What's your song?

My SO and I do not have a song.

as noted above

"Brown Eyed Cajun Woman" by Santana

It was "Someone to Watch Over Me"

We don't have a song.

No song. This sort of thing is a bit sappy for my tastes. Good survey, though.

"All my Life" by KC & Jo-Jo would definitely top the list. We were supposed to dance to it on our wedding night, but the stupid CD kept skipping! So we danced to "Moon River" instead.
"Cruisin' Together" is another song that gives me goosebumps - it seriously reminds me of our dating days when I hear it

I'm morally opposed to marriage, but I'll list my own personal favorite song: Imagine by John Lennon

> I'm morally opposed to marriage, but I'll list my own personal favorite
> song: Imagine by John Lennon

Morally opposed? Not just - opposed? What's immoral about marriage? Gotta ask, don't wanna argue. Just curious how that's written. Really curious!

I think, statistically speaking, marriage is a sham. To me, it seems like a throwback to the times of slavery, where one person owns another. In some countries, it is actual slavery. It also seems to cause more problems than it seems to solve. More than 50% end in divorce in the USA. Many have felt trapped by marriage, and some have even used murder as a means to escape it, as divorce can lead to financial loss (i.e. alimony). Marriage is a lifelong trap -- at least, it's supposed to be. But many are allowed to spit on their commitment (many of which were made with the involvement of a god), and they then repeat this process for as many times as they like.

I don't support marriage for anyone because I think couples can function adequately without having gone through matrimony. I think people can raise healthy and well-adjusted children without getting married.

Abolishing marriage does not seem like a bad idea to me. Outlawing it seems like a great idea. That's just my take on it.

I have an SO but I thought people that don't have one would feel rather seperated from this survey.

Not really. There are songs we both like (very few, might I add - we just don't click when it comes to similar music tastes), like Je suis un homme by Zazie.

"I'll stop the word and melt with you" - by Modern English. It's my spiritual rebirth song.

"I could fall in love" by Selena ........ we were out on a 2nd or 3rd date and she bought me this CD, the song title said it all, and she did
EDIT: and we danced to it at our wedding!

also Taylor Dayne's "I'll always love you" which was sang at our wedding

We don't really have one. There are a few songs that make me think of him though.

> I think, statistically speaking, marriage is a sham. To me, it seems
> like a throwback to the times of slavery, where one person owns another.
> In some countries, it is actual slavery. It also seems to cause
> more problems than it seems to solve. More than 50% end in divorce
> in the USA. Many have felt trapped by marriage, and some have even
> used murder as a means to escape it, as divorce can lead to financial
> loss (i.e. alimony). Marriage is a lifelong trap -- at least, it's
> supposed to be. But many are allowed to spit on their commitment
> (many of which were made with the involvement of a god), and they
> then repeat this process for as many times as they like.
>
> I don't support marriage for anyone because I think couples can function
> adequately without having gone through matrimony. I think people
> can raise healthy and well-adjusted children without getting married.
>
>
> Abolishing marriage does not seem like a bad idea to me. Outlawing
> it seems like a great idea. That's just my take on it.

I think you make some really good points. I agree more than I don't. I always thought being married kept me with my husband through tougher times and I've always come out on the other side of tough into better days being glad it wasn't easy to leave. That's a cycle repeated for us over 35 years. My eldest daughter has been in a common law relationship for 12 years, 3 kids, committed, and I see the same cycle in their lives. So if it isn't 'marriage' it must be love . . . ?

I like how this one was done. U2 - I still haven't found what I'm looking for

anything by coldplay

Maybe they would, but on the other hand, if I didn't do a survey because some can't identify with it, I'd never do one at all.

>
> I think you make some really good points. I agree more than I don't.
> I always thought being married kept me with my husband through tougher
> times and I've always come out on the other side of tough into better
> days being glad it wasn't easy to leave. That's a cycle repeated
> for us over 35 years. My eldest daughter has been in a common law
> relationship for 12 years, 3 kids, committed, and I see the same cycle
> in their lives. So if it isn't 'marriage' it must be love . . . ?
>

Generically speaking, if you don't want to get married, then don't; that's an individual choice. I would never tell anyone they have to get married. However, if you want to tell me that I can't, then you have really overstepped your bounds. Why can't people just live and let live?

As far as the ill-effetcs on society , cite some credible, reputable sources that point out how marriage actually has some ill-effects. It seems to me divorce has more of an ill-effect than marriage.

tracy chapman's The Promise- we lived apart for a year after we were together for a year, when i moved to florida, and then she moved here too.

I'm not denying that marriage can work in a way that isn't offensive to me, but those cases are the minority. The majority of folks would be better off without it.

I have other problems with marriage, as it is often tied closely to religion, and I don't agree with the outside influences and societal standards that play even minor roles in the union of two people.

I am into live and let live. Marriage has certainly worked for me. The vows meant enough to the both of us to sustain us through the rough patches. It seems to me - it only SEEMS to me, I can't validate it - that without vows it would've been easier to walk away. I dunno, my daughter and her partner are tied by something other than vows. Maybe the genetics you speak of . . . before their deaths my own parents celebrated 60 years, my in-laws 50 years. So my hubby and I both had demonstrative experience in how to fight fair, respect and support each other, etc, and maybe my daughter has borrowed from that legacy too.

There has to be something intangible in the marriage situation otherwise why would gay people fight for it?

Yeah, I can see your point. I wondered sometimes if what has kept me so long in my marriage is the idea that divorce would be disappointing to so many other people - our kids, parents, relatives, friends, even strangers who keep statistics. That's why I don't think you're ever going to get away from that influence albeit religious or societal, simply because the union of two people isn't ever just about those two people.

If people don't have kids, it doesn't matter if they 'walk away'. When they have kids, it's probably more likely that the kids are what's keeping them together, not the marriage.
Gay people want to be able to share health benefits, file jointly on taxes, be automatic heirs, etc. The solution to that problem is to not have to be married to get those benefits. Open those up to anyone who applies for them. That stuff shouldn't even be exclusive to romantic relationships at all.

My song will always be ROD STEWART "HAVE I TOLD YOU LATELY THAT I LOVE YOU."
I sang this to my Mom as she was passing from this earth. I wanted her to Know she was my teacher, my hope, and my best friend in my life , for showing me "Love"
RIP Nettie P. July 14, 1996

Wouldn't matter if marriage was totally open to anyone who applied for it.

Maybe "marriage" should have different levels to it. First, there's "common law", which is an assumed status after x-number of months of cohabitating. There are not necessarily any health benefits, joint filing or automatic inheritance to this level. The beauty here is that you don't even have to be sleeping together, 'cause who'd know anyway? Leaving the relationship at this level could be called breaking up and be trouble-free.

Second, there's an application made for any remaining benefits or all of them - maybe this is when the union should be called "marriage". And "marriage" doesn't have to include a "wedding", that'd be up to the couple. Leaving the relationship at this level, maybe this would be divorce, wouldn't be difficult at all, just a bit more complicated than breaking up since more benefits were included and need to be sorted out. And, at this level, people could assume there was romance in your relationship. Which brings us to the usual consequence of romance - a baby (straight or gay, people tend to consummate their romance with a child.)

So, the third level of marriage is when a baby is born or adopted - maybe this would be called "family" as opposed to just two people who are not CALLED family, just "married". A family would have a higher degree of beneficial government/commercial support. At this level, leaving the family would be more problematic since the child has to be raised. Currently, the government is considered to be the child's guardian. Probably that would stay the same since we're born as citizens and countries put us on the payroll immediately. Since you can't "divorce" your children, that word doesn't work at this level. Any ideas for a new word?

So far, the new system has common law, marriage, family - and they each have different attendant benefits to them and different consequences for walking away. After the kids reach adulthood, a fourth level of marriage could be instituted. This has been referred to as "retirement", but that word has work-related implications and isn't fair to any partners in the family who didn't work. I think it should be called something else, but I can't think what - freedom, maybe? Anyway, at this level the family couple (called this because they're at a level past 'married') automatically go back to being common law or can re-apply for the married status. Family benefits cancel out and other benefits have to be renegotiated.

I think we can safely dispense with the idea that romance/sex/commitment is what brings a couple together. Let it exist in marriage, though, under the new system. Kids no longer keep a marriage together, since they aren't even a part of it. Of course, in the new system your kids aren't your own - but it's a myth that they currently are anyway since not following certain rules can lead to their being taken away. China only allows one baby per family. Russia takes the talented kids. Don't think it can't happen here. Children are a resource, after all.

So with emotions negated, finances strictly controlled, and every level of your life needing to be applied for, . . . huh? What? Oh, crap.



p.s. The above comments are not necessarily those of the contributor. Except for the freedom part of Union Level #4. !!!

I know it wouldn't matter. But I just think those benefits should be open to anyone who wants to apply for them. Unmarried partners, married partners, roommates, siblings, parents, friends, kids. Marriage should have absolutely nothing to do with those things. People who choose to never get married should still be able to choose to have someone added to their health benefits or pick a person who would become the decider in medical issues. Anyone sharing living expenses should be able to file jointly.

Marriage should be a personal and optional thing. It should have nothing to do with what benefits you are allowed to get. It's none of anyone's business if you are in a romantic relationship with your beneficiaries or not.

Yep, just like in my new system. Apply, apply, apply. Do you like my levels? I personally want #4 to be real for me!

What would be the point of levels though? Mainly to protect kids from upheaval?

I don't have a song with anyone.

I have my own songs though.

"Into the Mystic" by Van Morrison
"Change" by Blind Melon
"Time" by Pink Floyd
"One" by U2

I sometimes connect music to events in my life... I read this one book from cover to cover while listening to my brand new Nirvana Nevermind CD back in the 90's. I reread the book a few months ago and the songs kept coming back to me. I've always thought of the book when I hear the music too.

There was a song that I listened to a lot after my friend Eric passed away that seemed to eerily tell his tale... so I guess it has become my song with him. It's "Soup" by Blind Melon.

In the past, marriages were based on financial and legal considerations, ownership, convenience, and producing heirs. When we were in a monarchy, the king decided who could/couldn't marry. The word f*u*c*k means "fornication under the consent of the king", who also acted as the head of the church. If there was romantic love, it was accidental. Think of the Victorian novels, where women rebelled against the idea of marrying without love. Marrying for love was a new idea. It isn't new anymore. We now believe (or want to) that love is the motivating factor for marriage.

But the financia/legal/religious considerations still exist. They complicate our idea of marriage-as-love but they are realities and necessities to the way we live to one degree or another. Some choose not to involve the church in a marriage. It's hard not to involve the government in a marriage, since automatic benefits are applied to that status. Seems to me that anything "automatic" isn't fair to somebody somewhere in the land; in the case of marriage, to gays who aren't allowed the title of marriage 'though they meet our expectations of marriage-as-love, and to people who want less governmental management in their lives. So my levels make it easier.

Get rid of the automaticity of benefits. Benefits become a choice when they have to be applied for. Like life insurance. Marriage becomes more romantic when benefits need to be applied for. Like a pre-nup. We need different amounts of benefits at different times of our lives, so why shouldn't couples have a choice in what they need.

Throw out the words "marriage", "husband", "wife" - make the nomenclature less sexist and burdensome. "Common law" is based on the assumption that the couple is sexually involved. Huh? "Family" is based on what . . commitment? Kids? Living together in a house? Throw it all out. Start fresh with new age language: Union Level #1, etc. Then it doesn't matter WHO is in the union, whether it be 2 adults or 3 men and a baby.

The levels are only based on what benefits anybody wants to apply for. Doesn't have anything to do with protecting kids from upheaval, since that is an impossibility anyway. My ideas are only examples and, as before, do not necessarily reflect my opinion. Just thinking out loud, is all. Interesting stuff, though. Eh?

Yes, interesting. Where would benefits fit in when it comes to people who aren't even an 'item' though? My main problem is with the fact that the state (by way of marriage) says romantic love should be a factor in benefits. That's unfair to people who want to share benefits, but are not in love or who don't wish to marry.

> Yes, interesting. Where would benefits fit in when it comes to people
> who aren't even an 'item' though? My main problem is with the fact
> that the state (by way of marriage) says romantic love should be a
> factor in benefits. That's unfair to people who want to share benefits,
> but are not in love or who don't wish to marry.

You're so right. Keep the government out of the bedroom. Right now, benefits are based on bedroom behaviour. Denied to gays, assumed for common law couples, entitlement for married couples, upgraded for parents, reduced for the elderly. If benefits weren't tied in to romantic love, more specifically sexual activity, but designed to be applied for by anybody who fits a newly defined criteria for them, it would be a much fairer system.

In the levels I suggest, couples can apply for varying benefits. Couples could be two roommates, two relatives, two sexual partners, two friends, two colleagues. What exists now is the assumption that marriage or common law is for two sexually active male/female partners. Take the sex out of it and let people who want to share benefits, share benefits.

Get rid of the word "marriage" and call it "Union Level 1". People in a family, or even a group of people who want to share family benefits could be called "Union Level 2". Leaving the group would no longer be called "divorce", maybe "leavetaking" instead, which would include any others, the children, and not just the sexual partner.

It all goes back to f*u*c*k, 'fornication under consent of the king", the king, once also the head ot the church, now being the government. We have the government betstowing benefits on people to whom consent is given.

Unfair? Oh, yes.

Yep. Exactly.

I wonder if there are people fighting for benefits for non-spouses?

Except in the gay arena, I dunno. Good question.

I read a piece in the paper the other day about a woman who took in her grandkids when her daughter was unable to care for them and she was complaining that she got way less money from the government than foster parents, yet she considered herself the same as them. Is she? Or is it that because she is related to these kids she should have to bear some responsibility for them? Is she right to consider the government the guardian of children? Anyway, SHE's fighting for the same benefits non-family members get.

I wasn't thinking of government assistance, though. I think she is different than a foster parent. She's actually benefiting the taxpayer by keeping them out of state custody.

Within your Reach by The Replacements

Maybe I'm Amazed

Umm Don't listen to music nor have a song

Arosmith-Walk This Way oh god love this song