Take their husband's last names?

[da_ticklah]

Originally Posted by spooky

Explain? The reason I usually hear behind someone being against gay marriage is a religious one. Marriage being a religious thing, and their religion saying it can't be done means just that, and no government is going to step in and tell their religion what it can and can't do, what it is and is not allowed to believe. It is based around freedom of religion, not a hatred of gays.

I am an atheist, I support gays doing whatever they want, they absolutely should have equal rights, but I am not about to strip religious freedom from a person's rights, rob Peter to pay Paul. I am not for gay marriage except where the individual's religion allows for it.

It's how most republicans feel about it, and a good number of democrats as well, which is why the whole civil union thing was brought up to begin with.

Government made a mistake getting involved, as diversity grew in America, it turned out to be a shaky foundation on which way too many laws and regulations were built on. The only way to fix it that makes sense is to fix the foundation, not go all GW Bush on everyone with some new religious version of the Patriot Act.

Honestly, I don't see how this hasn't been fixed, and I am at a loss as to why the answers aren't obvious to everyone. The politicians use it as a tool to get elected, so I see why they keep it around, but the general public, on both sides of the isle, should be united in fixing this, removing government from religion and creating a government only social union that affords all the legal protection intended when they piled it on the shaky back of the religious institution of marriage.

in cities with rational humans yes, I'm in Memphis (kind of a sophisticated Kentucky in Myka Fox terms) and there are folks here that do not want gays to exist. Not that they want to kill them they just think the right introduction to sweet baby Jesus will convert them away from their sinful ways. Civil unions gives credibility to their lifestyle and they are not interested in that.

Arkansas has gone so far as to deny unmarried couples the right to adopt, like the supply chain on adoptable children in the US is running low. They claim family values and how children are best raised with a mommy and daddy. While I agree with the ideal I think most rational humans would agree a single person or couple of queers is better than an orphanage.

[36D]

Picard, YOU want your future wife to take your last name?? Your name is like, a mouthful!

[Incognito]

I find it to be a stupid tradition, so no. In other arenas, it's advisable to do so based on inheritance and birthright and so forth, but domestically speaking, it's silly.

[william]

They should do whatever they want.

Now more and more you see couples doing whatever they want, whatever makes them happy.

Lot of my female peers kept their own name.

Those with kids gave the children their husband's last name except for one "couple" where they got together to have a son - they don't have a romantic relationship. They share responsibilities raising the kid - I see the child with the father as often as I do with the mom - though the child has the mother's last name and lives with her.

Who cares.

[zhowlett]

I am not crazy about the idea of marriage but it would not bother me in the least if my wife did not take my last name. It is a fucking name who cares.

Also my mom kept her maiden name and it is now hyphenated and that made my father angry apparently. How stupid who gives a shit.

[sluggo916]

I just think that both people should have the same last name. Its up to them to choose if its going to be his, hers, hyphenated, new, mashup, or voted on at the wedding.

[funnygurl1979]

Too me it should be discussed by each couple. Maybe for business reasons a woman would keep her last name. It's cost some money to reprint business cards.

[archicat]

Originally Posted by picard102

I likely wouldn't be dating the type of person, or at the very least asking to marry, against the concept. I'm not big on marriage either though.

What 'type' of person is that? I don't think it's a crazy feminist agenda; in this day and age the whole concept seems pretty old school - different strokes for different folks I guess. I'm not sure about the whole marriage malarky either, so the name thing is the least of my concerns; I'll cross that bridge if/when I come to it.

Originally Posted by 36D

Picard, YOU want your future wife to take your last name?? Your name is like, a mouthful!

I was thinking the exact same thing, I'm not even sure I can pronounce his name.

[picard102]

Originally Posted by zhowlett

How stupid who gives a shit.

Obviously your father did.

Originally Posted by madeyeshawn

it just seems silly and old school.

Getting married is silly and old school to begin with.

Originally Posted by archicat

What 'type' of person is that?

Amish chicks.

Originally Posted by archicat

I was thinking the exact same thing, I'm not even sure I can pronounce his name.

You people hate being unique!11 I will not conform!!

[jorjo]

Wow, do you mean you think someone is actually going to want to marry me? Hoorah!!!!

I think I'll decide (assuming this guy actually materialises) based on whatever his last name is. If it's difficult or I don't like it, I'll keep my name, otherwise I'll go with his. I'm perfectly happy to be property

I knew one woman who married a guy whose surname was Treblecock - they decided to both drop the "ck" on the end when they married.

And I know of someone else who ended up with the unfortunate moniker of Gaye Guy ...

On a slightly different note, when my son was born we gave him his father's last name ... of course we were planning on getting married at the time and were just saving the trouble of changing it when we did. I'm happy he has his dad's name though - he's the last male in the family and is so much like his father it's entirely appropriate for him.