Why in the world does everyone make this topic so complicated? It is real simple. Let homosexuals join in unions not called marriage and give them every equal civil right of any married couple. Everyone should be happy....End of story....I swear you would think people envision this place where homosexuals go up and down the road promoting homosexuality if we allowed such a thing. We have way bigger problems than homosexuality going on in this world and while I don't agree with the lifestyle myself I've never judged any person for that choice and never treated them any different because of it. I have family and friends that have come out over my lifetime. It isn't a lifestyle people choose that I honestly believe. How about we spend this much effort on making our Governments more efficient at actually doing their job? What a concept....We waste so much time trying to deny people their civil rights and liberties we lose touch with the things we should be concentrating on.
But that's not equal. That's creating something especially for them, and that's not what they want. Never mind that it's exactly the same as marriage - it's not the same thing that hetrosexual couples can do, and that's the issue.
Why in the world does everyone make this topic so complicated? It is real simple. Let homosexuals join in unions not called marriage and give them every equal civil right of any married couple. Everyone should be happy....End of story....I swear you would think people envision this place where homosexuals go up and down the road promoting homosexuality if we allowed such a thing. We have way bigger problems than homosexuality going on in this world and while I don't agree with the lifestyle myself I've never judged any person for that choice and never treated them any different because of it. I have family and friends that have come out over my lifetime. It isn't a lifestyle people choose that I honestly believe. How about we spend this much effort on making our Governments more efficient at actually doing their job? What a concept....We waste so much time trying to deny people their civil rights and liberties we lose touch with the things we should be concentrating on.
Governor: I believe that I might have come up with a compromise to this whole problem that will make everyone happy! People in the gay community want the same rights as married couples, but dissenters don't want the word "marriage" corrupted. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else?
Governor: You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but, instead of referring to you as "married", you can be... butt buddies. I]long silence[/I Governor: Instead of being "man and wife", you'll be... butt buddies. You won't be "betrothed", you'll be... Governor: ...butt buddies. Get it? Instead of a "bride and groom", you'd be... Governor: ...butt buddies. Mr. Slave: We wanna be treated equally! Governor: You *are* equal. It's just that, instead of getting engaged, you would be... butt buddies. And everyone is happy! Woman: I]from the lesbian crowd[/I Well, what about lesbians? Governor: Well, like anyone cares about fuckin' dykes!
*the crowd goes into an uproar* Governor: Oh, God, I was sure that would work.
Nobody gets married. The government forbids all marriages and everyone is happy because no one has any special privileges. Maybe then heterosexual couples will see what the big deal is about. Doubt it, though.
Why in the world does everyone make this topic so complicated? It is real simple.
yeah it really is simple. let people marry whoever they consensually can and keep gays out of the shady underground scene where disease and violence happens and just let them live boring, yet comforting, mundane lives like everybody else. the sheer fact that we can't get over this yet in the year 2012 and just get on to more important business is pretty dang depressing.
I know a married couple. On the 3rd date, the woman jumped the guy in the car, and it was hot, crazy sex till they got married. Within a few months, she had pretty much cut him off. She said it wasn't fun anymore, cause it wasn't "naughty".
I know another married couple. Deeply religious, waited until their wedding night for sex. Had sex every day the whole first year, and 5 years later they still go at it like bunnies.
So you can't always tell what married life will be like, no matter your choices beforehand.
I never understood why people think no sex before marriage is a good idea.
First, because sex changes the dynamics of a relationship in drastic ways that are largely unforeseen; and second, because sex in such relationships is relatively unfulfilling when there is no emotional security that the other person won't leave you. The feeling of closeness to the other person afterward is missing when there is no committment.
Waiting until marriage makes things feel much more special when they actually do happen (not just sex, but also moving in together), and gives you the opportunity to explore what your relationship means to each other without worrying about not having any more sex when you break up (or in the case of moving in together, feeling trapped when you want to break up but can't because you'd have to move.)
As far as I see it, sexual compatibility doesn't apply when you have no experience. If you have sex with your spouse, then you learn together and teach each other. Beforehand, compatibility doesn't apply. People don't divorce because of too infrequent sex. They divorce because they're unhappy. Granted, some people have different primary love languages than others do (the 5 love languages being words of affirmations, acts of service, receiving gifts, quality time and physical touch), but learning what your spouse's love language is and fulfilling that for them is part of making each other happy.
I dare someone, anyone, to truthfully tell me that they waited and that it turned out to be a bad idea. On the other hand, I personally know people who did not wait who, from what I gather, probably wish they had.
First, because sex changes the dynamics of a relationship in drastic ways that are largely unforeseen;
It absolutely does. This is why I think you should know just what those changes are before you marry each other.
and second, because sex in such relationships is relatively unfulfilling when there is no emotional security that the other person won't leave you. The feeling of closeness to the other person afterward is missing when there is no committment.
You don't need marriage to have commitment and security. If the only reason somebody is staying in a relationship is because of a ring and a marriage license, they're doing relationships wrong.
Marriage should enhance and reinforce the commitment that's already there. It's not a "now this person won't leave me" card.
As far as I see it, sexual compatibility doesn't apply when you have no experience. If you have sex with your spouse, then you learn together and teach each other. Beforehand, compatibility doesn't apply.
That isn't true. Everyone likes different things, has different levels of need, has things that make them feel uncomfortable, whether they're learned it yet or not.
People don't divorce because of too infrequent sex.
Oh yes they do.
I dare someone, anyone, to truthfully tell me that they waited and that it turned out to be a bad idea. On the other hand, I personally know people who did not wait who, from what I gather, probably wish they had.
I do know people who did. They ended up getting divorced because they didn't really know the person that they were agreeing to marry. That's why I fully believe that, no matter how strong your communication is, you can't really, intimately know a person (romantically at least) until you've lived with them and until you've slept with them.
I don't mean to take away from what, I'm sure, is a wonderful thing for those who have waited until marriage and made it work. That's great. I'm just saying you're rolling the dice when you do it. It's a leap of faith, it's exciting, it's sweet, it's romantic, it's great if it happened to work for you.
It's also just impractical, and it certainly isn't for everybody.
Out of curiosity: Let's say you are considering marrying someone and spending the rest of your life with them. You are completely in love, and compatible with them in every way other than sexually. Would you still marry them, or would this one thing be enough to make you not go through with it?
I suppose it would depend on how important sex is to you, and whether the lack of it would tempt you to cheat further down the line. It could also mean no kids, so there's that as well.
Oh. Well, if I was happy, then I don't think I'd have a problem with marrying in that situation.
I've not really got much of a problem with sex before marriage, but I'm of the opinion that there's a big difference between having sex and making love. They're both fun, but one's gonna be better than the other. Which one depends on the person and the partner, but I think I'd prefer the latter.
And as for Coolies question... I'd non-marital shag the hell out of her.
Out of curiosity: Let's say you are considering marrying someone and spending the rest of your life with them. You are completely in love, and compatible with them in every way other than sexually. Would you still marry them, or would this one thing be enough to make you not go through with it?
That's what friends are for. Being compatible without sleeping with them. So no, I wouldn't consider marrying someone like that. She could be my Best Man, though.
Out of curiosity: Let's say you are considering marrying someone and spending the rest of your life with them. You are completely in love, and compatible with them in every way other than sexually. Would you still marry them, or would this one thing be enough to make you not go through with it?
I see if there is a possibility of having an open relationship. Not sleeping around behind my spouse's back, but rather having an open line of communication about what's going on. For me, not doing so would lead to far too much sexual frustration and probably go down a really sad path. Even then, the situation would really suck. The fact that this hypothetical person is compatible in every other way would make the situation far worse. It would probably hurt a lot emotionally in ways I hope I'd never have to face.
That's me though. I wouldn't doubt that it would work for others.
Out of curiosity: Let's say you are considering marrying someone and spending the rest of your life with them. You are completely in love, and compatible with them in every way other than sexually. Would you still marry them, or would this one thing be enough to make you not go through with it?
That depends entirely on the situation behind it. I do believe that a fulfilling sex life is extremely important in a relationship and if you don't have it, 9 times out of 10, it's going to cause serious problems somewhere down the line.
This is where communication is important. If those two people really love each other and are willing to work for it, they'll come up with some sort of compromise that makes both of them happy. If, on the other hand, one of them is always unsatisfied and the other just says "sorry, your problem" then I'd say there are problems with the relationship that go beyond the sexual. And yeah, they probably shouldn't get married.
Comments
Never thought I'd be linking this twice in the same thread...
Governor: I believe that I might have come up with a compromise to this whole problem that will make everyone happy! People in the gay community want the same rights as married couples, but dissenters don't want the word "marriage" corrupted. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else?
Governor: You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but, instead of referring to you as "married", you can be... butt buddies.
I]long silence[/I
Governor: Instead of being "man and wife", you'll be... butt buddies. You won't be "betrothed", you'll be...
Governor: ...butt buddies. Get it? Instead of a "bride and groom", you'd be...
Governor: ...butt buddies.
Mr. Slave: We wanna be treated equally!
Governor: You *are* equal. It's just that, instead of getting engaged, you would be... butt buddies. And everyone is happy!
Woman: I]from the lesbian crowd[/I Well, what about lesbians?
Governor: Well, like anyone cares about fuckin' dykes!
*the crowd goes into an uproar*
Governor: Oh, God, I was sure that would work.
yeah it really is simple. let people marry whoever they consensually can and keep gays out of the shady underground scene where disease and violence happens and just let them live boring, yet comforting, mundane lives like everybody else. the sheer fact that we can't get over this yet in the year 2012 and just get on to more important business is pretty dang depressing.
Our society treats sex way too flippantly, like it's no big deal, when that couldn't be further from the truth.
I maintain that not having it before marriage is a mistake.
As for the whole marriage/civil union thing, when has "separate but equal" ever been a good idea?
...ok, men and women's bathrooms, but that's the only one!
I know another married couple. Deeply religious, waited until their wedding night for sex. Had sex every day the whole first year, and 5 years later they still go at it like bunnies.
So you can't always tell what married life will be like, no matter your choices beforehand.
First, because sex changes the dynamics of a relationship in drastic ways that are largely unforeseen; and second, because sex in such relationships is relatively unfulfilling when there is no emotional security that the other person won't leave you. The feeling of closeness to the other person afterward is missing when there is no committment.
Waiting until marriage makes things feel much more special when they actually do happen (not just sex, but also moving in together), and gives you the opportunity to explore what your relationship means to each other without worrying about not having any more sex when you break up (or in the case of moving in together, feeling trapped when you want to break up but can't because you'd have to move.)
As far as I see it, sexual compatibility doesn't apply when you have no experience. If you have sex with your spouse, then you learn together and teach each other. Beforehand, compatibility doesn't apply. People don't divorce because of too infrequent sex. They divorce because they're unhappy. Granted, some people have different primary love languages than others do (the 5 love languages being words of affirmations, acts of service, receiving gifts, quality time and physical touch), but learning what your spouse's love language is and fulfilling that for them is part of making each other happy.
I dare someone, anyone, to truthfully tell me that they waited and that it turned out to be a bad idea. On the other hand, I personally know people who did not wait who, from what I gather, probably wish they had.
There are ways to fix that....
wow!!
If you wana make sure they stay all you need is hand cuffs and a basement.
Coolsome. Have I ever told you how much I love you?
It absolutely does. This is why I think you should know just what those changes are before you marry each other.
You don't need marriage to have commitment and security. If the only reason somebody is staying in a relationship is because of a ring and a marriage license, they're doing relationships wrong.
Marriage should enhance and reinforce the commitment that's already there. It's not a "now this person won't leave me" card.
That isn't true. Everyone likes different things, has different levels of need, has things that make them feel uncomfortable, whether they're learned it yet or not.
Oh yes they do.
I do know people who did. They ended up getting divorced because they didn't really know the person that they were agreeing to marry. That's why I fully believe that, no matter how strong your communication is, you can't really, intimately know a person (romantically at least) until you've lived with them and until you've slept with them.
It's also just impractical, and it certainly isn't for everybody.
Aaaah Coolsome. Quite quick with the humorous comments.
Edit: oops. NOT being met in other ways.
I've not really got much of a problem with sex before marriage, but I'm of the opinion that there's a big difference between having sex and making love. They're both fun, but one's gonna be better than the other. Which one depends on the person and the partner, but I think I'd prefer the latter.
And as for Coolies question... I'd non-marital shag the hell out of her.
I met this girl and we were not meaning anything by it, but we started as friends with benefits. Well...it turned out into a 2 year relationship.
Now I have had friends with benefits and nothing but the benefits were all we care for it.
That's what friends are for. Being compatible without sleeping with them. So no, I wouldn't consider marrying someone like that. She could be my Best Man, though.
I see if there is a possibility of having an open relationship. Not sleeping around behind my spouse's back, but rather having an open line of communication about what's going on. For me, not doing so would lead to far too much sexual frustration and probably go down a really sad path. Even then, the situation would really suck. The fact that this hypothetical person is compatible in every other way would make the situation far worse. It would probably hurt a lot emotionally in ways I hope I'd never have to face.
That's me though. I wouldn't doubt that it would work for others.
holy cow that would suck
It was a complement! gawd you try to be nice to ppl.
That depends entirely on the situation behind it. I do believe that a fulfilling sex life is extremely important in a relationship and if you don't have it, 9 times out of 10, it's going to cause serious problems somewhere down the line.
This is where communication is important. If those two people really love each other and are willing to work for it, they'll come up with some sort of compromise that makes both of them happy. If, on the other hand, one of them is always unsatisfied and the other just says "sorry, your problem" then I'd say there are problems with the relationship that go beyond the sexual. And yeah, they probably shouldn't get married.