Good site! I'll stay reading! Keep improving!

fff

fff

Marriages are made in Heaven (whether you like it or not).

It is just a waste-of-time to build freeways that lead onto roads that have traffic signals that clog-up with vehicles the arteries of all the road areas around that site just can not cope with extra traffic slowing down to stop - the solution; build "ALL" the freeways leading into or joining another freeway that is made legal by the "Freeway joining Bill" or something legally similar!

Whould it be much easier to "ABOLISH ALL MARRIAGES" then have a civil union, domestic partnership, etc instead for everyone - without the governments interfering, heterosexist (homophobic) bigratry and taxing us!

Colombia's vice president is "baffled" by Kate Moss's success following cocaine allegations...

Why have marriage at all? Excellent question, I'm glad you asked.

Marriage has three identifiable functions that should be legally recoginized and that are of betterment to society.

1) Procreation-- it creates new members of society, new labor, new contributors with new ideas ect.

2) Unification of man and woman-- marriage reins in men's base urges to fornicate with as many women as possible. Married men commit less crime and are employed more often. Married men and women live healthier longer lives and are less burden to society.

3) Masculine/Feminine socialization of children-- marriage is unique in that it provides both a father and mother to provide masculine and feminine socialization of children. Since society is made up of not just men, but men and women, marriage helps society, by socializing children at home to the two people in society that they will one day interact with, man and woman.

This debate is good for traditional marriage as we can finally get to know it and love it again.

correction:

That's like saying "lets get rid of automobiles..."

Mr. Vamos,

To be fair i did not expect you to take the time to even read the comments posted below your article and for that you have my regards. However, how can you claim that homosexual couples are happier than heterosexual pairs? The first woman and woman allowed to marry in Massachusetts following the landmark state supreme court 2 years ago are now divorced. I find it inconceivable that a man of your status and education level should make such a generalization.

Just because people ruin their marriages does not mean we should eliminate marriage. That's like saying 'lets get ride of automobiles because so many people get killed in car wrecks.' Like I said my parents have been married happily for over 25 years and my grandparents for over 60 years. Should my grandparents been denied the right to marry just because there are idiots out there who run out of their marriages when they get bored? Ridiculous.

I did not censor you, Mr. Williams. Let me mention that for one year I was teaching at the Connecticut University in your town. And, when you have an opinion, it doesn't mean that you argue because of your personal experience. Exceptions do not ruin the rules. For instance, I am married (living with my second wife), and the happy father of three.

I may be an idiot, though, to wast my time to answer you. But as a democratic person, I felt I should.

Great. censorship... I would expect to be censored by a bunch of liberal elitists who deny access to the opposing side. A new low. Well done you computer geeks. i wrote nothing offensive. all I said was how this idiot is a generalizing/ stereotyping political hack. Plenty of people are loyal and happy in marriage and it represents the bedrock of our civilization. I said it before, Mr. Vamos exemplifies a dying continent and I rejoice that with their negative birthrate morons like him will no populate the earth in a few generations.

How about we limit access to the institution of marriage, as the goverment bestows it, only to people who have children? Who else really needs it? How about either heterosexual or homosexual childless couples who want to make certain determinations such as who pulls the plug, who gets their money when they die, etc., has to make a contract up, but those that share the responsiblity of raising a child get the short-cut of marriage because they are maybe too busy raising that child and changing its diapers to go see a lawyer, which is understandable. If the institution of marriage is *really* just about raising kids, let's limit it to the people who are raising them, ALL of the people that are raising them, but churches can still "marry" whoever they want and whoever they DON'T want, in whatever manner they deem acceptable?

We should still have laws against incest because of the high risk of birth defects, but what if my brother and I agree to raise our brother's children if something should happen to their parents? Shouldn't we have the benefits of marriage for the children's sake? As for polygamy, is that really so different from the staggered monogamy that we have now?

If marriage is for children, craft the laws so it really is for their benefit, and theirs only. Adults can take care of themselves.

I missed "William's" comment because it had evidently been removed for incivility or worse before I logged on. I'm not surprised.

We Vermonters are well aware of the many in New Hampshire who adopt this stance in the midst of serious discussions.

So was Ralph Waldo Emerson, who wrote: "The God who made New Hampshire taunted the lofty land with little men."

This is quoted from Robert Frost's poem "New Hampshire," the last line of which is: "At present I am living in Vermont."

By their actions millions of Americans have adopted Mr. Vamos's viewpoint. The number of straight couples who decline to be married is skyrocketing. A good sign for the liberalization of society.

I really feel that the generalization that most marriages end in divorce or awful relationships is henious. While I agree that every relationship has its "moments" where things are rough, it is not fair to say that marriage is broken because people have brought in unrealistic expectations.

Hopefully no one is going into marriage thinking "if this doesn't work out then I'll get a divorce and try again." I think marriage is a valuable institution that is intended to bring security and commitment to a relationship. While this is not always the case, I think that faulting the "product" for user incompetence is really narrow-minded and short-sighted. Its like saying that cars are evil because there are bad drivers. We need to deal with the people who irresponsibly drive not get rid of a tool that makes our lives easier. Its the same with marriage, we need to deal with the expectations of people going in not abolish the institution.

Why do proponents of gay marriage feel it necessary to first trash traditional marriage before stating their case?

I totally agree with Mr. Vamos in his awe about why would gays want to join in the married class. But in my wonder lies my response. In our societies we don't want second-class citizenships or nothing of the sort. This is a no brainer, if it weren't for religion, this wouldn't even be an issue, 'cuz it started being a issue, standing on all four legs, with the advent of it (religion).

Being a Hungarian I am really proud of my fellow Hungarian`s article because I absolutely share his views.
I have never been able to understand what harm it does if homosexuals are allowed to get married.
There are a lot intolerant, hypocritical people who think they have the right to pass judgements concerning other people`s sexual preferences.

William, your rudeness and pig ignorance are an embarassment to both your fellow New Hampshireans and Americans. Sadly, it is rather typical of the knee-jerk, Rush Limbaugh-loving set who seem to be so abundant. Mr. Vamos wrote a thoughtful, mannered article, and you responded with words unfit for a civilized forum. Moreover, you countered one perceived generalization with another. Do you know all the married couples in your hometown and their private feelings? Can you truly say that they are all happy? If your hometown is New London, than I doubt it.

You are a disgrace, Sir.

I mean "equating."

William, if you're telling people not to be elitist and closeminded then maybe you shouldn't be advocating homosexuality with pedophilia.

Great article. The divorce rate in the USA is 50%+. The vast majority of the people I know are either unhappy in a marriage or divorced or working on their 2nd or 3rd marriage. Hollywood marriages are a joke. Many of our politicians are hypocrites, having affairs while married, etc. while standing up for the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is a failed institution. If it was a product it would have been pulled from the shelves many years ago. I really don't know why gays want to be involved with such a destructive institution.