years longer and I'm good with that.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yet again I find myself having to repeat myself when Sparko tries to jump in. How can I be "wiggling out of my previous arguments" for same-sex marriage when I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to marry? I'm saying that their motivation for marrying is stupid and self-serving. I'd say the same thing about a man and woman who married each other solely to win a contest, but obviously I wouldn't be arguing against straight marriage.

Sorry, but few people get married purely for love and that is part of the problem to begin with when people do get married based upon a feeling of the moment instead of upon careful planning and when that filling falls though, they end up with problems. Few marriages of the past were 'for love' and were done precisely for self-serving reasons. Such as kings of two different kingdoms would send a son and daughter off to get married to seal the deal or on a smaller scale two different families would combine together in a marriage. It has only been pretty recently that the idea of 'love' came into the picture.

[Sea of red]

I wouldn't say that.

That's because it's working for you and hopefully it will continue to work for you, but for millions it doesn't it work it so well.

My folks should have separated a long time ago as the amount of arguing was down right crazy, and I can see it's aged my father a lot. I love my mom but she's an incredibly difficult person to please and I guess my father decided that he'd like to live what ever amount of time he has left in peace. My point is that a pressure exists in society that if you get divorced you're some how a failure that didn't try hard enough, or that you didn't once love that person. I have been with a lot of different women and they all influenced my life in a way that led me to this point, so I hold no ill will against any of them, and there will always be special place in my heart for a few of them.

While true; I tend to find marriage is always a work in progress that is never finished.

If you're not happy as people and you've tried to work your problems to no avail, why continue to live unhappy? People grow all the time, Crystal. I'm not the same person I was when I first started on this forum. Hell, I'm not the same person I was two years ago. There's nothing wrong with a relationship running it's course and acknowledging that you now have different needs that may not be compatible with the person you're currently with.

I've seen that happen before and I would have to agree with you that is crap and totally wrong to do to anybody (man or women) and can't quite get why anybody would want to be vindictive after any sort of break up, but you need to listen to clues too. I have zero intentions of breaking up and would put in huge amounts of energy into making a relationship work and have absolutely no desire for revenge. Listening to subtle clues, knowing relationships with ex's, or paying attention is a huge help. Do they bad mouth people they previously dated? Are they in general good standing to those they dated before? What is their attitude towards marriage? What is their relationship with their family? How do they treat the staff at a place you are attending together? These are all important clues for both men and women to look for that says a lot about the person, without them even knowing about it.

Sometimes you think you know somebody and you discovery you we're wrong. Other times people change for the worse and you have to see if things can be resolved or not, and if they can't you gotta' do what's best for your the health of yourself.

It's really nice to see you again.

[lilpixieofterror]

That's because it's working for you and hopefully it will continue to work for you, but for millions it doesn't it work it so well.

It works for millions more though and 'never say never' after all.

My folks should have separated a long time ago as the amount of arguing was down right crazy, and I can see it's aged my father a lot. I love my mom but she's an incredibly difficult person to please and I guess my father decided that he'd like to live what ever amount of time he has left in peace. My point is that a pressure exists in society that if you get divorced you're some how a failure that didn't try hard enough, or that you didn't once love that person. I have been with a lot of different women and they all influenced my life in a way that led me to this point, so I hold no ill will against any of them, and there will always be special place in my heart for a few of them.

Can't judge a situation that I didn't observe so I will not try to.

If you're not happy as people and you've tried to work your problems to no avail, why continue to live unhappy?

And what made you unhappy to start with and why were you happy in the beginning? I think that should be the starting point right there. I have found a few couples seem to be more forgiving of their animals than their spouses. Why? If they dog pees on the floor, they forgive it, but if their husband accidentally leaves the toilet seat up they get upset. Why get so upset over such a tedious thing to begin with?

People grow all the time, Crystal. I'm not the same person I was when I first started on this forum. Hell, I'm not the same person I was two years ago. There's nothing wrong with a relationship running it's course and acknowledging that you now have different needs that may not be compatible with the person you're currently with.

I never recall saying that people do not grow or change, did I? No I didn't, but many last for decades. Why do they last for decades? Why the temporary attitude?

Sometimes you think you know somebody and you discovery you we're wrong. Other times people change for the worse and you have to see if things can be resolved or not, and if they can't you gotta' do what's best for your the health of yourself.

And sometimes, people just outright ignore the critical signs because of some excuse like 'Oh, I love them' and ignore such signs as how they treat others around them. If they are total jerks to the waiter staff, what makes you think they will not be that way later on to you? Don't let 'love blindness' get in the way of the reality of the situation.

It's really nice to see you again.

Glad to see you too.

[Sea of red]

It works for millions more though and 'never say never' after all.

Say never. It's just a contract in my eye's. If you want to stay together with someone for the rest of your life I say go for it, nothing stopping you. But to bind myself legally to somebody? No way. That does nothing to strengthen our love.

And what made you unhappy to start with and why were you happy in the beginning? I think that should be the starting point right there. I have found a few couples seem to be more forgiving of their animals than their spouses. Why? If they dog pees on the floor, they forgive it, but if their husband accidentally leaves the toilet seat up they get upset. Why get so upset over such a tedious thing to begin with?

It's never been anything like that. We just had the same interests and needs in the beginning and as time went on those things changed, that's all. Some of the girls I've been with wanted to move to places I didn't want to, some of them didn't like my career and job, some of them wanted me to life style changes that I simply wasn't willing to make, and vice-versa. Just like with friendships, relationships come and go.

Some friendships last forever and some fade away, which while sad is a reality one must accept in life. I'll give you an example you can see first hand. Jacep and I have not spoken since last year after the forum crashed. Last I heard, he was done with theological discussion and is on another forum talking about new things that interest him. Unless, he joins this forum or I join that forum it's likely I'll never speak to him again. It makes me sad but I also welcome the fact that he's got other things he wishes to do in his life besides arguing religion, and I thank him for the friendship we shared.

I never recall saying that people do not grow or change, did I? No I didn't, but many last for decades. Why do they last for decades? Why the temporary attitude?

I didn't say all relationships are temporary but that most will be.

Glad to see you too.

It's looks like I'm one of the only non-theists that made it to the new forum.

[Tassman]

But we all already had equal rights. We all had the right to marry a non-blood relation of the opposite sex. Sorry about your divorce - it sucks, I know.

Not everybody! Homosexuals didn't have the right to marry someone of the same sex. And, until 50 years ago, heterosexual couples from different races didn't have the right to marry each other either. In short, discrimination!

[MaxVel]

Not everybody! Homosexuals didn't have the right to marry someone of the same sex.

Wrong. Nobody had that 'right', because that wasn't what marriage was. So no unfair discrimination.

And, until 50 years ago, heterosexual couples from different races didn't have the right to marry each other either. In short, discrimination!

Yes, because marriage is for a man and a woman who are not blood relations. So preventing people of different races from marrying was unfair and irrelevant to the nature of marriage.

[MaxVel]

This smacks of rhetoric like "Many would say that seeking to redefine Major League Baseball to include Negroes precisely is not holding the game in high regard."

Just like black players who loved baseball so much that they wished to play at its highest and most prestigious level, many gay couples love each other so much that they wish to partake in the highest and most prestigious level of a relationship. It's because they do hold marriage in high regard that they wish to be included in it.


Possibly, but the same could doubtless be said of straight couples--and we already have examples of straight people marrying for insincere and disrespectful reasons.


I do recognize all this, and I defended Dan Cathy on that basis when the Chick-Fil-A controversy broke in 2012. But although the intention may be innocent, the ultimate result is that gay couples are being deprived of a privilege. And although most of the traditional marriage advocates whom I've encountered don't seem to actively hate gay people, most of them don't seem to love gay people either.

Two straight men friends are getting married in NZ to try and win a prize. I agree that what they are doing is trivializing marriage. Gay marriage advocates are apparently upset because of this trivialization. Some people find this ironic, given that those people feel that gay marriage advocates have already themselves trivialized marriage.


I think a more cogent question is 'Given that gay marriage advocates have pushed through a re-definition of what 'marriage' is; what is their basis for objecting to others who want to further re-define marriage?'. The response so far seems to be built around the three ideas that such redefinition trivializes marriage; that marriage should be reserved for those who sincerely love each other; and that it's wrong to alter the meaning of marriage. The first of these carries little weight to traditional marriage advocates (for reasons given above and in earlier posts); the second fails the test of historical reality and of practicality. Historically people have married for pragmatic as well as or instead of romantic reasons, many earlier societies were successfully built mainly on these kinds of marriages. And it's impractical for society/government/whoever to assess the sincerity of people's love before granting them permission to marry. The third reason fails as an objection given that gay marriage advocates have themselves just pushed for a redefinition of marriage.

[Tassman]

Wrong. Nobody had that 'right', because that wasn't what marriage was. So no unfair discrimination.

According to some! But they have been rightly overruled by the US Supreme Court, and increasingly by the State & District Courts, which have ruled that same-sex marriage bans violate the U.S. Constitution.

Yes, because marriage is for a man and a woman who are not blood relations. So preventing people of different races from marrying was unfair and irrelevant to the nature of marriage.

So you believe. Others, including the courts, believe marriage should be available to all mutually consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation or race. Anything less is discrimination.

[Epoetker]

But to bind myself legally to somebody? No way. That does nothing to strengthen our love.

Marriage is much less about strengthening your love than fixing your choice. Unfortunately, that attitude is not as prevalent as this one:

Others, including the courts, believe marriage should be available to all mutually consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation or race. Anything less is discrimination.

We should also grant houses, food, water, financial loans, drugs, and degrees to all mutually consenting adults (both the government granter and the grantee wholeheartedly agree! No conflict!,) because that will in no way flood the market, debase the currency, or reduce responsible behavior in adults. Good thing we never tried any of that!

But seriously, there are some institutions in this world that only actually work out when everybody respects them, and those who do actually remember the old order in their own lifetimes see the difference as night and day with regard to a livable society. There's always hope:

To provide a concrete historical case that should give Gen Y some hope -- consider the fate of second-wave feminism, i.e. the Gloria Steinem movement of the early-to-mid-1970s. That was almost entirely a movement for sheltered airhead Silent Gen members. Two women helped to kill it off from mainstream acceptance, one from the liberal and one from the conservative direction -- Betty Friedan, who attacked it as too lesbian-oriented and too radically beyond women getting jobs and getting paid, and Phyllis Schlafy, who spearheaded the movement that stopped the ERA dead in its tracks. (That's the Equal Rights Amendment.)

Both were born in the first half of the 1920s, so in relation to the trend in the crime rate, they were like those born in the first half of the '80s. The Roaring Twenties was well before all that Dr. Spock B.S. from mid-century childhoods, and the Go-Go Eighties was well after its heyday (and before its recent revival). Growing up in such unsupervised and un-Taylorized times gave those generations the autonomy to explore all of the people and places of their community, and to feel viscerally bonded to them in a way that logical explanation without immediate experience is impotent to achieve.

It takes that deep level of belonging -- and the later profound sense of alienation when the norms degrade -- to motivate people to stop ****** around and confront the norm-destroyers head-on.

If the children of the '20s could derail wacko feminism off into total marginalization, there's no reason that the children of the '80s won't be able to restore some sanity to society after the gay deviance crusade.

Yes, I'm in the cohort

[MaxVel]

According to some! But they have been rightly overruled by the US Supreme Court, and increasingly by the State & District Courts, which have ruled that same-sex marriage bans violate the U.S. Constitution.

When are you emigrating to America?

So you believe. Others, including the courts, believe marriage should be available to all mutually consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation or race. Anything less is discrimination.

So Square Peg and the gay advocates who feel the two men in the OP shouldn't marry are wrong, and are discriminating against the two friends. Thanks for that.