Pat Robertson is dead set against my partner and I having the right to go down to the courthouse and tie the knot in exactly the same way that heterosexual couples do every day. That would not only hopelessly corrupt the institution of marriage in America but would shake the very foundation of Western civilization and probably Eastern civilization too. However, putting a new loophole in the traditional vows is a different story. Recently, no doubt apropos of one of his conversations with God, Robertson declared that the “in sickness and in health” stuff applied mainly to “in health”. If your spouse happens to have Alzheimer’s, for example, then it’s okay to dump him or her. One of the great defenders of life has determined that people with this disease are dead albeit not quite buried yet and God has no problem with your abandoning them and moving on to someone more fun. The promise of till death do us part went by the wayside years ago, although the Catholic Church still pays lip service to it and may let you get around it with the fig leaf of annulment. And now caring for each other in bad times, and Alzheimer’s is probably one of the worst, is becoming optional. I think that traditional marriage in the sense of being a morally binding commitment to one another has more to fear from its self-proclaimed defenders than it does from same-sex couples. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/...aten-to-undermine-alzheimers-advocates-goals/ http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Alzhei...on-alzheimers-makes-divorce/story?id=14526660
Well Takiji many in the "holier than thou" crowd see your homosexuality as a sickness in the first place. You can be cured son. Once you are go out and find a nice girl and get married. Simple, isn't it? Or maybe not. Once you've married a woman you can, if lucky, experience the joys of divorce. Personally I couldn't care less if gays are allowed to be married. As my wife said just how does it affect our marriage and why shouldn't gays be allowed the pleaures of divorce? We're flaming heterosexuals ourselves and have been married 22 years and counting. With luck we'll do the "till death do us part" thing.
I think Pat Robertson must have a little dementia going on himself to say that. And as far as gay marriage, I hear all this stuff about how we need government out of our lives and how we don't need the government telling us what we can and can't do. THEY CAN'T TAKE OUR FREEEEEEDOOOOOOOM! ... But Gay Marriage. Hell Yeah the government needs to step in and make a law against that and fight it tooth and nail! Jackasses. The government should have no power to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.
I used to be against gay marriage. Marriage is meant as a union between a man and a women with the purpose of sharing their love not only with themselves but within the context of having a family. It was a mindset that I grew up into. Never was against someone who loved someone else from the same sex but thought marriage was not meant for them. Over the years I saw life less as a set of rules that are meant to be followed and more of a short opportunity to experience something wonderful. Everyone of legal age should have the marriage experience if they feel they want to. My wife is my soul mate, if someone else finds their soul mate then who has the right to try to get in the way of that. As for Pat Robinson, he has the right to his beliefs but he really needs someone close to convince him it is time to leave the spot light. I think he has been slipping mentally for the past ten years or so now.
Hey, they can smuggle tube steaks wherever they like, so long as I don't have to shower in close proximity to them. They want their rights? I'll give then their rights! 10% off of vaseline. See? I can be nice to poop chute drilling.
I think the term marriage has meant something some church bestows on a couple. I don't care what some religion want to do as far as marriage but I think that the government has no place telling people that they cannot marry, wed, join in civil union, whatever. They should issue the license, take the 10 bucks and shut up. The religions that want to discriminate will eventually fall into obscurity and be replaced by more tolerant versions.
Since Lesbian sex doesn't involve anything anal I imagine you are OK with that. As long as you get to watch.
Get the government out of the marriage business! Marriage is a contract like any other. Let any two people who are legally competent to enter a marriage contract do so. What does it have to do with the government? It's just another way for politicians to polarize the citizens so we don't accidentally look around and see what they've been doing to us (without the vaseline) for a long time now!
I am in an interesting position... I have counselled couples who are lesbian, gay and straight enough to know that all couples have similar issues that they need to work on, difficulties with communication, infidelity, finances, etc. and even child care (as many same sex couples have children). I would like to see my same-sex clients and others like them be able to marry. And yet I have close family members, brothers and sisters, who are against same-sex marriage. I know that they take this position, in part, because they believe that to be a good person of their faith tradition they must do so and, in part, because they are afraid of change. I love my family members and also love my clients... I would like to see my same-sex clients and others like them be able to marry. I though would also like others with differing beliefs than I have to be able to express them without being lambasted or losing their jobs... Reading, after the fact, that one of my former friends, a substitute teacher in the Long Beach Unified School District, lost her job because she dared to donate $50 in support of Proposition 8 was a sad thing to see. In regard to Pat Robertson... How can anyone take him seriously as he is so gay phobic that he accused TINKY WINKY the Teletubby of being gay? I wonder if perhaps he is a bit guilty of projection... To explain what I mean, I am remembering the story I heard of a man who used to point and wag his finger at his daughter and tell her "you do this, and you do this and you do this." One day she got upset with him and said, "Dad, whenever you point your finger at me you have three fingers pointing back at you!" He did not quite get the message that she was telling him that he was guilty of the same offenses that he was accusing her of. The next day he was at it again with his "you do this and you do this" but this time he was pointing every finger at her and moving them up and down like he had suddenly become an over zealous Italian overnight. I suspect Robertson may have some skeletons in his closet and it is possible that has a few bats in the belfry as well but given his desire for media attention he may just be playing the part of a crazy man just as other actors play parts. He does get a lot of media time and makes money from it. He plays to a certain segment of the population who agree with his extremist views and also plays to those who think he is nuts as both groups listen to him for different reasons one to love him and the other one to hate him. Me, I don't normally listen to him at all. I haven't the time for it. I did hear about his anti alzheimers and marriage stance. I wonder if he was thinking of someone in particular who abandoned his wife... I am remembering one person who abandoned his wife when she had cancer... Someone who abandons a spouse due to mental or physical problems does not have my backing... Yet I understand that in some cases when there had already been a bad relationship and a lack of true partnership such an illness may be the straw that breaks the camel's back and I also know that in some instances when someone is married they can lose the health beneifits like Medicaid that otherwise they might be entitled to and this may mean the difference between someone having a care center to live in or not. I hope that you and your partner soon get the right to marry... Best wishes to you.
Thank you for the good wishes, whiteheron, and for an interesting and thoughtful post. (and one that evidences much more empathy and understanding regarding our situations and the choices we all have to make than I am normally capable of)
If marriage is so disposable, then why are you so concerned about participating in it? No offense, but marriage is a serious commitment that should not be entered into lightly. Some people do consider it to be "until death do you part" and that number is larger than you might think. As to the "fig leaf of annulment," what do you know about it? Have you ever learned more about the practice? Do you know that an annulment takes about two years and several thousands of dollars to get and requires research, evidence, and testimony of witnesses? It's hardly a fig leaf--an annulment petition is only successful if a marriage is invalid from its inception. A couple can't just get bored of each other and split without enduring consequences, like a civil marriage or commitment ceremony.
What I was trying to do here HollysMom was highlight what I feel is the hypocrisy of people who think that somehow we are a threat to marriage when it seems to me that if anyone is diminishing the institution it is people ranging from the likes of Pat Robertson to people who wake up hungover in a Vegas hotel suite and realize that some point in the last night's festivities they tied the knot. As for annulment, I have the feeling that like so many things in life, the more money you have and the more influence you carry with the right people the easier the process is. I've seen no evidence that religious organizations are more moral or less susceptible to such things than secular ones are. But that could just be my cynicism coming through.
It's quite possible that you're right about money and annulments. I've never heard anyone say that they just skated through, though, and a lot of people complain about how difficult and invasive it is. Going through the church court system is never a picnic, no matter what your influence is. On the other hand, I might just know the wrong people. Heaven knows I'm cynical enough to believe you with any kind of evidence at hand. As to the people who wake up married, you're certainly right. However, I also think that if they wake up hungover, they had diminished capacity and we should not assume that what they did in a drunken state is what they'd do in a sober one. As to Pat Robertson, in my opinion he is a charlatan of the first water and should not be credited. Ever. By the way, you can call me "Jo."
On the issue of divorcing a spouse with alzheimers: On the surface it's a heartless thing to say, but I can see some instances where that may actually be the sensible route to take. If you are financially stable and can afford the care necessary for a patient with alzheimers, staying married to your spouse is admirable, but if your finances are on shaky ground the costs of that specialized care may drain your savings to the point you have to file for bankruptsy just to survive. IMO, if the spouse has advanced alzheimers and has no idea who you are, divorcing him/her may be the sensible thing to do to avoid finacial ruin. You can visit him/her as often as possible, you can still love him/her for the rest of your life, you can still afford you own health care, housing, food, etc. If the alzheimers isn't that advanced, divorcing the spouse is a terrible idea, and I wouldn't personally even think about doing such a heartless thing, but then again I have no savings to lose and I'm not married anyway.
I agree with you IQ to the extent that each situation is different and if you're not actually there it's hard and probably unfair to judge. But a vow is a vow and Alzheimer's is a sickness and as you say while someone with that horrible condition may have ceased to know you they are still alive and they still have feelings and my experience has been that they respond to (and deserve) affection and care and personal contact just like anyone else. I don't know. In a just society financial considerations should be the last thing one would have to worry about here but if they are an issue you have to make the right decision for both of you. But Robertson didn't draw distinctions. The way I read it he said that it was okay to divorce i.e. free oneself from a sick spouse in order to enjoy the company of a healthy one. I think that is where the real sickness lies.
