NationStates Jolt Archive

Sure. It makes sense... We dont' have the data to support our claims, but you can't prove us wrong! :rolleyes:

Do you understand what a logic flaw is?

Do you understand to make a conclusion based on insufficient data isn’t science? It’s supposition.

Do you understand to make a conclusion based on insufficient data isn’t science? It’s supposition.

Which is why they want more data before coming to an absolute conclusion! :headbang:

For Pete's sake, read the things you post. You seem to be stating that making a theory based on available evidence is the same thing as instituting a new law of science, which is patently absurd. Making theories based on available evidence, then modifying them as needed when more evidence appears is, for the third time, how science works.

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents.

What part of that (a) did you not understand or (b) contradicts the statement that more research should be done?

And thanks for showing the American Psychological Association thoroughly rejects your position.

We can add that to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the AMA.

Which is why they want more data before coming to an absolute conclusion! :headbang:

For Pete's sake, read the things you post. You seem to be stating that making a theory based on available evidence is the same thing as instituting a new law of science, which is patently absurd. Making theories based on available evidence, then modifying them as needed when more evidence appears is, for the third time, how science works.


My point was... That one side is claiming the religious and faith research is tainted because they 'want' certain results. I pointed out merely that both sides are guilty of desiring to be right.

As far the ability to suppose conclusion based on the evidence now available, both sides are equally armed.

"Traditional family" is a cultural limitation etched into our minds so hard that when someone steps outside of the social norms, the bigots get up in arms and begin throwing ridiculous objections into the situation. It doesn't help. It really doesn't. It's simply angry conservatives that everyone around them isn't fitting into their puritanical concept of society. I happen to know multiple gay families that function perfectly. And no there isn't incestuous conduct with the parents encouraging homosexuality. Get over that. Just because both parents are of the same gender and did not produce the child themselves does not make them any less nurturing. No, it's not necessarily a natural set up for gay parents to care for children because science creates a bond between biological parents. But homosexuality itself is widely believed to be natural by the entire western science community. They are capable of loving a child just as anyone else who would want to adopt a child. I don't need to hear this "male/female influence is absolutely vital." I'm a psychology major myself.

My point was... That one side is claiming the religious and faith research is tainted because they 'want' certain results. I pointed out merely that both sides are guilty of desiring to be right.

As far the ability to suppose conclusion based on the evidence now available, both sides are equally armed.

And that is not at all what we are arguing. All through time you have had extreamly religious people practice science. Darwin himself was extreamly religious.

The crap you posted is not research. Science based research starts with a question. Faith based research starts with an answer.

You have not proven anything.

"Now up to then science had but been the humble handmaid of the Church, had not been allowed to overlap the limits set by faith, and for that reason had been no science at all." -Frederick Engels

Faith-based research is openly confessed as biased. Secular research is the only true science.

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents.

This is just great. They summarize that there is no evidence that there is any reason to treat same-sex couples any different from different-sex couples and you suggest this is in contradiction to the fact they point out that they would like to gather more evidence to gather the specific effect on children reared by same-sex couples.

Couple: Hi, see that child there with no parental support. We would like to provide.
Greenlander: Sorry, couple. Sorry, child. We can't allow this abomination to occur.
Couple/child: What? Why? Why would you deny us what we want?
Greenlander: Well, I don't have actual reason to believe it's a problem so I'm going to assume it is.

Little note - You can't deny people rights unless you can show that giving them those rights somehow does more damage to the rights of others. You can't deny the rights without the work. The APA just acknowledged that fact.

Do you understand to make a conclusion based on insufficient data isn’t science? It’s supposition.

What conclusion did they reach? It sounded to me like they said there is not enough evidence to make a conclusion. You want them to come to the conclusion that same-sex couples should be denied access to adoption and they said there is no evidence to support that conclusion. How is that a conclusion?

I like girls. I can't tell you why, just like any straight person can't tell you why they prefer the opposite sex. I JUST DO.

Well, actually, I can tell you why I love women so much. It's because whenever I'm with one, regardless of how close to my type they are or not, everything in my world is all right. I'm complete. They're so multi-dimensional. It's like being a super dork tackling a never-ending puzzle. There may never be an answer, but who cares about the end result? It's the trip there.

With men, I've tried. Tried so very hard. They're just so boring. They're like a puzzle designed for a 2-year-old given to someone with a Ph.D in science. Sure, they're fun to hang out with. Who else are you going to argue with when it comes to Peyton Manning being the better quarterback than Donovan McNabb? Or how Half-Life 2 owns Halo 2? It's just like trying to date my best friend. Or even worse, my little brother. It just wasn't meant to work out.

So before you get on your high horse and tell me I'm defective because my hypothalamus is enlarged or because I was raised improperly, let me tell YOU something, buddy. I like my life. No, I LOVE my life. And before you go off saying how many homosexuals are suicidal and depressed, I can almost guarantee you the majority of that is caused by the intolerant bigots constantly telling us that we don't belong. What happened to "love thy neighbor"? I never saw anything that said "unless they don't fit the perfect Christian ideal" next to it.

Bible thumping will get you nowhere. How could a book that's so many thousands of years old so thoroughly apply to life today? If we lived like they did, women would still be property and we'd have slaves everywhere. The Bible, I believe, is a set of stories that we can ALL relate to in order to get the fullest from life. I mean, how many stories of hatred are in the Bible? Cain and Abel, Joseph and his brothers, Abraham's wife Sarah being a total douche, the list goes on and on. What was the moral of these stories? Being a scared, hateful fool will take you nowhere but backwards.

Life is beautiful because diversity is beautiful. If everything was the same, we'd all go stir crazy. Shut up and soak it up.

Oh, and...

In 1960 America, for example, 9% of all children lived in single parent homes. By 1990, that number had soared to 25%. Today, 33% of all American children are born into single-parent homes, a number that is still on the rise. In the African-American community that figure is an astronomical 68% in some areas.
I'm surprised no one has really brought up this one yet. There must not be too many African-Americans out in the crowd, eh? I'd argue, but I figure... everyone else's done enough arguing. I'm just presenting a viewpoint.

*snip*
Oh, and...
Originally Posted by Greenlander ...
In the African-American community that figure is an astronomical 68% in some areas.
I'm surprised no one has really brought up this one yet. There must not be too many African-Americans out in the crowd, eh? I'd argue, but I figure... everyone else's done enough arguing. I'm just presenting a viewpoint.

Nationwide, it’s 48% and increasing. In some cities it’s much, much higher.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-547.pdf (see figure 1 on page 5)


In the district of Columbia; for example, you have 53.2% of black children living with one parent and 15.2% living with no parents, thus 68.4% of these children are living with one parent or less. In D.C., only 19.9% of African American children live with parents who are married.

http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/african_american_pocketguide.pdf#search='african%20american%20children%20census'
(page 6)

I stand by what I said. I think it's a foretelling of the future of all of America if we don't start fighting back now. Parents raising their children in Families deserves our respect and protection, and they are in need of it now...

-snip-
Just out of curiosity:
What is your age, marital status etc?
Where and how where you raised?

Just out of curiosity:
What is your age, marital status etc?
Where and how where you raised?

:p

I can't imagine why it would be advantageous for me to answer any of those questions here, none of it is necessary to understand what I’ve said. My words speak for themselves, agree or disagree with them, not who and what someone might be tempted to stereotype or class me as. :D

I stand by what I said. I think it's a foretelling of the future of all of America if we don't start fighting back now. Parents raising their children in Families deserves our respect and protection, and they are in need of it now...
You're right. So next time a vote comes up about allowing same-sex couples adopt children and marry, you know what you need to do. Because children benefit from being raised by more than one parent and that those parents are married.

You make me wanna puke.

Little note - You can't deny people rights unless you can show that giving them those rights somehow does more damage to the rights of others.

Even that I'd say is dubious.

What if the right that you grant to some people gives them a huge tangible benefit, even if it's not really a fundamental right, and at the same time by doing that you'd deminish a fundamental right of someone else that actually has no bearing on their lives? On the face of it, it's easy. Fundamental rights (ie Life, liberty, democracy, etc) win. But either way you're making a huge judgement on the impact of things which you can't predict.

With men, I've tried. Tried so very hard. They're just so boring. They're like a puzzle designed for a 2-year-old given to someone with a Ph.D in science.
Yeah, us men are all inferiour, stupid, not capable of competing with women, in short: singleminded troglodytes.
Women, per se, are infinitely more interesting, even the dumbest bimbo with an education level equal to a brickstone is more fascinacting to talk to than, say, Stephen Hawking. :rolleyes:
What might be true for you is an insult if it is generalised.

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but does it matter to the original poster that the APA (American Psychiatric Association) recently published a study that showed that children raised with gay and lesbian parents fared no worse emotionally or psychologically than those raised in "traditional" households. The APA also recently endorsed gay marriage.

As for the APA, they have yet to overcome their 1973 political hi-jacking as far as this topic is concerned.

As to this specific though, and endorsment;

The decision sparked conflicts within APA. The APA Council on Psychiatry and Law opposed the statement. The Council on Children, Adolescents and Their Families also declined to support it. Those against the endorsement argued that APA should not get involved in political issues such as same-sex marriage.

You make me wanna puke.

LOL :D :p


I'll take that as a compliment. Kind of like chemotherapy makes you puke. It makes you better and fights the cancer, but you just gotta puke before you start to heal. :eek: :p

Yeah, us men are all inferiour, stupid, not capable of competing with women, in short: singleminded troglodytes.
Women, per se, are infinitely more interesting, even the dumbest bimbo with an education level equal to a brickstone is more fascinacting to talk to than, say, Stephen Hawking. :rolleyes:
What might be true for you is an insult if it is generalised.

We aren't troglodytes? :eek:

I must of missed the memo.

As for the APA, they have yet to overcome their 1973 political hi-jacking as far as this topic is concerned.

As to this specific though, and endorsment;

The decision sparked conflicts within APA. The APA Council on Psychiatry and Law opposed the statement. The Council on Children, Adolescents and Their Families also declined to support it. Those against the endorsement argued that APA should not get involved in political issues such as same-sex marriage.



Keep digging. Not wanting to get involved in politics doesn't invalidate the claim.

Keep digging. Not wanting to get involved in politics doesn't invalidate the claim.

Sure it does, it proves that they have a politcal agenda, and as much as you accuse the other side of choosing results before doing the research, the APA didn't do any new research. They voted, but this time it was just the board that voted, not the membership. :rolleyes:

Anyway, different topic; or rather, older thread topic, http://my.webmd.com/content/article/107/108539.htm Perhaps 'broken' isn't so hard to suggest afterall?

I know there was some talk of that before, but I didn't see any link for it, so I put one in here.

Sure it does, it proves that they have a politcal agenda, and as much as you accuse the other side of choosing results before doing the research, the APA didn't do any new research. They voted, but this time it was just the board that voted, not the membership. :rolleyes:


Did they vote against it because it was a political agenda or did the vote against it because it would atract the rabbid right organizations like the FRC?

It still does not invalidate the question.


Anyway, different topic; or rather, older thread topic, http://my.webmd.com/content/article/107/108539.htm Perhaps 'broken' isn't so hard to suggest afterall?

I know there was some talk of that before, but I didn't see any link for it, so I put one in here.

I know about the fruitfly tests. However, it still only suggests the possibility. They still have to find it on our DNA.

The rabbid right will probably change their tune and start demanding everybody be tested for it.

And they will hope nobody brings up the point that many argued it was a deviant choice.

As long as tax money doesn't get used to "fix" the issue, then hey do what you will.

LOL :D :p

I'll take that as a compliment. Kind of like chemotherapy makes you puke. It makes you better and fights the cancer, but you just gotta puke before you start to heal. :eek: :p


Chemotherapy attacks indiscriminately. It does attack cancer cells, but attacks normal, healthy human cells as well. In many cancer patients who do not recover, it is actually the chemotherapy, and the problems it causes, that actually kill the patient.

So yeah, I guess it is accurate. Welcome to being part-of-the-problem.

Chemotherapy attacks indiscriminately. It does attack cancer cells, but attacks normal, healthy human cells as well. In many cancer patients who do not recover, it is actually the chemotherapy, and the problems it causes, that actually kill the patient.

So yeah, I guess it is accurate. Welcome to being part-of-the-problem.

HaHA :p Good one. *wipes tear from eye*

Okay, so maybe not ALL the patients will live...

But at least I'm out there fighting the disease instead of being one of the people that is denying any one is even sick; as we serve up our plates of modern day lies full of carcinogens and toxins… under the belief that all the patients are going to die anyway so what difference does it make when they go sooner rather than later. :rolleyes:

*snip*

As long as tax money doesn't get used to "fix" the issue, then hey do what you will.

Hmmmm, but we do pay for floride in the water? Perhaps ~ someday??? *whimsical day-dreaming of future gay-proof water dispensers* :eek: :p

Hmmmm, but we do pay for floride in the water? Perhaps ~ someday??? *whimsical day-dreaming of future gay-proof water dispensers* :eek: :p

What is that line from Shakespeare? "Thou dost protest too much." I think we all know what they say about people who are obviously afraid of gays considering they have absolutely no ability to affect you whatsoever, unless you want them to... One has to wonder why you find gays so dangerous. Most of us realize that allowing gays and lesbians to live their lives will never have any effect on heterosexual couples and thus find them at the very least non-threatening. Do the people threatened by same-sex marriages have a hold so tenuous on heterosexuality that 'making it legal' might cause them to change teams? One can't help but wonder.

I would leave their movement alone, if they would leave Families and Marriage laws and community standards of teaching monogamous relationships of mother and fathers raising their own children alone... If they would leave their agenda at the doors of the courts instead of trying to force society to go through judicial social engineering, I'd leave them alone too.

But when it comes to letting people live their own lives, it seems to me that they are the ones, the one half of one percent of all the family's in America that they are, that need to leave the rest of us alone and quit encouraging the idea that divorces and single parents are perfectly okay. That it’s ‘okay’ to leave your spouse and put your kids through whatever hell you feel like so you can go have your sex fests without remorse nor public condemnation... (and that goes for heterosexual that do the same thing too).

~ Children raised outside of intact married homes are more likely to divorce or become unwed parents themselves.
~ Non-divorced married couples reduces child poverty (divorced couples frequently do not have the same spending cost due to the costs of divorces and lost properties etc., even after they re-couple, they frequently don’t fincancially recover before their children have grown to adulthood).
~ Divorce increases the risk of school failure for children, and reduces the likelihood that they will graduate from college and achieve high status jobs.
~ Children in intact married homes are healthier, on average, than children in other family forms.
~ Babies born to married parents have sharply lower rates of infant mortality.
~ Children from intact married homes have lower rates of substance abuse.
~ Divorce increases rates of mental illness and distress in children, including the risk of suicide.
~ Boys and young men from intact married homes are less likely to commit crimes.
~ Married women are less likely to experience domestic violence than cohabiting and dating women.

When their mothers and fathers don't get and stay married, bad things happen to more kids more often: more poverty, welfare dependence, child abuse, sexual abuse, substance abuse, physical illness, infant mortality, accidental death, homicide, premature and promiscuous sexuality, early unwed pregnancy, suicide, juvenile delinquency, educational failure, conduct disorders and adult criminality. Children suffer and whole communities pay the cost in crime, social disorder and high taxes as government steps in to deal with the needs created when families fall apart. Family structure matters and the family form that does the best job for kids is the child's own married mother and father.

HaHA :p Good one. *wipes tear from eye*

Okay, so maybe not ALL the patients will live...

But at least I'm out there fighting the disease

You missed the point. You aren't really fighting "the disease", as it were. You are fighting and railing against anything that you think might just possibly be bad, with no real discernment as to what is and is not actually causing problems. And, much like chemotherapy, it may be people like you who end up tearing at the seams of society.

instead of being one of the people that is denying any one is even sick; as we serve up our plates of modern day lies full of carcinogens and toxins… under the belief that all the patients are going to die anyway so what difference does it make when they go sooner rather than later. :rolleyes:

Who here has denied that there are problems in the world, or in society? Do you really think that, just because someone disagrees with you on something, they are intentionally "harming society"?

But when it comes to letting people live their own lives, it seems to me that they are the ones, the one half of one percent of all the family's in America that they are, that need to leave the rest of us alone and quit encouraging the idea that divorces and single parents are perfectly okay.

Who on earth has suggested that these things are "perfectly ok"? I have yet to see anyone argue that constant divorce and all single parents are a good thing. However, there are instances in which a divorce and a single parent is preferable to the marriage that preceded it.

That it’s ‘okay’ to leave your spouse and put your kids through whatever hell you feel like so you can go have your sex fests without remorse nor public condemnation... (and that goes for heterosexual that do the same thing too).

Again, where has anyone claimed that it is ok to put your children through divorce just because you want "sex fests"?

Meanwhile, what do you have to say about the hell that children go through when a marriage is failing but the parents won't divorce. What about the hell that children go through when one parent is abusive/alcoholic/etc. and the marriage doesn't break up?

When their mothers and fathers don't get and stay married, bad things happen to more kids more often:

And, in some cases, these "bad things" are more likely to occur if parents do stay married. In the end, you have to look at things like this on a case-by-case basis.

Family structure matters and the family form that does the best job for kids is the child's own married mother and father.

Actually, I would argue that the form that does the best job includes extended family as well.

However, the real world doesn't work on a "best-case" basis. There is no way to ensure that every child has two parents, two sets of grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. A parent must do the best they can for a child within the framework they have.

I would leave their movement alone, if they would leave Families and Marriage laws and community standards of teaching monogamous relationships of mother and fathers raising their own children alone... If they would leave their agenda at the doors of the courts instead of trying to force society to go through judicial social engineering, I'd leave them alone too.

But when it comes to letting people live their own lives, it seems to me that they are the ones, the one half of one percent of all the family's in America that they are, that need to leave the rest of us alone and quit encouraging the idea that divorces and single parents are perfectly okay. That it’s ‘okay’ to leave your spouse and put your kids through whatever hell you feel like so you can go have your sex fests without remorse nor public condemnation... (and that goes for heterosexual that do the same thing too).

~ Children raised outside of intact married homes are more likely to divorce or become unwed parents themselves.
~ Non-divorced married couples reduces child poverty (divorced couples frequently do not have the same spending cost due to the costs of divorces and lost properties etc., even after they re-couple, they frequently don’t fincancially recover before their children have grown to adulthood).
~ Divorce increases the risk of school failure for children, and reduces the likelihood that they will graduate from college and achieve high status jobs.
~ Children in intact married homes are healthier, on average, than children in other family forms.
~ Babies born to married parents have sharply lower rates of infant mortality.
~ Children from intact married homes have lower rates of substance abuse.
~ Divorce increases rates of mental illness and distress in children, including the risk of suicide.
~ Boys and young men from intact married homes are less likely to commit crimes.
~ Married women are less likely to experience domestic violence than cohabiting and dating women.

When their mothers and fathers don't get and stay married, bad things happen to more kids more often: more poverty, welfare dependence, child abuse, sexual abuse, substance abuse, physical illness, infant mortality, accidental death, homicide, premature and promiscuous sexuality, early unwed pregnancy, suicide, juvenile delinquency, educational failure, conduct disorders and adult criminality. Children suffer and whole communities pay the cost in crime, social disorder and high taxes as government steps in to deal with the needs created when families fall apart. Family structure matters and the family form that does the best job for kids is the child's own married mother and father.

You know, it's people like you and ideas like that that actually MADE MY CHILDHOOD HELL!

Quit telling people that "it's always better for the children to have two parents". It fucking isn't!
But ideas like that made my mother stay with my father for 16 miserable years. It made her close her eyes to the way my father mistreated me, it made her justify his beating me near to death as "pedagocical method", it made her ignore my depression, it made her blame my two suicide attempts on me and the two friends I had, it made her look away when he abused and sexually assaulted me. After all, I was better off without a father that nwith one, right?

If she hadn't found the sense and the courage to leave him, I would be dead by now, I can assure you.

So, no, the tradional family is no recipe for happy childhoods, in many cases it's a lot better to have just one parent and get treated like a human being than having two and suffer abuse. Traditional families are just as disfunctional as other forms.

*snip*
Do you really think that, just because someone disagrees with you on something, they are intentionally "harming society"?

Nope. Not just because they disagree with me.

But do I think there are some organizations and/or groups of people out there that are using the GLBT people to make their movement more powerful and take it to the courts in the name of tolerance purely so that it will further their causes against all morality laws across the board?

Yes.

Nope. Not just because they disagree with me.

But do I think there are some organizations and/or groups of people out there that are using the GLBT people to make their movement more powerful and take it to the courts in the name of tolerance purely so that it will further their causes against all morality laws across the board?

Yes.

That's a bit, er, conspiracy-theorist, don't you think?

Does everyone have to have alterior motives? Or can some people simply disagree with you on some issues?

~ Children raised outside of intact married homes are more likely to divorce or become unwed parents themselves.

Mother divorsed twice.
Dad divorsed 4 times.

I am 14 years married
My sister is on her 5th year.


~ Non-divorced married couples reduces child poverty (divorced couples frequently do not have the same spending cost due to the costs of divorces and lost properties etc., even after they re-couple, they frequently don’t fincancially recover before their children have grown to adulthood).

The family up the street had both parents and they lived in poverty. There is a little more to the equation then simple marriage. Education level for one thing.


~ Divorce increases the risk of school failure for children, and reduces the likelihood that they will graduate from college and achieve high status jobs.

I have not completed College. Before you go ahah! I am the WAN engineer and PostMaster for a global corporation.


~ Children in intact married homes are healthier, on average, than children in other family forms.

Healthier as in what? Medical? Depends on the single parent. A friend is divorsed with 2 children. She is a director. Her children are fine.

The family up the street doesn't have insurence so they hit the emergency room from time to time.


~ Babies born to married parents have sharply lower rates of infant mortality.

Are we talking third world or the US?


~ Children from intact married homes have lower rates of substance abuse.

I doubt that. A local high school is routine raided by the police for drugs. The school is in a wealthy white area with married homes. Money also has the ability to attract drugs.


~ Divorce increases rates of mental illness and distress in children, including the risk of suicide.

Change is always bad on a child. They tend to be routine oriented. Children are also rather resilent and get over it. My wifes cousin recently divorsed a dickhead. Her kids did the depressed thing but after much talking and comforting from mom and grandma, they are back to where they were.


~ Boys and young men from intact married homes are less likely to commit crimes.

Again there is more to the claim then simple marriage. The social level of the area plays into that.


~ Married women are less likely to experience domestic violence than cohabiting and dating women.

*Turns off the bullshit alarm* Sorry but I can introduce you to a couple cops that will tell you they get domestic violence calls all the time. Married women get slapped around more then you think.


When their mothers and fathers don't get and stay married, bad things happen to more kids more often: more poverty, welfare dependence, child abuse, sexual abuse, substance abuse, physical illness, infant mortality, accidental death, homicide, premature and promiscuous sexuality, early unwed pregnancy, suicide, juvenile delinquency, educational failure, conduct disorders and adult criminality. Children suffer and whole communities pay the cost in crime, social disorder and high taxes as government steps in to deal with the needs created when families fall apart. Family structure matters and the family form that does the best job for kids is the child's own married mother and father.

Oh mannnnnnnnn

Child abuse and sexual abuse happens when the family is married or not. There is no marked difference.

Man I won't bother on the rest......

I would leave their movement alone, if they would leave Families and Marriage laws and community standards of teaching monogamous relationships of mother and fathers raising their own children alone... If they would leave their agenda at the doors of the courts instead of trying to force society to go through judicial social engineering, I'd leave them alone too.

But when it comes to letting people live their own lives, it seems to me that they are the ones, the one half of one percent of all the family's in America that they are, that need to leave the rest of us alone and quit encouraging the idea that divorces and single parents are perfectly okay. That it’s ‘okay’ to leave your spouse and put your kids through whatever hell you feel like so you can go have your sex fests without remorse nor public condemnation... (and that goes for heterosexual that do the same thing too).

~ Children raised outside of intact married homes are more likely to divorce or become unwed parents themselves.
~ Non-divorced married couples reduces child poverty (divorced couples frequently do not have the same spending cost due to the costs of divorces and lost properties etc., even after they re-couple, they frequently don’t fincancially recover before their children have grown to adulthood).
~ Divorce increases the risk of school failure for children, and reduces the likelihood that they will graduate from college and achieve high status jobs.
~ Children in intact married homes are healthier, on average, than children in other family forms.
~ Babies born to married parents have sharply lower rates of infant mortality.
~ Children from intact married homes have lower rates of substance abuse.
~ Divorce increases rates of mental illness and distress in children, including the risk of suicide.
~ Boys and young men from intact married homes are less likely to commit crimes.
~ Married women are less likely to experience domestic violence than cohabiting and dating women.

When their mothers and fathers don't get and stay married, bad things happen to more kids more often: more poverty, welfare dependence, child abuse, sexual abuse, substance abuse, physical illness, infant mortality, accidental death, homicide, premature and promiscuous sexuality, early unwed pregnancy, suicide, juvenile delinquency, educational failure, conduct disorders and adult criminality. Children suffer and whole communities pay the cost in crime, social disorder and high taxes as government steps in to deal with the needs created when families fall apart. Family structure matters and the family form that does the best job for kids is the child's own married mother and father.

You've shown nothing that says that it has to be the child's own father and mother. Where are the stats on the 'damage' adoption does? They aren't there. Where does it say in your 'stats' that children fare worse in a family where the mother never marries the biological father but the child grows up with the mother and an adoptive father? It doesn't. Where does it say that any married couple can't raise this children just as well? It doesn't.

So congratulations. You've just argued why children's lives would be improved by allowing same-sex marriages. I'm glad we all agree.

Failing marraiges etc.,
abusing fathers etc.,

For the sake of criminals (fathers who abuse their wives and children are criminals and should be put away) you would have us throw out the baby with the bathwater...

Criminals should be locked up. The raising of children and support of families should be protected and expanded. Getting more social help and education out there should be our top concern... Then lets just drop all this, “you don’t have to live an unfulfilled sexual life, get out there man and have at it! Your kids will be just fine” nonsense.

:rolleyes:

Actually it does... children of divorced parents, including those that re-marry, do statistically worse. I'm sure your word tricks will fool someone though, just like your arguments :rolleyes:

For the sake of criminals (fathers who abuse their wives and children are criminals and should be put away) you would have us throw out the baby with the bathwater...

In what way? How does advocating that people be married and try to remain married, but actually end a marriage when it is irreparable do this ata ll?

Then lets just drop all this, “you don’t have to live an unfulfilled sexual life, get out there man and have at it! Your kids will be just fine” nonsense.

I still have yet to see anything even related to this. I think you are making it up along with you "GLBT groups want to make everyone completely immoral!" argument.

:rolleyes:

Actually it does... children of divorced parents, including those that re-marry, do statistically worse. I'm sure your word tricks will fool someone though, just like your arguments :rolleyes:

Congratulations. You have answered a question that Jocabia didn't ask.

Care to answer the one he did ask?

:rolleyes:

Actually it does... children of divorced parents, including those that re-marry, do statistically worse. I'm sure your word tricks will fool someone though, just like your arguments :rolleyes:
I think we've figured your favorite smiley by now. :rolleyes: <-

For the sake of criminals (fathers who abuse their wives and children are criminals and should be put away) you would have us throw out the baby with the bathwater...

Criminals should be locked up. The raising of children and support of families should be protected and expanded. Getting more social help and education out there should be our top concern... Then lets just drop all this, “you don’t have to live an unfulfilled sexual life, get out there man and have at it! Your kids will be just fine” nonsense.

Oh my lordy.

Now only speaking for men, they can be fuckwits. My old man is a three time loser. I have gotten farther in life with him gone. The fact you can have children hardly makes you parent material. Most can do it. Some a really good at it and some shouldn't bother.

Divorse is a little more then an "unfulfilled sexual life."

My old man and my ex stepfather were both wankers.

I think we've figured your favorite smiley by now. :rolleyes: <-

Actually I think maybe it's this one :p

:D That ones not bad either ... :gundge: <~ that rocks too :D :eek:

Oh my lordy.

Now only speaking for men, they can be fuckwits. My old man is a three time loser. I have gotten farther in life with him gone. The fact you can have children hardly makes you parent material. Most can do it. Some a really good at it and some shouldn't bother.

Divorse is a little more then an "unfulfilled sexual life."

My old man and my ex stepfather were both wankers.


*blank stare*



*begs the question what some Mother's parents were like so that they were raised to not know how to pick husbands who aren't 'wankers'*

I would leave their movement alone, if they would leave Families and Marriage laws and community standards of teaching monogamous relationships of mother and fathers raising their own children alone... If they would leave their agenda at the doors of the courts instead of trying to force society to go through judicial social engineering, I'd leave them alone too.

Yes, the "agenda" of individual liberty and responsibilty and of equal protection under the law is just awful. :rolleyes:

Much of what you are railing against are long-standing family and marriage laws and community standards.

Most of what you are proposing is anti-majoritarian social engineering.

As shown, you wish to "return" to a "golden age" that has never existed by means that the vast majority of Americans oppose and are contrary to American ideals.

But when it comes to letting people live their own lives, it seems to me that they are the ones, the one half of one percent of all the family's in America that they are, that need to leave the rest of us alone and quit encouraging the idea that divorces and single parents are perfectly okay. That it’s ‘okay’ to leave your spouse and put your kids through whatever hell you feel like so you can go have your sex fests without remorse nor public condemnation... (and that goes for heterosexual that do the same thing too).

You and those strawmen must be all on a first name basis by now.

You still have yet to show why allowing two people of the same gender to marry is a danger to anyone else.

You still have yet to show that forcing two people to stay married against their will is preferrable to allowing divorce.

And you have made rather clear you do not wish to leave people alone. You wish to intrude in their private lives and use the heavy hand of government to force people to behave as you wish.

~ Children raised outside of intact married homes are more likely to divorce or become unwed parents themselves.
~ Non-divorced married couples reduces child poverty (divorced couples frequently do not have the same spending cost due to the costs of divorces and lost properties etc., even after they re-couple, they frequently don’t fincancially recover before their children have grown to adulthood).
~ Divorce increases the risk of school failure for children, and reduces the likelihood that they will graduate from college and achieve high status jobs.
~ Children in intact married homes are healthier, on average, than children in other family forms.
~ Babies born to married parents have sharply lower rates of infant mortality.
~ Children from intact married homes have lower rates of substance abuse.
~ Divorce increases rates of mental illness and distress in children, including the risk of suicide.
~ Boys and young men from intact married homes are less likely to commit crimes.
~ Married women are less likely to experience domestic violence than cohabiting and dating women.

You appear to think these statistics support you. They don't. Some of them are bogus for a variety of reasons already explained. Some simply don't mean what you think for reasons already explained.

For example, it has already been explained you are grouping together different categories to arrive at these conclusions and then pointing at unrelated factors as the alleged cause. You are grouping together apples, pineapples, and handgrenades -- and then blaming oranges for your shitty fruit salad!

Moreoever, many of the above clearly support the idea that we should allow more couples to marry and raise children -- rather than exclude some people from doing so and prevent some children from being raised by two parents.

When their mothers and fathers don't get and stay married, bad things happen to more kids more often: more poverty, welfare dependence, child abuse, sexual abuse, substance abuse, physical illness, infant mortality, accidental death, homicide, premature and promiscuous sexuality, early unwed pregnancy, suicide, juvenile delinquency, educational failure, conduct disorders and adult criminality. Children suffer and whole communities pay the cost in crime, social disorder and high taxes as government steps in to deal with the needs created when families fall apart. Family structure matters and the family form that does the best job for kids is the child's own married mother and father.

Again, most of these claims are false, misleading, or unrelated to your thesis.

Simply repeating them over and over doesn't make them true.

Moreoever, your alleged "solutions" -- to the extent you've even hinted at them -- would make most of these problems worse, as well as harm both individuals and society in myriads of other ways.

Your hatred for freedom and equality is neither justifiable on the grounds of your desire social-engineering (as it is not supported by social science) nor recognizable with our Constitution or the American way of life.

:rolleyes:

Actually it does... children of divorced parents, including those that re-marry, do statistically worse. I'm sure your word tricks will fool someone though, just like your arguments :rolleyes:

I didn't say divorced parents. And can you give some sources please? Do these sources account for the increased level of divorced and single mothers living in poverty? Poverty increases almost everything you listed and poverty is rarely caused by being a single or divorced parent. Can you support anything you said?

You know, not every answer is black or white(metaphorical term). Just wanted to let you know.

My favorite answers are the ones that are orange!

Actually I think maybe it's this one :p

:D That ones not bad either ... :gundge: <~ that rocks too :D :eek:
I like :p , :D , :( , and :eek: the most. :headbang: is also fun sometimes.

*blank stare*



*begs the question what some Mother's parents were like so that they were raised to not know how to pick husbands who aren't 'wankers'*

Usually they were married Christians, like my mother's and my father's parents who were both previously married to complete losers before marrying and having me.

*begs the question what some Mother's parents were like so that they were raised to not know how to pick husbands who aren't 'wankers'*

Yes, because all people act exactly the same throughout the entirety of their lives. Thus, the way a person acts before a wedding will be the same way they act several years after.

Meanwhile, all women are equipped with "wanker detectors" if their parents are good. They will tell women if the man they are with might possibly ever become a wanker. They have different settings for the possibility in their mates of drug addiction, alcoholism, emotional abuse, physical abuse, cheating, or general wankerness.

*blank stare*

*begs the question what some Mother's parents were like so that they were raised to not know how to pick husbands who aren't 'wankers'*

My grandparents were married 40 years before my grandfather died.

They were baptists.

Some people for whatever reason are just bad at picking people. Be it bad role models, be it the partner is a great actor(my old man), be it something in life slammed them down and they started feeling they were not worth it.

In my moms case for the second wanker, the "moral" community tended to look down on single women with children. They are probably whores you know. Don't know how divorse single mothers are viewed these days.

Look, I'm not intolerant. I someones a gay, fine it's his choice, but stop making demonstrations, ADOPTING CHILDREN and in general making a big fuss about it.

But you're not intolerant in the slightest.




:rolleyes: (for the sarcasticly impared)

For the sake of criminals (fathers who abuse their wives and children are criminals and should be put away) you would have us throw out the baby with the bathwater...

Criminals should be locked up. The raising of children and support of families should be protected and expanded. Getting more social help and education out there should be our top concern... Then lets just drop all this, “you don’t have to live an unfulfilled sexual life, get out there man and have at it! Your kids will be just fine” nonsense.

Speaking of throwing babies out with the bathwater ...

You appear to once again be deliberately vague about what you are supporting other than this vague myth of a "traditional family."

You have vaguely argued gay marriage is bad, single parents are bad, divorce is bad, gay parents are bad, but you haven't really said anything about how exactly you would decrease the divorce rate or the rate of single parenting or prevent gays from being parents.

Other than the scary Marriage Protection Amendment you cited, what exactly are you proposing?

Instead, you give extreme examples and attack strawmen.

What laws would you change and how?

What laws are you saying should not be changed? And versus what?

For example, would you support ending certain criminal laws and unbalanced sentencing laws, support more intercity investment, etc., so that fewer African-American men are imprisoned -- making their children effectively fatherless?

But you're not intolerant in the slightest.




:rolleyes: (for the sarcasticly impared)

Well technically he's not because tolerance only means that you put up with someone/something. He's tolerating gays, but he wishes they'd be more low-key.

I don't need indisputable proof for what is self-evident

Then say something self evident. Untill then provide indisputable proof for the things you HAVE said.

Meanwhile, all women are equipped with "wanker detectors" if their parents are good. They will tell women if the man they are with might possibly ever become a wanker. They have different settings for the possibility in their mates of drug addiction, alcoholism, emotional abuse, physical abuse, cheating, or general wankerness.

Ahh but you left out the "stupid" attack. Some women will ignore such warnings. Especially if mom is against it or even for it for that matter.

I remember one girl I was ever so hot for. She was smart and stunning. Dad Scottish and Mom was peruvian. They told her I was a great guy and should hang out with me. She later told me I should marry her mom because she talked about me all the time. That kind of ended it for us. She hitched up with a self centered nurd and I think is divorsed now.

Overall she was a great girl so I don't think the parents were bad. She tended to be choosy over whom she dated. But fantasy probably kicked in.

Don't know. :)

Greenlander, get the hell out of the 18th century, nobody fits into your perscribed gender roles. Hell, they didn't even do so in the 18th century, but back then they would get locked up for it unless they were rich enough to simply be called "eccentric". Now, stop sitting here and trying to force your ideas about morality onto other people who probably have more life experience than you do anyways and therefore, know better.

And also, gtfo of north america, go rejoin europe and stop trying to steal our arctic islands, damnit.

Greenlander, get the hell out of the 18th century, nobody fits into your perscribed gender roles. Hell, they didn't even do so in the 18th century, but back then they would get locked up for it unless they were rich enough to simply be called "eccentric". Now, stop sitting here and trying to force your ideas about morality onto other people who probably have more life experience than you do anyways and therefore, know better.

And also, gtfo of north america, go rejoin europe and stop trying to steal our arctic islands, damnit.

*hands Dakini a rather large cookie*

Ahh but you left out the "stupid" attack. Some women will ignore such warnings. Especially if mom is against it or even for it for that matter.

I remember one girl I was ever so hot for. She was smart and stunning. Dad Scottish and Mom was peruvian. They told her I was a great guy and should hang out with me. She later told me I should marry her mom because she talked about me all the time. That kind of ended it for us. She hitched up with a self centered nurd and I think is divorsed now.

Overall she was a great girl so I don't think the parents were bad. She tended to be choosy over whom she dated. But fantasy probably kicked in.

Don't know. :)
Maybe her parents were annoying about it?

I've got a bf right now that my mom doesn't like, but she really likes a guy I used to date and she keeps nagging me about going to hang out with him and all this. Through no fault of his own, I don't want to hang out with him just because my mom doesn't stfu and leave me alone about it.

*hands Dakini a rather large cookie*

I will toss in a brownie! I am still chuckling when I read it. :D

*hands Dakini a rather large cookie*
:D

Thank you. I do love cookies.

*snipped an awful lot of words that finally got to his point:*

Your hatred for freedom and equality is neither justifiable on the grounds of your desire social-engineering (as it is not supported by social science) nor recognizable with our Constitution or the American way of life.

Well, I hate to break it to you, I'm not the one trying to 'change' the foundation for the sake of needing a new paint job. You're the one in the need of a burden of proof I think. The Laws, including the Marriage Act, currently agree with me. I'm advocating it be turned into an Amendment because it is being attacked via the courts and the movement that will have their way at all costs... including same-sex polygamy and anything else in the name of 'tolerance of life-style-choices,' regardless of the children's best interests.

Of course, perhaps, with one good new judge, and one more for longevity later, I might not have anything to worry about :D

I will toss in a brownie! I am still chuckling when I read it. :D
Woot! :D

What do you want me to find? The higher suicide rate or the higher drug use rate? Higher chance of depression or perhaps the lower life expectancy rate?

Perhaps I should look up the percentage of gay-inclined people that say they 'don't' want to be that way?

Congradulations, you've discovered tha bigotry is bad. Now point to something that homosexuality causes instead of something caused by PREJUDICE against homosexuals.

I was trying to catch up to the end, but I couldn't resist.

I would leave their movement alone,

We are not a movement.

if they would leave Families

Families...yes. We want them, which is why we express the fact that we want them. Not totally unreasonable.

and Marriage laws and community standards of teaching monogamous relationships of mother and fathers raising their own children alone... If they would leave their agenda at the doors of the courts instead of trying to force society to go through judicial social engineering, I'd leave them alone too.

Community standards only apply in a singular community. There are one helluva lot of radically different communities, so what gives one of them the right to lay down standards for all of them?

Marriage laws are laws like any other. Social engineering isn't needed, we're here to saty, we already 'marry' each other, we already have kids. Justice simply extends the laws to officially recognise things that already happen, so that we share the legal benfits (and responsibilites) of doing those things.

But when it comes to letting people live their own lives, it seems to me that they are the ones, the one half of one percent of all the family's in America that they are, that need to leave the rest of us alone and quit encouraging the idea that divorces and single parents are perfectly okay. That it’s ‘okay’ to leave your spouse and put your kids through whatever hell you feel like so you can go have your sex fests without remorse nor public condemnation... (and that goes for heterosexual that do the same thing too).

Sex fests?!!! What planet do you live on? I want to visit!

Divorces and single parents are perfectly okay. The disintegration of home and familiy structure that happens while a divorce is going on (especially if it's not an amicable divorce) isn't terribly good for the kids, but it's not terribly good for the adults either.

I know plenty of single parents that are extremely good parents. No sex fests, no hell for their kids, they just get on with it and do the best they can for themseleves and their kids, like everyone else. Better than many, in fact.

Isn't it better for the kids for a divorce to happen as smoothly as possible, even if that means some turmoil, than to live with both their parents in a loveless or even an abusive home?

~ Children raised outside of intact married homes are more likely to divorce or become unwed parents themselves.

And why is this nessecarily a bad thing?

~ Non-divorced married couples reduces child poverty (divorced couples frequently do not have the same spending cost due to the costs of divorces and lost properties etc., even after they re-couple, they frequently don’t fincancially recover before their children have grown to adulthood).

I don't think economics really has any place here, but anyway. In most if not all western countries it is extremely difficult to fall below the poverty line. Especially if you have children.

~ Divorce increases the risk of school failure for children, and reduces the likelihood that they will graduate from college and achieve high status jobs.

Turmoil, maybe. I accept the turmoil may stem from divorce. It may stem from your intact married home featuring an abusive father who's wife to too scared to get a divorce. It may stem from a lot of things. There are too many factors in childhood to draw this kind of conclusion.

~ Children in intact married homes are healthier, on average, than children in other family forms.

Gay couples invaribaly have to spend a vast amount of money to have a child, by any means. The couples that I know spend even vaster amounts on keeping the child happy and healthy.

Plus, public health is delivered through schools. And most countries have a government funded healthcare system, which will provide any kind of healthcare to children for nothing. So unless the average parent outside the intact married home is neglegant, this seems unlikely.

~ Babies born to married parents have sharply lower rates of infant mortality.

Too many factors for this one too, really.

At risk of sounding snobbish, outside of the upper classes marriage is happening later, with more children outside of marriage. This means that children born into married couples are increasingly born into a more sheltered existance. Hence less perils for the infant.

Note also, although the distribution of infant mortality throughout the population changes, overall it has been steadily decreasing for the last 50 years.

~ Children from intact married homes have lower rates of substance abuse.

Turmoil thing again, see school failure above.

~ Divorce increases rates of mental illness and distress in children, including the risk of suicide.

And again with the turmoil.

There are alot of other factors here though. For instance, people telling someone who is growing up gay that they will never have this, never be that, aren't as good as something else, cause alot of distress.

Identity issues (not nessecarily sexuality related, although that is a biggie) are the biggest cause of mental illness and distress in young people.

~ Boys and young men from intact married homes are less likely to commit crimes.

Are Girls unaffected?

~ Married women are less likely to experience domestic violence than cohabiting and dating women.

No, there was a study on this. Married women are less likely to report that they experience domestic violence than cohabiting and dating women.

Anyway, what about men experiencing domestic violence?

When their mothers and fathers don't get and stay married, bad things happen to more kids more often: more poverty, welfare dependence, child abuse, sexual abuse, substance abuse, physical illness, infant mortality, accidental death, homicide, premature and promiscuous sexuality, early unwed pregnancy, suicide, juvenile delinquency, educational failure, conduct disorders and adult criminality. Children suffer and whole communities pay the cost in crime, social disorder and high taxes as government steps in to deal with the needs created when families fall apart. Family structure matters and the family form that does the best job for kids is the child's own married mother and father.

Redux.

Maybe her parents were annoying about it?

I've got a bf right now that my mom doesn't like, but she really likes a guy I used to date and she keeps nagging me about going to hang out with him and all this. Through no fault of his own, I don't want to hang out with him just because my mom doesn't stfu and leave me alone about it.

Probably. Stupid was a bad choice of a word. That's why I quoted it. I was just pointing out her parents sensed I was a decent guy but she choose to ignore the advice.

Hmmm how many women ignore their mothers on things? ;)

Hmmm how many women would gut a person for suggesting they are like their mother! :D

My grandparents were married 40 years before my grandfather died.

They were baptists.

Some people for whatever reason are just bad at picking people. Be it bad role models, be it the partner is a great actor(my old man), be it something in life slammed them down and they started feeling they were not worth it.

In my moms case for the second wanker, the "moral" community tended to look down on single women with children. They are probably whores you know. Don't know how divorse single mothers are viewed these days.


Perhaps we should bring back or re-introduce family arranged marriages then! :eek:

It would make just as much sense as allowing easy divorces and everything from same-sex marriages to polygamy marriages just so that everyone gets a lot of chances to get it right and weed out the ‘wankers’ through trial and error...

Probably. Stupid was a bad choice of a word. That's why I quoted it. I was just pointing out her parents sensed I was a decent guy but she choose to ignore the advice.

Hmmm how many women ignore their mothers on things? ;)
Parents can be foreceful in pushing their ideas on their kids, while they may think they know best, it's not always the case and often, especially in a late teen/young adult phase one is much less inclined to do something if one's parents are pushing them to do so than one would be otherwise.

Perhaps if her parents hadn't said anything about you, you two would have got married and they could have been quietly happy about it.

Hmmm how many women would gut a person for suggesting they are like their mother! :D
I would.

Hmmm how many women ignore their mothers on things? ;)

Some, but not most. But maybe that's just me.

Hmmm how many women would gut a person for suggesting they are like their mother! :D

It depends which trait of hers you were comparing me to...

hehe

And also, gtfo of north america, go rejoin europe and stop trying to steal our arctic islands, damnit.

Don't say that! We're already stuck with the Vatican, we don't want rejected american moralisers too! There's not enough room!

Perhaps we should bring back or re-introduce family arranged marriages then! :eek:

It would make just as much sense as allowing easy divorces and everything from same-sex marriages to polygamy marriages just so that everyone gets a lot of chances to get it right and weed out the ‘wankers’ through trial and error...

Who has suggested this?

Don't say that! We're already stuck with the Vatican, we don't want rejected american moralisers too! There's not enough room!
I meant Greenland, the country... this guy seems to take his name after it.

I don't think this particular boardie is trying to steal arctic islands from Canada either...

Who has suggested this?
Greenlander.

He just suggested it so he can say a few pages down the road that someone else suggested it and then go on a rant about how terrible arranged marriage is, since everyone knows that being able to marry who you love has everything to do with being told who to marry by your family.

I keep reading mention of sex fests and adult situations (actually that may have been another thread on the same issue).

Green, what is it you actually think us queers do? You seem to believe in the stereotype that we're all promiscuous, effeminate, substance-abusing hairdressers.

Feh. Hubris, taurus feces, and hot air all in one foul package.

Let's just not marry...it's less expensive, allows for more free time to do things we actually enjoy, and leaves open other sexual partners. It is also convinient financially since it would all but eliminate alimony and child support [assuming they don't have childeren].

I think it's a good idea, which is why I'm going to have a vasectamy soon. Children are loud, expensive, annoying, and time-consuming, all with no return on the investment, and I happen to have frequent headaches, a short fuse, and don't have extra time or money I would like to throw in the toilet or maternity ward!

I meant Greenland, the country... this guy seems to take his name after it.

I don't think this particular boardie is trying to steal arctic islands from Canada either...

That's ok, as long as you don't send him to Europe. We've already got three of the four countries which permit gay marriage, he could have a field-day! :p

Perhaps we should bring back or re-introduce family arranged marriages then! :eek:

It would make just as much sense as allowing easy divorces and everything from same-sex marriages to polygamy marriages just so that everyone gets a lot of chances to get it right and weed out the ‘wankers’ through trial and error...

My, we are off the deep end, aren't we?

Beyond utterly jettisoning the concepts of rights and individuality, your proposal suggests that forcing people to marry people chosen through negotiations between families would somehow create happy marriages, good parents, or reduce any of the problems you have talked about?

Wouldn't these families doing the picking be the same ones you are currently blaming for all of societies problems?

Stellar logic. :eek:

Greenlander, get the hell out of the 18th century, nobody fits into your perscribed gender roles. Hell, they didn't even do so in the 18th century, but back then they would get locked up for it unless they were rich enough to simply be called "eccentric". Now, stop sitting here and trying to force your ideas about morality onto other people who probably have more life experience than you do anyways and therefore, know better.

And also, gtfo of north america, go rejoin europe and stop trying to steal our arctic islands, damnit.


Actually, I said the word roles, and genders, and I said they were different, but I never said what they were. If you assigned measurable values to those words, that is not my fault.

Hmmmm

It's easy to damn ideas and not offer solutions.

Here is one:

Why not teach men to be more involved with their daughters lives?

I decided early to get involved with my daughters life as I had a theory I would play a major role in her life. Duh I know but I saw things with girls whose fathers wanted sons or were never around. Even now I noticed the difference between kids whose dad is involved and who is not. The later tended to have an "oh hi" when dad appeared.

I also though that if I got involved and played all the time that would help her viewpoint on things. Especially herself. Many a comment is the fact she is a confident kid. Almost overly confident in fact.

Sometimes it's draining as teaparties can take an hour or two. :p

Hmmm someday I will learn if my approaches work. Especially after I deal with puberty. :eek:

Actually, I said the word roles, and genders, and I said they were different, but I never said what they were. If you assigned measurable values to those words, that is not my fault.

That was a good wriggle. You should be a politician.

My, we are off the deep end, aren't we?

Beyond utterly jettisoning the concepts of rights and individuality, your proposal suggests that forcing people to marry people chosen through negotiations between families would somehow create happy marriages, good parents, or reduce any of the problems you have talked about?

Wouldn't these families doing the picking be the same ones you are currently blaming for all of societies problems?

Stellar logic. :eek:


Logic?!? I don't see no stinking logic! And who needs it anyways, when you've got strawmen on your side!

Actually, I said the word roles, and genders, and I said they were different, but I never said what they were. If you assigned measurable values to those words, that is not my fault.
You defined gender roles, you just didn't say "these are the gender roles: ..."

Don't assume everyone here is an idiot. Or entirely lacking a sense of humour, as you appear to be.

Who has suggested this?

Which part? Same-sex marriages (nearly everyone around here) Polygamy? (The ACLU for one), Easy divorces? (you for one).

What did you mean?

You defined gender roles, you just didn't say "these are the gender roles: ..."

Don't assume everyone here is an idiot. Or entirely lacking a sense of humour, as you appear to be.


I'm sorry, but did you mean his is an idiot or he is lacking a sense of humour? Or perhaps its both. Just want some clarification :)

Greenlander.

He just suggested it so he can say a few pages down the road that someone else suggested it and then go on a rant about how terrible arranged marriage is, since everyone knows that being able to marry who you love has everything to do with being told who to marry by your family.


Mwahahaha That one cracked me up, LOL :p :D

Which part? Same-sex marriages (nearly everyone around here) Polygamy? (The ACLU for one), Easy divorces? (you for one).

What did you mean?


I think he was talking about arranged marriage.

Feh. Hubris, taurus feces, and hot air all in one foul package.

Let's just not marry...it's less expensive, allows for more free time to do things we actually enjoy, and leaves open other sexual partners. It is also convinient financially since it would all but eliminate alimony and child support [assuming they don't have childeren].

I think it's a good idea, which is why I'm going to have a vasectamy soon. Children are loud, expensive, annoying, and time-consuming, all with no return on the investment, and I happen to have frequent headaches, a short fuse, and don't have extra time or money I would like to throw in the toilet or maternity ward!


You see everyone! That's someone I can support! More freedom for you, you do what you like ~ leave the children out of it and we'll all get along just fine :D

Which part?

The part about trying over and over again until you get it right. I don't think anyone has suggested that marriage should not be, if possible, a life-long committment.

Easy divorces? (you for one).

Please point to exactly where I supposedly suggested that divorce be easy?

All I have suggested is that, in some cases, divorce is the best option, and should be available.

I don't think I ever said it would or should be easy. For instance, except in the cases of clear abuse, I would argue that mandatory marriage counseling be attempted before a divorce is granted.

What I don't say is, "No matter what happens, no matter what is going on, stay with your spouse! If you don't, your children will never succeed!!!!!"

Mwahahaha That one cracked me up, LOL :p :D
Yeah, your concept of logic is about the only thing that's funny about you.

You see everyone! That's someone I can support! More freedom for you, you do what you like ~ leave the children out of it and we'll all get along just fine :D
Please, if anyone here shouldn't reproduce, it's you. This world doesn't need any more hate-filled bigots about.

I don't think I ever said it would or should be easy. For instance, except in the cases of clear abuse, I would argue that mandatory marriage counseling be attempted before a divorce is granted.

I wouldn't go with that. I don't see any reason to lock people into a relationship that isn't working.

My, we are off the deep end, aren't we?

Beyond utterly jettisoning the concepts of rights and individuality, your proposal suggests that forcing people to marry people chosen through negotiations between families would somehow create happy marriages, good parents, or reduce any of the problems you have talked about?

Wouldn't these families doing the picking be the same ones you are currently blaming for all of societies problems?

Stellar logic. :eek:

Having a problem with irony/sarcasm today are we?

Hmmmm

It's easy to damn ideas and not offer solutions.

Here is one:

Why not teach men to be more involved with their daughters lives?

I decided early to get involved with my daughters life as I had a theory I would play a major role in her life. Duh I know but I saw things with girls whose fathers wanted sons or were never around. Even now I noticed the difference between kids whose dad is involved and who is not. The later tended to have an "oh hi" when dad appeared.

I also though that if I got involved and played all the time that would help her viewpoint on things. Especially herself. Many a comment is the fact she is a confident kid. Almost overly confident in fact.

Sometimes it's draining as teaparties can take an hour or two. :p

Hmmm someday I will learn if my approaches work. Especially after I deal with puberty. :eek:


I'm all for that... More power to ya, you and me both. That's the kind of community and family spirit we need more of around here (here being the USA)

I wouldn't go with that. I don't see any reason to lock people into a relationship that isn't working.

It doesn't lock them in. It makes sure that they don't give up too soon. There is a difference.

Two people who went through counseling, but found that their marriage was irreparable would get a divorce.

Two people who went through counseling, and in the process found that the issues destroying their marriage could be satisfactorily dealt with would not.

It doesn't lock them in. It makes sure that they don't give up too soon. There is a difference.

Two people who went through counseling, but found that their marriage was irreparable would get a divorce.

Two people who went through counseling, and in the process found that the issues destroying their marriage could be satisfactorily dealt with would not.

But while the counseling goes on, the crappy home life remains. It may or may not improve during the course of it.

I think this is really one of those personal perspectives and priorities things.

Greenlander seems to be ignoring me. Have I asked too many awkward questions?

I'm sorry, but did you mean his is an idiot or he is lacking a sense of humour? Or perhaps its both. Just want some clarification :)

I think it means I think everyone's an idiot and it caused me to lose my sense of humor :confused:

:D

Under no circumstances do you or I or anybody else here or the government have a right to dictate to someone else how they should act based on their gender, or dictate to them what their sex life should be like, or tell them how to raise their children, or tell children that they are subhuman or of no value to society if they don't agree with your insane conservative fascism.

The family has a hand in shaping someone's values and beliefs, but it isn't possible, except by braiwashing, to ensure that a child will grow up to think exactly like their parents, unless the parents brainwash them with family values.

Governments, whether federal, state, or county, have no right to ban abortion, gay marriage, or kids disagreeing with their parents. Parents don't always know best, and neither do you. In fact, conservatives very, very, rarely know best. A person's values, morals, and beliefs are ultimately determined by their own perception of what they are taught.

Even if they are forcibly indoctrinated, like the citizens of Nazi Germany, this is still true, only they have been taught what their perception should be.

Well, I hate to break it to you, I'm not the one trying to 'change' the foundation for the sake of needing a new paint job. You're the one in the need of a burden of proof I think. The Laws, including the Marriage Act, currently agree with me. I'm advocating it be turned into an Amendment because it is being attacked via the courts and the movement that will have their way at all costs... including same-sex polygamy and anything else in the name of 'tolerance of life-style-choices,' regardless of the children's best interests.

Of course, perhaps, with one good new judge, and one more for longevity later, I might not have anything to worry about :D

One good judge must mean to you, a judge that ignores that we are required not to discriminate against people on the basis of their sex. The law of the land currently agrees with us, unless you can show how denying marriage to same-sex couples isn't discrimination on the basis of sex.

But while the counseling goes on, the crappy home life remains. It may or may not improve during the course of it.

And, if it doesn't improve, then a divorce ensues.

We aren't talking about years of counseling here.

Too many people enter into marriage with the idea that, if everything isn't perfect, they can just get a divorce - no problem. Marriage requires effort, and this is something that single people, married people, and even divorce people need to know.

I think this is really one of those personal perspectives and priorities things.

Yes, it prioritizes putting an effort into something, rather than taking the easy way out.

I think it means I think everyone's an idiot and it caused me to lose my sense of humor :confused:

:D
Swing and a miss.

It doesn't lock them in. It makes sure that they don't give up too soon. There is a difference.

Two people who went through counseling, but found that their marriage was irreparable would get a divorce.

Two people who went through counseling, and in the process found that the issues destroying their marriage could be satisfactorily dealt with would not.


Now that I see it here, this thread is moving fast, getting around to all of it eventually... I'll advocate for what you've said here too. But Jacoba(spelling ?) was talking about 3 and 4 marriages etc., at the same time you were talking about divorces being good etc., I took it that you were for no-fault divorces as well.

Yes, it prioritizes putting an effort into something, rather than taking the easy way out.

Personal perspectives again.

It means that when your relationship collapses rather than hang around and get hurt some more you move on. There is more than one way of dealing with things, and don't think extracting yourself from a long term relationship and getting on with life is easy.

Greenlander seems to be ignoring me. Have I asked too many awkward questions?


*Pats your head* ... I'm not intentionally ignoring you, what question did I miss? :)

It means that when your relationship collapses rather than hang around and get hurt some more you move on.

This is something I have advocated.

There is more than one way of dealing with things, and don't think extracting yourself from a long term relationship and getting on with life is easy.

Of course it isn't easy. However, some look at it as being easy, because they haven't ever had a long-term relationship - they haven't actually made an attempt. That is more and more common these days.

*snipped the stuff about Greenlander wanting to brainwash everyone into thinking like Nazi's*

*puts on black boots and starts practicing my goose-stepping*

:D :p :D

*Pats your head* ... I'm not intentionally ignoring you, what question did I miss? :)

Oh that's okay then, I feel loved again now. :D

Post #325 I think


I keep reading mention of sex fests and adult situations (actually that may have been another thread on the same issue).

Green, what is it you actually think us queers do? You seem to believe in the stereotype that we're all promiscuous, effeminate, substance-abusing hairdressers.

Now that I see it here, this thread is moving fast, getting around to all of it eventually... I'll advocate for what you've said here too. But Jacoba(spelling ?) was talking about 3 and 4 marriages etc., at the same time you were talking about divorces being good etc., I took it that you were for no-fault divorces as well.

Jocabia was talking about 3 and 4 marriages, perhaps.

Did he say "Everyone should have 3 or 4 marriages?" I don't remember seeing that.

Of course it isn't easy. However, some look at it as being easy, because they haven't ever had a long-term relationship - they haven't actually made an attempt. That is more and more common these days.

It's never easy, and I'm not denying that there is a time and a place for things like marriage counselling, but a large proportion of divorce comes down to the fact that people just don't love each other any more. No amount of counselling can fix it, you just have to move on.

Ditto for abusive relationships, affairs (often, not always), abandonment. All that kind of thing.

One good judge must mean to you, a judge that ignores that we are required not to discriminate against people on the basis of their sex. The law of the land currently agrees with us, unless you can show how denying marriage to same-sex couples isn't discrimination on the basis of sex.


Exactly right I'm sure. :rolleyes: Provided that means constitutional interpretation only and not "pulling things out of clear air" and letting people legislate the changes they want the way it was meant to be done, through congress and elected officials.

Now that I see it here, this thread is moving fast, getting around to all of it eventually... I'll advocate for what you've said here too. But Jacoba(spelling ?) was talking about 3 and 4 marriages etc., at the same time you were talking about divorces being good etc., I took it that you were for no-fault divorces as well.

Dude, you need to learn to read better. Can you please quote where I said anything at all about three and four marriages? In fact the only multiple marriage I mentioned was that each of my parents were divorced before meeting. Or are you just making things up again?

It's never easy, and I'm not denying that there is a time and a place for things like marriage counselling, but a large proportion of divorce comes down to the fact that people just don't love each other any more. No amount of counselling can fix it, you just have to move on.

And those marriages would still end in divorce.

However, those that are rocky, not because the two don't love each other anymore, but because they don't know how to deal with the inevitable conflicts, might not.

The problem is the fact that many people think that, if you are in love, there will never be problems. Thus, if there are problems, they assume the love is gone and head straight for the lawyers, instead of actually examining the situation. This is what I think should be prevented.

Ditto for abusive relationships, affairs (often, not always), abandonment. All that kind of thing.

Abusive relationships and abandonment have nothing to do with this discussion. As I said, those types of things would not be held to mandatory counseling.

As for affairs, they can be the result of a completely failed marriage, or of a marriage with problems. People can get through affairs and still end up in a healthy marriage for decades after.

Out of curiosity - what time is it there? It's nearly midnight here.

Exactly right I'm sure. :rolleyes: Provided that means constitutional interpretation only and not "pulling things out of clear air" and letting people legislate the changes they want the way it was meant to be done, through congress and elected officials.

Look it up. There are laws currently in place that bar discrimination on the basis of sex. Unless you can show that those laws are unconstitutional then the Supreme court must adhere to those laws. You are asking them not to adhere to those laws. What part of that do you not get? The congress and elected officials already passed the legislation that supports what we are asking for. You are the one advocating "pulling things out of thin air". But I'll give you a chance. Where does the law or the Constitution say that men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women? And if a woman can marry a man and a man cannot how is this not discrimination on the basis of sex? We're patient. Whenever you're ready to support your spurious claims.

Oh that's okay then, I feel loved again now. :D

Post #325 I think

What do I think Queers are like? I think homosexual men make up less than one fifth of one percent of the families with children full time.

The only homosexual men I feel the need to address here (in this thread) are the gay-men that have decided to leave their wives and children (they inevitably leave the children with their mothers), and decided to be free and stop denying themselves their gay liberties etc., etc., etc.,...

My personal opinion of homosexuality overall is moot. My topic is family and family law and with that, marriage laws.

And those marriages would still end in divorce.

However, those that are rocky, not because the two don't love each other anymore, but because they don't know how to deal with the inevitable conflicts, might not.

The problem is the fact that many people think that, if you are in love, there will never be problems. Thus, if there are problems, they assume the love is gone and head straight for the lawyers, instead of actually examining the situation. This is what I think should be prevented.

Well, kids notwithstanding, I think that if people who do love each other get divorced because they can't find a better way of resolving their issues then it's their loss.

Abusive relationships and abandonment have nothing to do with this discussion. As I said, those types of things would not be held to mandatory counseling.

As for affairs, they can be the result of a completely failed marriage, or of a marriage with problems. People can get through affairs and still end up in a healthy marriage for decades after.

They're still reasons for divorce.

And I did say that affairs are often but not always a catalyst for the irretrievable breakdown of a relationship. Again, personal perspective thing.

I'm a polygamyst, so my partner is free to sleep with who he likes if he wants to. But if he does it behind my back thats a serious issue for me, and I don't know if I could continue in the relationship if he did.

Dude, you need to learn to read better. Can you please quote where I said anything at all about three and four marriages? In fact the only multiple marriage I mentioned was that each of my parents were divorced before meeting. Or are you just making things up again?

My most humble apologies. Someone was talking about a Mom being married 3 or 4 times and a Dad being a triple time loser etc., etc..

I apologize for that error, of placing your name there, without any restraint or withholding. :)

Out of curiosity - what time is it there? It's nearly midnight here.

6:41 east coast - 5:41 Central, 4:41 mountain, 3:41 pacific...

What do I think Queers are like? I think homosexual men make up less than one fifth of one percent of the families with children full time.

The only homosexual men I feel the need to address here (in this thread) are the gay-men that have decided to leave their wives and children (they inevitably leave the children with their mothers), and decided to be free and stop denying themselves their gay liberties etc., etc., etc.,...

One of my gay male friends who has kids was left with the kids by his ex-wife. It's not always the other way round.

As for gay liberties, the rest of us want them too. Surely your defence of marriage and calls for a marriage amendment apply to everyone, not just gay men who were previously in heterosexual marriages.

My personal opinion of homosexuality overall is moot. My topic is family and family law and with that, marriage laws.

Humour me.

I'm not asking in a "Ah-ha you think this you must be a bigot" way. I am actually interested.

I suspect that a large element in opposition to gay marriage is the publicity aspect. Gay marriage will make same-sex couple more visible. People fear that because all they know is the stereotype.

Look it up. There are laws currently in place that bar discrimination on the basis of sex. Unless you can show that those laws are unconstitutional then the Supreme court must adhere to those laws. You are asking them not to adhere to those laws. What part of that do you not get? The congress and elected officials already passed the legislation that supports what we are asking for. You are the one advocating "pulling things out of thin air". But I'll give you a chance. Where does the law or the Constitution say that men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women? And if a woman can marry a man and a man cannot how is this not discrimination on the basis of sex? We're patient. Whenever you're ready to support your spurious claims.


Where does the constitution say that the Marriage Act signed by Clinton is unconstituitional?

6:41 east coast - 5:41 Central, 4:41 mountain, 3:41 pacific...

Well, it's getting close to my bedtime.

Well, I hate to break it to you, I'm not the one trying to 'change' the foundation for the sake of needing a new paint job. You're the one in the need of a burden of proof I think. The Laws, including the Marriage Act, currently agree with me. I'm advocating it be turned into an Amendment because it is being attacked via the courts and the movement that will have their way at all costs... including same-sex polygamy and anything else in the name of 'tolerance of life-style-choices,' regardless of the children's best interests.

Of course, perhaps, with one good new judge, and one more for longevity later, I might not have anything to worry about :D

Um, as I've pointed out, the only area where your rant defends the status quo is same-sex marriage. And you keep complaining that isn't what your rant is about. :rolleyes:

As to divorce and other areas, you clearly are shaking your fist at the status quo -- you just won't admit it or explain with precision what you advocate.

Moreover, buckaroo, the "law" includes the Constitution and state constitutions -- with those pesky little provisions about equal protection that you find so offensive.

Where does the constitution say that the Marriage Act signed by Clinton is unconstituitional?

Nowhere unless someone passed a precognitive amendment?

Now this thread is about the possible degeneration of marriage should it be changed to a man/man or woman/woman correct? Now I'm not sure how many states have legalized gay marriage (I know Mass is one, not sure if any others have though) so it's safe to say as of now gays can't/haven't been causing problems such as leaving husband to go with another person/lots of bad things. Now what I don't get is why you want to protect marriage from what is already happening??? I mean married couples break up/divorce/abuse/shitty child rearing/cheating/ect already and gay marriage is the straw that breaks the camels back?? I just don't get that.

Now this thread is about the possible degeneration of marriage should it be changed to a man/man or woman/woman correct? Now I'm not sure how many states have legalized gay marriage (I know Mass is one, not sure if any others have though) so it's safe to say as of now gays can't/haven't been causing problems such as leaving husband to go with another person/lots of bad things. Now what I don't get is why you want to protect marriage from what is already happening??? I mean married couples break up/divorce/abuse/shitty child rearing/cheating/ect already and gay marriage is the straw that breaks the camels back?? I just don't get that.

It's fear of the unknown hun.

Humour me.

I'm not asking in a "Ah-ha you think this you must be a bigot" way. I am actually interested.

I suspect that a large element in opposition to gay marriage is the publicity aspect. Gay marriage will make same-sex couple more visible. People fear that because all they know is the stereotype.

I understand your concern, but I think it is misplaced here.

Although I doubt very much that they could possibly be more 'open' than they already are, I don't see how them getting 'SSM' would make them be more open anyway. But I DO think that allowing SSM's will immediately lead to Polygamy and other continuous erosions of the protections and benefits that the family that raises children need in our society.

It's fear of the unknown hun.

I just don't really see what gay couples would/could do that hasn't already been done....

I understand your concern, but I think it is misplaced here.

Although I doubt very much that they could possibly be more 'open' than they already are, I don't see how them getting 'SSM' would make them be more open anyway. But I DO think that allowing SSM's will immediately lead to Polygamy and other continuous erosions of the protections and benefits that the family that raises children need in our society.

The Polygamy arguement is a slippery slope which is actually useless as an arguement. If slippery slopes were true, then we could do nothing because of the potential future possibilities.

Further, how exactly does extending "protections and benefits" to another group threaten to erode them from people who already have them? Doesn't saying its okay to deny them to a group threaten the principles of freedom and equality and threaten to erode them more?

I just don't really see what gay couples would/could do that hasn't already been done....
But, gay! AHHH!!! THE CHILDREN HAVE BEEN EXPOSED!!! :p

I understand your concern, but I think it is misplaced here.

Although I doubt very much that they could possibly be more 'open' than they already are, I don't see how them getting 'SSM' would make them be more open anyway. But I DO think that allowing SSM's will immediately lead to Polygamy and other continuous erosions of the protections and benefits that the family that raises children need in our society.

Well, except for opening up requirements on the gender of those involved, same-sex marriage will be identical to heterosexual marriage. So I don't see how in itself it will lead to polygamy except in the informal way that it already exists.

Why do you think that?

I just don't really see what gay couples would/could do that hasn't already been done....

The fact that my visitation rights at the hospital would be guarantueed if my partner got hit by a bus would be nice. But in practise I already have that.

Er...Married Persons Tax Credit?

Where does the constitution say that the Marriage Act signed by Clinton is unconstituitional?

Three places.

The 14th Amendment:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Emphasis mine.

The 19th Amendment:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."


Article 4 of the Constitution - The Full Faith and Credit Clause:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

Now this thread is about the possible degeneration of marriage should it be changed to a man/man or woman/woman correct? Now I'm not sure how many states have legalized gay marriage (I know Mass is one, not sure if any others have though) so it's safe to say as of now gays can't/haven't been causing problems such as leaving husband to go with another person/lots of bad things. Now what I don't get is why you want to protect marriage from what is already happening??? I mean married couples break up/divorce/abuse/shitty child rearing/cheating/ect already and gay marriage is the straw that breaks the camels back?? I just don't get that.

I'm against the whole social movement that says we need to not just tolerate it in individuals, but that we must accept it as socially responsible options... Whereas, it is not, is was wrong, it is wrong, it will still be wrong if it is legal.

The onslaught against the family needs to be stopped, and then we can get back to fixing what is wrong with it (abusive and neglegent parents etc.,) but we are to distracted with these other issues that aren't helping at all...

I'll refer back to what John Paul said; "It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man."

I'll refer back to what John Paul said; "It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man."

JPII, to whom it's not difficult to attribute thousands of deaths?

I'm against the whole social movement that says we need to not just tolerate it in individuals, but that we must accept it as socially responsible options... Whereas, it is not, is was wrong, it is wrong, it will still be wrong if it is legal.

The onslaught against the family needs to be stopped, and then we can get back to fixing what is wrong with it (abusive and neglegent parents etc.,) but we are to distracted with these other issues that aren't helping at all...

I'll refer back to what John Paul said; "It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man."

I have yet to see you explain just how gay marriage offers an "onslaught against the family." What harm does creating new families do to the already pitiful state of many current straight ones?

[snip]

Ooh, Greenlander... you got constitution served! ;)

Where does the constitution say that the Marriage Act signed by Clinton is unconstituitional?

LOL.

First, you appear to misunderstand what the Marriage Act of 1996 does. It doesn't do what you think.

Second, it violates at least the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses and Article IV, IMAO.

Three places.

The 14th Amendment:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Emphasis mine.

The 19th Amendment:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."


Article 4 of the Constitution - The Full Faith and Credit Clause:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

Emphasis yours, what equal protections are harmed? Civil options and equal protections are two entirely different things...

Where does it say we get to marry whomever we want? Where does it say we get to marry anyone at all? We can't marry our siblings either...

Emphasis yours, what equal protections are harmed? Civil options and equal protections are two entirely different things...

Where does it say we get to marry whomever we want? Where does it say we get to marry anyone at all? We can't marry our siblings either...

Poor, dear, sweat Greenlander, are you that clueless or are you just being difficult to avoid yielding the point? The equal protection clause that says that if SOME people get protection under the law (and marriage offers couples many legal protections) then ALL people have to get equal protection under that law.

<addition>
The exception is, of course, if it can be shown to pose a serious risk to society to grant protection. Such would be the case of incestuous marriages (which by the way are not legal in all states and the degree of relation varies state to state) which have been shown to greatly increase the incidence of recessive genetic disorders in offspring. Of course new evidence suggests slightly otherwise, but I don't really except you to be able to look past your own prejudices and critically consider the implications of that. No, I expect another knee-jerk reaction from you.

LOL.

First, you appear to misunderstand what the Marriage Act of 1996 does. It doesn't do what you think.

Second, it violates at least the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses and Article IV, IMAO.


And I'm sure there's not a single lawyer in all of Washington that is or is not in congress, nor none of the lawyers that advised Clinton, nor none on the supreme court that would disagree with you :rolleyes:

I understand your concern, but I think it is misplaced here.

Although I doubt very much that they could possibly be more 'open' than they already are, I don't see how them getting 'SSM' would make them be more open anyway. But I DO think that allowing SSM's will immediately lead to Polygamy and other continuous erosions of the protections and benefits that the family that raises children need in our society.

So your entire argument is a slippery slope (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ss.php) fallacy? Nice.

I bet if you tried hard even you could come up with a legitimate distinction between not denying people the fundamental right to marriage on the basis of gender and allowing polygamy.

Emphasis yours, what equal protections are harmed? Civil options and equal protections are two entirely different things...

Where does it say we get to marry whomever we want? Where does it say we get to marry anyone at all? We can't marry our siblings either...
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Emphasis yours, what equal protections are harmed? Civil options and equal protections are two entirely different things...

Where does it say we get to marry whomever we want? Where does it say we get to marry anyone at all? We can't marry our siblings either...

This is going to dig me into a hole, but...

In principal I have no problem with people marrying their siblings. In practise, and at this time, there is a perfectly good reason not to allow it.

The risk of genetic and biological defects in children born from incestuous couples is too high, and we don't have the technology to repair that damage. Yet.

Where does the constitution say that the Marriage Act signed by Clinton is unconstituitional?

Article 4: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

In case you missed that any civil proceeding in one state must be honored by another. DOMA violates this.

Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

It also denies the fact that marriage is not mentioned in the constitution which means passing laws regarding it violates the tenth amendment as marriage is a right reserved to the state or the people.

Amendment 14: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In other words, all people have equal rights. This means if a woman may marry a man, so may a man. You cannot give someone special treatment based on gender. Some have argued that women can marry the opposite sex and so can men. Unfortunately, this argument has already been struck down when zealots used to argue that black people and white people could not intermarry - blacks have the same rights as whites, they can marry within their race. Seperate but equal is not equal according the Brown v. the Board of education.

Your turn to show how what you are proposing doesn't violate the constitution.

What part of the constitution denies the right for homosexuals to marry? The same section that denies the right for people to marry outside their race?

Poor, dear, sweat Greenlander, are you that clueless or are you just being difficult to avoid yielding the point? The equal protection clause that says that if SOME people get protection under the law (and marriage offers couples many legal protections) then ALL people have to get equal protection under that law.

<addition>
The exception is, of course, if it can be shown to pose a serious risk to society to grant protection. Such would be the case of incestuous marriages (which by the way are not legal in all states and the degree of relation varies state to state) which have been shown to greatly increase the incidence of recessive genetic disorders in offspring. Of course new evidence suggests slightly otherwise, but I don't really except you to be able to look past your own prejudices and critically consider the implications of that. No, I expect another knee-jerk reaction from you.

"Because procreation is necessary to perpetuate humankind, encouraging the optimal union for procreation is a legitimate government interest. Encouraging the optimal union for rearing children by both biological parents is also a legitimate purpose of government," Judge Taylor wrote in his June 16 ruling in a case filed by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer of Orange County, Calif.

And I'm sure there's not a single lawyer in all of Washington that is or is not in congress, nor none of the lawyers that advised Clinton, nor none on the supreme court that would disagree with you :rolleyes:

Yeah, that is what I said -- you aren't debating a strawman at all there. " :rolleyes: " right back at you, my friend.

I happen to know there are lawyers in Washington, in Congress, that advised Clinton, and sit on various courts that agree with me. I am rather sure at least some members of the Supreme Court do as well.

But now you wish to falsely argue from authority that because a law passed and/or has not yet been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court it must be constitutional?

Out of interest, can an amendment be declared unconstitutional if it goes against the spirit of the constitution as it was before that amendment was passed?

"Because procreation is necessary to perpetuate humankind, encouraging the optimal union for procreation is a legitimate government interest. Encouraging the optimal union for rearing children by both biological parents is also a legitimate purpose of government," Judge Taylor wrote in his June 16 ruling in a case filed by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer of Orange County, Calif.

I will admit when the argument moves out of the realm of that which I can adequately address and will instead leave this point to The Cat-Tribe or one of the others who feels they are up to the task.

"Because procreation is necessary to perpetuate humankind, encouraging the optimal union for procreation is a legitimate government interest. Encouraging the optimal union for rearing children by both biological parents is also a legitimate purpose of government," Judge Taylor wrote in his June 16 ruling in a case filed by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer of Orange County, Calif.

Um, citation? Link?

So your entire argument is a slippery slope (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ss.php) fallacy? Nice.

I bet if you tried hard even you could come up with a legitimate distinction between not denying people the fundamental right to marriage on the basis of gender and allowing polygamy.

Nope. You can't go there. No slippery slop involved. Your beloved ACLU has already admitted that Polygamy rights are next on the horizon... Try reading your own side's propaganda from time to time, you're falling behind.

Out of interest, can an amendment be declared unconstitutional if it goes against the spirit of the constitution as it was before that amendment was passed?
I'm pretty sure constitutional ammendments can't be unconstitutional. I don't then the Supreme Court has a say in Constitutional Ammendments. That's why it takes a 2/3rds majority (or is it 3/4ths?) vote.

Nope. You can't go there. No slippery slop involved. Your beloved ACLU has already admitted that Polygamy rights are next on the horizon... Try reading your own side's propaganda from time to time, you're falling behind.

There are no sides, we're not a movement.

Nope. You can't go there. No slippery slop involved. Your beloved ACLU has already admitted that Polygamy rights are next on the horizon... Try reading your own side's propaganda from time to time, you're falling behind.
And pray tell, what connection do same sex marriages have to supporting polygamy there? Just because the ACLU support both doesn't mean there's some intrinsic connection between the two.

"Because procreation is necessary to perpetuate humankind, encouraging the optimal union for procreation is a legitimate government interest. Encouraging the optimal union for rearing children by both biological parents is also a legitimate purpose of government," Judge Taylor wrote in his June 16 ruling in a case filed by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer of Orange County, Calif.
http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop
I don't think we have to worry about populating the world anymore. We've done a good job.

Emphasis yours, what equal protections are harmed? Civil options and equal protections are two entirely different things...

Civil options?

A marriage license is a government-sanctioned contract. If it is offered at all, it must be offered equally.

Much like a driver's license, we can't deny someone the protections and priviledges involved because of creed, color, race, or gender (under which the courts have held sexual orientation falls).

Where does it say we get to marry whomever we want? Where does it say we get to marry anyone at all? We can't marry our siblings either...

We can't marry our siblings because there has been evidence presented that provides a compelling interest to deny such marriages. This is similar, although not exactly the same, as denying a blind person a driver's license. From a completely objective point of view, a blind person driving would be dangerous.

As for getting married at all, the courts have held that marriage falls under the rights protected by the Constitution. I believe Cat-Tribe can explain it better.

And we can't marry whomever we want - I haven't suggested that. We can marry a willing person capable of consent.

"Because procreation is necessary to perpetuate humankind, encouraging the optimal union for procreation is a legitimate government interest. Encouraging the optimal union for rearing children by both biological parents is also a legitimate purpose of government," Judge Taylor wrote in his June 16 ruling in a case filed by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer of Orange County, Calif.

So how is denying same-sex marriages doing what this one judge wrote? Gay men are not going to marry straight women and have happy marriages with children no matter how illegal you make being gay. In fact, it can easily be shown that by ostracizing gays and lesbians you encourage them to enter into bad marriages and have children that are then victimized by their inherent unhappiness of being who they are not. It's been going on for centuries in the US. You have not once shown how allowing same-sex marriage violates the sanctity of heterosexual unions unless you claim that even a reasonable portion of heterosexuals would 'go gay' if the law just protected that choice.

Um, citation? Link?

hmmmm, Yeah, okay ... Since when is naming the judge, the case location, names of who filed and the date is not sufficient reference?

I'm pretty sure constitutional ammendments can't be unconstitutional. I don't then the Supreme Court has a say in Constitutional Ammendments. That's why it takes a 2/3rds majority (or is it 3/4ths?) vote.

And I thought UK law was complicated.

a blind person driving would be dangerous
Where's your evidence? Government studies? or more biased assumptions? [/sarcasm]

Out of interest, can an amendment be declared unconstitutional if it goes against the spirit of the constitution as it was before that amendment was passed?

No, an amendment that contradicts anything earlier overrides whatever it contradicts.

And the courts would have nothing to do with it (unless there was some procedural problem with how the amendment was passed). The ability to amend the Constitution is one of the checks on the court.

Emphasis yours, what equal protections are harmed? Civil options and equal protections are two entirely different things...

Where does it say we get to marry whomever we want? Where does it say we get to marry anyone at all? We can't marry our siblings either...

1. You ignored Article IV.

2. You ignore the Due Process Clause. Marriage is a fundamental right.

3. You deny the status of marriage and its attendant rights, privileges, and benefits on the basis of gender. Such invidious discrimination denies equal protection.

BTW, not even the most strict constuctionist of the current Justices of the Supreme Court -- or have ever been on the Supreme Court -- read the words as literally and lifelessly as you do. In your rush to deny equal protection to gays, you would deny the existence of fundamental rights guaranteed to all of us for at least a century.

No, an amendment that contradicts anything earlier overrides whatever it contradicts.
Generally, the override is written into the ammendent. The best example of the is the 21st ammendment.

Out of interest, can an amendment be declared unconstitutional if it goes against the spirit of the constitution as it was before that amendment was passed?

Article Six: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding

Most argue that this means the constitution cannot contradict itself. For example, it can't have an amendment that guarantees equal rights and denies slavery and then say that it is okay to enslave asians or something without repealing the amendments that it violates.

Much like a driver's license, we can't deny someone the protections and priviledges involved because of creed, color, race, or gender (under which the courts have held sexual orientation falls).


According to this way of thinking ~ We have age discrimination, health discrimination, we force deaf people to get special training, we don't allow blind people to do it at all....

Actually though, Civil rights and regulating civil priviledges in the communities interest, are two different things.

Article Six: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding
The second instance of "Constitution" in Article Six refers to State Constitutions, not the US Constitution.

Article Six: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding

Most argue that this means the constitution cannot contradict itself. For example, it can't have an amendment that guarantees equal rights and denies slavery and then say that it is okay to enslave asians or something without repealing the amendments that it violates.

So the only protection against a bad amendment is if a later government decides it was a bad amendment and passes another law to repeal it?

According to this way of thinking ~ We have age discrimination, health discrimination, we force deaf people to get special training, we don't allow blind people to do it at all....

Actually though, Civil rights and regulating civil priviledges in the communities interest, are two different things.

Which is the same arguement made here time and again, you know, the one you've chosen to ignore.

What you havne't shown us is how denying equality to gays is in the community's interests. What threat does gay marriage pose to society?

So the only protection against a bad amendment is if a later government decides it was a bad amendment and passes another law to repeal it?

That's what happened during prohibition.

I thought this thread had been beaten to a bloody pulp weeks ago. But, alas, it wasn't. So here we go, I'm back with the same message about the statistics about family Greenlander will inevitably post again on this thread:

All of the statistics that indicate that single parents or families without a stable male/female model do not indict same-sex marriage in any way. Why? Because the gender roles the survey indicate are good for bringing up families are not tied to biology. One's sex (meaning their genitals and other physiological differences) is the biological difference between men and women. Gender, however, is a socially constructed concept. Both men and women can play the role incorrectly mapped onto the other sex. There are millions of examples of successful families where the mother works and the father is the one with the traditional women's stay-at-home role. Since that's true, there's no reason that one of the partners in a same-sex relationship can't take on of those gendered positions.

Further, this way of viewing gender is inordinately dangerous. When we tie gender to sex, we create a certain norm of acceptable sexual and gendered behavior. "This is the right way to be, and this other way is a crime against society." When that becomes the rule, but these alternate lifestyles pop up, society reacts immediately to repress them. We see the endpoint of this logic in modern-day Saudi Arabia - homosexuals are beheaded publically for violating societal standards of decency. If we persist in viewing homosexuality as something to be repressed, that's what we're going to have in the United States. I, for one, won't stand for it.

Edit: I did notice that the more recent debate was about the legal standpoint. But there are enough other people writing about that so I don't have to get into it.

According to this way of thinking ~ We have age discrimination, health discrimination, we force deaf people to get special training, we don't allow blind people to do it at all....

Actually though, Civil rights and regulating civil priviledges in the communities interest, are two different things.
Actually, everyone has to pass the same vision test before they are allowed to drive. Whether you're last visit to the optometrist said you were 20/10 or completely blind, everyone has to take the same vision test. If a blind person managed to pass the vision test, then he/she would be allowed to the test for his/her learner's permit and could practice his/her driving until he/she was ready to take the field test. Then he/she would have to pass the same field test as everyone else.

So the only protection against a bad amendment is if a later government decides it was a bad amendment and passes another law to repeal it?
See ammendments 18 and 21.

hmmmm, Yeah, okay ... Since when is naming the judge, the case location, names of who filed and the date is not sufficient reference?

1. You didn't actually supply all of that. What year? What court? What parties?

2. There are standard ways of citing cases -- you see me use them all the time. (I also almost always provide links). To actually look up the case, you didn't provide the necessary information. Introduction to Basic Legal Citation (http://www.law.cornell.edu/citation/)

3. As you obviously haven't read the actual decision but merely copied this from the web, you could at least link the source.

Which is the same arguement made here time and again, you know, the one you've chosen to ignore.

What you havne't shown us is how denying equality to gays is in the community's interests. What threat does gay marriage pose to society?


You've got to be kidding... I'm not retyping the entire thread.

You've got to be kidding... I'm not retyping the entire thread.

Just give me a succinct answre. I haven't seen one point where you actually said what threat gay marriage equality poses to society. I've seen lots of theories about raising children--which my more enlightened colleagues have already shown you to be wrong. But hell, let's throw kids out of the mix.

What threat does gay marriage (with the assumption they won't adopt or attempt to raise children) present to society?

You've got to be kidding... I'm not retyping the entire thread.
You can't summarize the married homosexuals' threat to society?

See ammendments 18 and 21.

I just read part of the US Constitution. Heavy stuff, but at least you've got it all in one place.

I've got a book of our constitutional law on my desk, it runs to 1200 pages and it's a summary. Ouch!

You can't summarize the married homosexuals' threat to society?

Well, people have been asking for the last four-hundred-and-something posts, and he hasn't yet. So I'm guessing no.

You can't summarize the married homosexuals' threat to society?

Well duh. That's because there isn't one. :p

Nope. You can't go there. No slippery slop involved. Your beloved ACLU has already admitted that Polygamy rights are next on the horizon... Try reading your own side's propaganda from time to time, you're falling behind.

1. You didn't answer the point posed. Are you saying that, if same-gender marriage is allowed, you cannot think of a single reason why polygamy should not be?

2. Please provide a quote and link to where the ACLU said it was going to fight for gay marriage and then use that precedent for polygamy rights. Or did you just lie? (That makes God cry when you do that.)

3. If you cannot answer #1, why shouldn't polygamy be allowed?

Well duh. That's because there isn't one. :p

I think we have alot to offer society.

I just read part of the US Constitution. Heavy stuff, but at least you've got it all in one place.

I've got a book of our constitutional law on my desk, it runs to 1200 pages and it's a summary. Ouch!
You're from the UK?

If so, then I'm not surprised by that. But consider this, at the beginning of your country's existence, it was feudalism...and your constitutional law (and all the documents from the beginning until now) all make up what it took to morph the UK from feudalism to a constitutional monarchy. The United States hasn't changed NEARLY as much...and the republic system seems to work very well, so I doubt we'll see much change in the future.

It would be neat to see the UK say everything said in all those historical documents in one single document of maybe 20 pages or less (US Constitution isn't even that long) and then from now foward just edit that document similar to what the US does with their ammendments.

I will say though, the one good thing coming out of US involvement in Iraq is that even if their government isn't 100% modeled after us, their bookkeeping will be very similar, and so in the distant future, that should still be very organized.

I think we have alot to offer society.

I think everyone has a lot to offer society, it's just that some chose not to see this.

You can't summarize the married homosexuals' threat to society?
I'd go further. He's clearly a bright young chappie, but watching him having to wriggle and twist his way out of doing so throughout this thread has simply further convinced me that his initial post was a load of unsubstantiated bollocks. (Just my opinion, as a happily married heterosexual with the statutory two children. ;) )

In so far as he seems intent on making this a battle between two sides, I am therefore all the happier I am not on his side. Nice work, Greenlander.

Just give me a succinct answre. I haven't seen one point where you actually said what threat gay marriage equality poses to society. I've seen lots of theories about raising children--which my more enlightened colleagues have already shown you to be wrong. But hell, let's throw kids out of the mix.

What threat does gay marriage (with the assumption they won't adopt or attempt to raise children) present to society?

Homosexual people don't need the benefits of marriage ~ If medical proxies aren't working, let's fix that problem. If people need health care, let's get them health care. If we need to address property rights, let’s do so. If power-of-attorney laws are not sufficient, we can address that.

But we don't rewrite marriage laws (and address the entirely different topic of family rearing) in order to satisfy a small fraction of adults who have personal needs and problems because they choose an alternative lifestyle.

But we don't rewrite marriage laws (and address the entirely different topic of family rearing) in order to satisfy a small fraction of adults who have personal needs and problems because they choose an alternative lifestyle.

We also don't rewrite property laws in order to satisfy a small fraction of African-Americans who have personal needs and problems because they choose an alternative skin color.

Homosexual people don't need the benefits of marriage ~ If medical proxies aren't working, let's fix that problem. If people need health care, let's get them health care. If we need to address property rights, let’s do so. If power-of-attorney laws are not sufficient, we can address that.

But we don't rewrite marriage laws (and address the entirely different topic of family rearing) in order to satisfy a small fraction of adults who have personal needs and problems because they choose an alternative lifestyle.

Not what I asked. I want to know what threat homosexual people pose to heterosexual marriage--that is the only reason to deny equality.

We also don't rewrite property laws in order to satisfy a small fraction of African-Americans who have personal needs and problems because they choose an alternative skin color.
:p

1. You didn't answer the point posed. Are you saying that, if same-gender marriage is allowed, you cannot think of a single reason why polygamy should not be?

2. Please provide a quote and link to where the ACLU said it was going to fight for gay marriage and then use that precedent for polygamy rights. Or did you just lie? (That makes God cry when you do that.)

3. If you cannot answer #1, why shouldn't polygamy be allowed?


OMGosh... LOL, :p :p :p

I don't even need to go looking for the Nevada ACLU quotes when your own line of questioning went right there all on it's own. :D :rolleyes:

What do I think Queers are like? I think homosexual men make up less than one fifth of one percent of the families with children full time.

The only homosexual men I feel the need to address here (in this thread) are the gay-men that have decided to leave their wives and children (they inevitably leave the children with their mothers), and decided to be free and stop denying themselves their gay liberties etc., etc., etc.,...

My personal opinion of homosexuality overall is moot. My topic is family and family law and with that, marriage laws.

ROTFLASTC

So, you are not against same-gender marriage, then?

The only thing you are proposing is that gay men who are married and have children leaving their families?

1. Pray tell how anything you have proposed addresses this "problem." Are you saying gay men who are married to women and have children should not be allowed to divorce? To separate? That they be forced under penalty of law to pretend they are Ozzie Nelson?

2. You haven't cited any evidence that there are a significant number of gay men who are married to women and have children.

3. You haven't shown that gay men who are married to women and have children "inevitably" leave their wife and children.

4. You haven't shown that a gay man who is married to a woman and has a child causes harm to anyone if has gay sex, seeks a separation, or seeks a divorce.

5. You haven't shown that prohibiting same-gender marriage is even remotely related to #2-#5.

You are swatting an imaginary fly with a thermonuclear warhead.

Not what I asked. I want to know what threat homosexual people pose to heterosexual marriage--that is the only reason to deny equality.

It's all about family rearing... the first post says enough.

We also don't rewrite property laws in order to satisfy a small fraction of African-Americans who have personal needs and problems because they choose an alternative skin color.
And on that note...

We also don't start Revolutions in order to satisfy a small fraction of adults who have personal needs and problems because they choose not to pay certain taxes.

We also don't grant sovereignty in order to satisfy a small fraction of adult women who have personal needs and problems because they choose to participate in their democratic government.

OMGosh... LOL, :p :p :p

I don't even need to go looking for the Nevada ACLU quotes when your own line of questioning went right there all on it's own. :D :rolleyes:

Um. No. I was addressing your apparent failure of imagination.

Nice try. :rolleyes:

Care to address the questions and provide these alleged quotes?

It's all about family rearing... the first post says enough.

You haven't shown how gays threaten family rearing. Further, if you wil read backa few posts, I said let's throw kids out of the gay equation for hte moment and just talk about civil marriage without being able to adopt. Where is the threat?

It's all about family rearing... the first post says enough.

So you're saying heterosexual couples who do all the bad stuff that homosexual couples have the chance to do are any better at family rearing give me a break. Honestly if we were going to be protecting marriage we need to protect it from humanity in general not one specific group.

And on that note...

We also don't start Revolutions in order to satisfy a small fraction of adults who have personal needs and problems because they choose not to pay certain taxes.

We also don't grant sovereignty in order to satisfy a small fraction of adult women who have personal needs and problems because they choose to participate in their democratic government.
Do I need to do this for more government decisions we haven't made, or does (s)he get the point?

*snip*You are swatting an imaginary fly with a thermonuclear warhead.

Then it should work eh? Dead flies all around I'm sure :D

So you're saying heterosexual couples who do all the bad stuff that homosexual couples have the chance to do are any better at family rearing give me a break. Honestly if we were going to be protecting marriage we need to protect it from humanity in general not one specific group.
Protect marriage. Ban divorce.

By the way, heterosexual parents don't raise homosexual children, right?

Protect marriage. Ban divorce.

By the way, heterosexual parents don't raise homosexual children, right?

No, no they don't. :rolleyes:

Then how do we have homosexual children in the first place?

It's probably something in the water. . . its all a communist conspiracy.

Please don't make me put [/sarcasm] tags on every post. Please.

Um. No. I was addressing your apparent failure of imagination.

Nice try. :rolleyes:

Care to address the questions and provide these alleged quotes?

My imagination is just fine, that's why the fact that you like to call everything a lie over and over again seems quite Iraqi Minister of Defense Like to me... :rolleyes:

Anyway:
During a question-and-answer session after a speech at Yale University, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy," reported AgapePress, noting that the comments cited by the Yale Daily News received little attention.




However. Off for today, back tomorrow. :D

Please don't make me put [/sarcasm] tags on every post. Please.

Thought you were Greenlander there. Saw that line, and he came right to mind.

My imagination is just fine, that's why the fact that you like to call everything a lie over and over again seems quite Iraqi Minister of Defense Like to me... :rolleyes:

Anyway:
During a question-and-answer session after a speech at Yale University, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy," reported AgapePress, noting that the comments cited by the Yale Daily News received little attention.


However. Off for today, back tomorrow. :D

1. You still didn't answer the questions.

2. That doesn't even remotely come close to saying what you alleged. Gee, I seem to remember a commandment against bearing false witness.

3. Once again, as you cut-and-pasted that from the internet, care to provide the source? Or are you afraid to because it is WorldNetDaily?


If and when you do return to this thread, would you please answer the questions raised in post #304 (i.e., what exactly are you arguing about)?

Homosexual people don't need the benefits of marriage ~ If medical proxies aren't working, let's fix that problem. If people need health care, let's get them health care. If we need to address property rights, let’s do so. If power-of-attorney laws are not sufficient, we can address that.

But we don't rewrite marriage laws (and address the entirely different topic of family rearing) in order to satisfy a small fraction of adults who have personal needs and problems because they choose an alternative lifestyle.

But you want to rewrite marriage law to mean something completely different than it was intended for. You want it to only apply to a small fraction of adults who are heterosexual people who want children and can have them. According to your rules you would want all first-born children to be bastards, since their parents couldn't get married till they had that child. I don't see why you just can't call it something else. How about civil unions?

small fraction of adults who are heterosexual people who want children and can have them

uhm... (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Asmall&btnG=Google+Search)

My imagination is just fine, that's why the fact that you like to call everything a lie over and over again seems quite Iraqi Minister of Defense Like to me... :rolleyes:

Anyway:
During a question-and-answer session after a speech at Yale University, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy," reported AgapePress, noting that the comments cited by the Yale Daily News received little attention.




However. Off for today, back tomorrow. :D
Seriously, how can you not be a troll?

You can't possibly think that was the question he asked. He didn't say the ACLU doesn't defend polygamy. He said where have they ever related the fight for same-sex marriage and the fight for polygamy. Where has it ever been suggested that same-sex marriage rights will affect the fight for polygamy rights. You very simply haven't even attempted to answer the question.

uhm... (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Asmall&btnG=Google+Search)


Percentage of households with their own children under 18 is 33%. This is including households that are unmarried. So basically only one in three households could even possibly have access to Greenlander's definition of 'marriage' is one in three.

OK, now another stat is 24% of married households have children (remember that this does not say married housholds where the parents of the children are still married). So now we are down to less 1 in 4 currently married couples might have access to Greenlander's new definition of 'marriage'.

Defense of family, my ass. And yes, making it so only less than one in four currently married couples will have access to 'marriages' under Greenlander's laws represents laws that only recognize a small percentage of people who would like to be married and form families.

Rather than Bigotry, I use a Shotgun in defense of MY family... :rolleyes: :D

That is because you are one BADASS MOTHA----ER.

Okay, Greenlander, let me make the question everyone keeps asking you a little simpler - how 'bout a concrete example?

Imagine, if you will, a pair of lesbian women. They love each other very much. They have been together for over a decade and show no signs of ceasing to adore each other. They have two children, the elder (a son) adopted as a toddler. His biological parents left him on a hospital doorstep when he was a few months old. The younger (a daughter) was produced with the help of a sperm donor. One of the two women is a successful lawyer, and the family is quite well-off financially. The other woman stayed home with the kids until they reached school age; her parents live a few blocks away and spend time with their grandchildren on a near-daily basis.

Tell me, please, how this family in any way undermines your ideals for child-raising. Tell me, please, how allowing these two women the same legal status as any heterosexual couple in any way harms any family in the world, their own included. Since you clearly feel strongly about this, that shouldn't be too hard of a question to answer, right?

LOL :D :p


I'll take that as a compliment. Kind of like chemotherapy makes you puke. It makes you better and fights the cancer, but you just gotta puke before you start to heal. :eek: :p
The only difference here is that cancer kills you and my "poor family values" actually made me happier than I ever was before.

I am glad my parents divorced each other. I am happy about the fact that I'm not pressured to provide offspring into this already overpopulated world. And I am proud that my morals do not prescribe me or anybody else on this planet how to live their lives. Please, if you want to get married and raise the perfect little family, do so, but don't tell that what I'm choosing to do with my life is destroying society.

Furthermore, where the hell did you get his crazy idea and how do you justify your opinion?

If and when you do return to this thread, would you please answer the questions raised in post #304 (i.e., what exactly are you arguing about)?

I already answered that. Defend the institution of marriage so that marriage laws and benefits can continue to address the issue involved with raising children.

To keep other civil contracts unrelated to the raising of families seperate. As I said before; Homosexual people don't need the benefits of marriage ~ If medical proxies aren't working, let's fix that problem. If people need health care, let's get them health care. If we need to address property rights, let’s do so. If power-of-attorney laws are not sufficient, we can address that.

But we don't rewrite marriage laws (and address the entirely different topic of family rearing) in order to satisfy a small fraction of adults who have personal needs and problems because they choose an alternative lifestyle.

If you want to look up ACLU quotes and links, go pull up that other thread for that specific, it isn't needed here.

I already answered that. Defend the institution of marriage so that marriage laws and benefits can continue to address the issue involved with raising children.

To keep other civil contracts unrelated to the raising of families seperate. As I said before; Homosexual people don't need the benefits of marriage ~ If medical proxies aren't working, let's fix that problem. If people need health care, let's get them health care. If we need to address property rights, let’s do so. If power-of-attorney laws are not sufficient, we can address that.

But we don't rewrite marriage laws (and address the entirely different topic of family rearing) in order to satisfy a small fraction of adults who have personal needs and problems because they choose an alternative lifestyle.

If you want to look up ACLU quotes and links, go pull up that other thread for that specific, it isn't needed here.

So if homosexual people don't need the benefits of marriage why do heterosexual ones? I'm sure they could do fine without them.

But you want to rewrite marriage law to mean something completely different than it was intended for. You want it to only apply to a small fraction of adults who are heterosexual people who want children and can have them. According to your rules you would want all first-born children to be bastards, since their parents couldn't get married till they had that child. I don't see why you just can't call it something else. How about civil unions?

You can pretend all you want, but marriage laws and marriage benefits were always about raising families. If you pick your spouse, if your family picks your spouse or if the local governing body assigns you a spouse, marriage was 'always' about raising families.

Just because not all families can/do/-or-did raise children in no way invalidates the fact that governmental recognition of marriage institution was purely self-interest on it's own part for the protection of families and encouragement and recognition of the fact that child rearing is a financial investment for the common good.

Seriously, how can you not be a troll?

You can't possibly think that was the question he asked. He didn't say the ACLU doesn't defend polygamy. He said where have they ever related the fight for same-sex marriage and the fight for polygamy. Where has it ever been suggested that same-sex marriage rights will affect the fight for polygamy rights. You very simply haven't even attempted to answer the question.


Because ANY change to the definition of marriage will distract and alter the motivations and reasons for creating benefits and sustaining government benefits for it, and the future benefits of marriage will not necessarily be for the good of creating and rearing children in society. If marriage does not mean creating and rearing children it will be deluted from it's purpose of promoting the creation of the next generation of citizens.

The entire concept of marriage laws at all would be disadvantageous to society IF children creation/raising is removed from the concept of it. How does it serve society to allow MORE people to use tax-breaks not intended for them via loop-holes in tax law (for example)? It is not.

From a governing point of view there should be no government recognition of marriage at all if it has nothing to do with institutionalizing and recognizing the mother's and fathers that are going to invest in the rearing of the next generation.

You can pretend all you want, but marriage laws and marriage benefits were always about raising families. If you pick your spouse, if your family picks your spouse or if the local governing body assigns you a spouse, marriage was 'always' about raising families.

Just because not all families can/do/-or-did raise children in no way invalidates the fact that governmental recognition of marriage institution was purely family self-interest in the protection and encouragement and recognition of the fact that child rearing is a financial investment for the common good.


Ok, so basically, what you're saying is only give marriage right and privileges to people willing and ready to raise children?

Just an example here, a heterosexual couple, one of the is infertile, they don't want to go through IV and they aren't ready to adopt a child either, should be forced to give up their tax privileges? Whereas a Lesbian couple, one of them having a child of her own and both looking to adopt, should be granted those rights?
In a way, I could live with that....

Ok, so basically, what you're saying is only give marriage right and privileges to people willing and ready to raise children?

Just an example here, a heterosexual couple, one of the is infertile, they don't want to go through IV and they aren't ready to adopt a child either, should be forced to give up their tax privileges? Whereas a Lesbian couple, one of them having a child of her own and both looking to adopt, should be granted those rights?
In a way, I could live with that....

Two mothers (for example) coming together after their husbands are killed in combat in the service of their country (just for example of how they ended up through no fault of their own to be single with children, and to make it really simple for everyone to be sympathetic :D ) can already come together to share resources and receive governmental help and benefits for raising children. Being lesbian or not is irrelevant. Being married to each other is unnecessary to receive and utilize head-of-household benefits.

Two people (young or old) who get married and then don’t produce children should not receive the tax breaks designated for the relief of child raising costs, yes, I agree.

Defense of family, my ass.


Defense of Family, entirely.

Two mothers (for example) coming together after their husbands are killed in combat in the service of their country (just for example of how they ended up through no fault of their own to be single with children, and to make it really simple for everyone to be sympathetic :D ) can already come together to share resources and receive governmental help and benefits for raising children. Being lesbian or not is irrelevant. Being married to each other is unnecessary to receive and utilize head-of-household benefits.

Two people (young or old) who get married and then don’t produce children should not receive the tax breaks designated for the relief of child raising costs, yes, I agree.

Well, it would matter should one of the mothers die or get seriously ill.... only one child can inherit anything, is entitled to make medical desicions, etc.
And if they are in love, why deny them the right to marry and make the whole legal part so much easier for them and their children?

I think what you are really calling for here is a re-definition of benefits and family law in order to apply it to families with children exclusively (homosexual or heterosexual). Marriage is an aspect that can coincide with family, but not necessarily.
I would agree on only granting certain benefits to families with children and to refuse them to married couples without kids.

Well, it would matter should one of the mothers die or get seriously ill.... only one child can inherit anything, is entitled to make medical desicions, etc.

Those are property rights, power-of-attorney and inheritance designees governed by wills and estate laws and civil contracts etc. A designation and responsibility traditionally assigned to a child’s recognized ‘god-parents,’ intended to be consulted in times of emergency if parents or guardians are missing or lost.. If they (god-parent designatations) are needed again, we can bring them back with legal rights.

And if they are in love, why deny them the right to marry and make the whole legal part so much easier for them and their children?

Let them go to their church and do it then, how does it benefit the government or society to recognize it with it’s own laws? The laws I mentioned above cover what they need. A public display of their commitment and love for each other does not require government recognition.

I think what you are really calling for here is a re-definition of benefits and family law in order to apply it to families with children exclusively (homosexual or heterosexual). Marriage is an aspect that can coincide with family, but not necessarily.
I would agree on only granting certain benefits to families with children and to refuse them to married couples without kid.

I’m not calling for a re-definition of family recognition in the law, I already have one, it’s called Marriage. I think the other side needs to leave it alone and address their problems directly instead of diluting and endangering the real benefits of marriage which are and were and should continue to be, about protecting, encouraging and relieving the burdens of creating and raising the next generation via the institution of family.

You can pretend all you want, but marriage laws and marriage benefits were always about raising families. If you pick your spouse, if your family picks your spouse or if the local governing body assigns you a spouse, marriage was 'always' about raising families.

I call bullshit.

Historically, marriage was always about property. The children were simply another part of the property - heirs to whatever their father had, or girls to marry into other families to get access to more property.

I call bullshit.

Historically, marriage was always about property. The children were simply another part of the property - heirs to whatever their father had, or girls to marry into other families to get access to more property.

I didn't say it was nice, but how is it not about raising children because they designated rights of property to it? We designate responsibility to it now as well.

I didn't say it was nice, but how is it not about raising children because they designated rights of property to it? We designate responsibility to it now as well.

Marriage laws in the past were about all property. Children were included, but were hardly the focus. The same is true in this country. The vast majority of laws surrounding marriage deal with property.

You have tried to state that they have always been the focus, which is untrue.

If you would like to say that you think it should be that way, that is your opinion, but don't make out like your opinion is actually something that has been held to historically.

You can pretend all you want, but marriage laws and marriage benefits were always about raising families. If you pick your spouse, if your family picks your spouse or if the local governing body assigns you a spouse, marriage was 'always' about raising families.

Just because not all families can/do/-or-did raise children in no way invalidates the fact that governmental recognition of marriage institution was purely self-interest on it's own part for the protection of families and encouragement and recognition of the fact that child rearing is a financial investment for the common good.

Link please? I've never seen a single marriage law that specifically or inspecifically mentioned children. Marriage is a legal acceptance of a union that does and should convey certain rights to each individual regarding the other individual. It recognizes that these two married adults have now become family and deserve to be treated as such. It has nothing to do with children. These same rights are conveyed to a man and a woman who have been living together for a set number of years as a couple regardless of whether they have children. Now, if marriage is all about children, why aren't children required for commonlaw marriage to occur? I can answer the question if you can't. Becuase even if this couple doesn't want to go through the actual ceremony of a marriage, the government recognizes the need to recognize the union for the purposes of conveying rights and protecting each individual in the union. Again, nothing to do with children.

Because ANY change to the definition of marriage will distract and alter the motivations and reasons for creating benefits and sustaining government benefits for it, and the future benefits of marriage will not necessarily be for the good of creating and rearing children in society. If marriage does not mean creating and rearing children it will be deluted from it's purpose of promoting the creation of the next generation of citizens.

But you are proposing a change to the law! Why are you pretending you're not. The law right now does not require that marriages contain children, but you have specifically said that this should be a requirement. So you are either ignorant of current law or lying. Care to explain which it is. Because if it's neither, then you are proposing that if what you want to occur does, in fact, occur that it will "distract and alter the motivations and reasons for creating benefits and sustaining government benefits for it". Can you show me any law that defines marriage as creating and rearing children? I have been asking this for several page and you've not-so-masterfully avoided it.

The entire concept of marriage laws at all would be disadvantageous to society IF children creation/raising is removed from the concept of it. How does it serve society to allow MORE people to use tax-breaks not intended for them via loop-holes in tax law (for example)? It is not.

Again, lies. The tax-breaks and other benefits have nothing to do with children. There are tax-breaks specifically designed for children and dependents. Perhaps you've heard of them? They are used when you put dependents on your tax form. And you've heard of the child tax credit, yes? How does making things up help your case?

From a governing point of view there should be no government recognition of marriage at all if it has nothing to do with institutionalizing and recognizing the mother's and fathers that are going to invest in the rearing of the next generation.

And here we go redefining marriage, which YOU said would be a detriment to society. Do you understand the word hypocrite?

NOTE: And you still haven't answered Cat's question. In fact, your NEW definition of marriage would do more to promote polygamy than what we are proposing regarding same-sex marriage. You've tried very hard to equate same-sex marriage and polygamy, but the point we are making is that laws cannot discriminate on the basis of sex. What does the basis of sex have to do with polygamy? You are the only one here treading on that 'slippery slope'. Because polygamy increases the likelihood of children, using your new definition of marriage one could easily argue that polygamy must be made legal. I'm sure the polygamists will be very pleased to know people like you are out there fighting for their cause. Keep up the GOOD fight.

Two mothers (for example) coming together after their husbands are killed in combat in the service of their country (just for example of how they ended up through no fault of their own to be single with children, and to make it really simple for everyone to be sympathetic :D ) can already come together to share resources and receive governmental help and benefits for raising children. Being lesbian or not is irrelevant. Being married to each other is unnecessary to receive and utilize head-of-household benefits.

Two people (young or old) who get married and then don’t produce children should not receive the tax breaks designated for the relief of child raising costs, yes, I agree.

You don't get the point. We have continually shown the vast number of rights that are conveyed by marriage. Some of them protect the children and some of the protect the individuals in the couple and some of them protect the couple itself. You are denying this couple those rights because they are not a man and a woman. They cannot ALREADY come together and get the benefits and recognized rights of marriage that are necessary to maintain the sanctity of being a couple and coming together to form a family. No, family does not require children. My grandmother and grandfather were married before WWII. If the government had not recognized them as a family prior to the beginning of the war, they would suffered many more hardships than they did. Marriage rights are specifically designed to prevent those hardships.

Marriage laws in the past were about all property. Children were included, but were hardly the focus. The same is true in this country. The vast majority of laws surrounding marriage deal with property.

You have tried to state that they have always been the focus, which is untrue.

If you would like to say that you think it should be that way, that is your opinion, but don't make out like your opinion is actually something that has been held to historically.

You seem to be expressing a distorted view of historical marriage law simply because they assigned it as property. (You didn’t say which but I’ll assume you mean Roman law?)

But even then, Marriage laws are different than slavery laws, for example, or other property laws. A child produced from marriage was a citizen and inheritor of the parents position, a child produced from a slave stayed a slave (for example).

The entire reason that Marriage is and was about raising children even then is what made it a valuable tool for making treaties and whatnot. If you find it offensive how they did it that’s one thing, but it doesn’t change the fact that ‘marriage’ was about raising and having children…

You can pretend all you want, but marriage laws and marriage benefits were always about raising families. If you pick your spouse, if your family picks your spouse or if the local governing body assigns you a spouse, marriage was 'always' about raising families.

Was and Were. Not Is and Are.

Methinks you're living in the past.

Whatever it may have been historically, marriage now is about love and other related good stuff. And once you get into that territory, you really do not have a leg to stand on.

Two people (young or old) who get married and then don’t produce children should not receive the tax breaks designated for the relief of child raising costs, yes, I agree.

By the same logic two people who do raise children should get all those benefits. So all I have to do is have a child and I'm entitled to effectively marry my partner. Great!

You seem to be expressing a distorted view of historical marriage law simply because they assigned it as property. (You didn’t say which but I’ll assume you mean Roman law?)

But even then, Marriage laws are different than slavery laws, for example, or other property laws. A child produced from marriage was a citizen and inheritor of the parents position, a child produced from a slave stayed a slave (for example).

The entire reason that Marriage is and was about raising children even then is what made it a valuable tool for making treaties and whatnot. If you find it offensive how they did it that’s one thing, but it doesn’t change the fact that ‘marriage’ was about raising and having children…

Can you show historically how marriage was about children? Can you show how in the history of THIS country there was any link to marriage being about raising children? We ask. You don't answer. We ask. You don't answer. Is this because it can't be done?

You seem to be expressing a distorted view of historical marriage law simply because they assigned it as property.

So, if marriage was all about property in the law, and I made the statement, "Marriage law was all about property," that is a distortion?

But even then, Marriage laws are different than slavery laws, for example, or other property laws. A child produced from marriage was a citizen and inheritor of the parents position, a child produced from a slave stayed a slave (for example).

What does this have to do with your assertion that the primary purpose of marriage laws has always been children?

The entire reason that Marriage is and was about raising children even then is what made it a valuable tool for making treaties and whatnot.

That was one thing - and was the reason that marriage was used to determine heirs. However, marriage itself was about combining the property of two families. You were to marry to better your own station - and gain more property for yourself. Children were a part of that, but far from a complete focus.

Can you show historically how marriage was about children? Can you show how in the history of THIS country there was any link to marriage being about raising children? We ask. You don't answer. We ask. You don't answer. Is this because it can't be done?

You don't agree with me, that's fine, but I have answered the questions, over and over again, you just don't like my answers.

A link? A link to what? A link that shows what society invented the concept of marriage for? A link to show 'why' the society (s) that created America had the institution of Marriage pre-existing? What link, a link to the history of Social Studies and Anthropology? I see no need to prove what is self-evident.

I've made my position abundantly clear, I think. Same-sex couples do not need marriage. They don't even need separate but equal, they need something entirely different. If they need anything they need something addressing property rights, power-of-attorney and inheritance designees governed by wills and estate laws and civil contracts etc.

If they need or want to legally join their separate estates, then address those laws and concerns where they are.

*snip*
(Culture dependant) Property laws and inheritence laws do not, by default, go with marriage laws. The queen of England (for example) could get married and remain Queen and the new husband did not get to demand himself King.

Marriage (as far as government recognition of it anyway) is about producing heirs. Still is.

(Culture dependant) Property laws and inheritence laws do not, by default, go with marriage laws. The queen of England (for example) could get married and remain Queen and the new husband did not get to demand himself King.

Historically he did. It's only since the mid nineteenth century that the husband of the queen has been the prince consort, and that's because when Queen Victoria married a german prince, making him king would probably not have gone down well.

You don't agree with me, that's fine, but I have answered the questions, over and over again, you just don't like my answers.

Can you quote where you've answered the questions, because we must have all missed it?

A link? A link to what? A link that shows what society invented the concept of marriage for? A link to show 'why' the society (s) that created America had the institution of Marriage pre-existing? What link, a link to the history of Social Studies and Anthropology? I see no need to prove what is self-evident.

Self-evident? Self-evident is when you can ask everyone the a question and get the same answer. "Why don't you put your hand in a fire? Because it'll burn you." But your "self-evident" position isn't held by the majority of societies or the majority of any of those societies including this one. It's not supported by law in almost any country in the world. It's not self-evident to any of the sociologists or anthropologists I've ever met. You're avoiding supporting a position that CANNOT be supported by claiming it is self-evident. Weak. Try this. Go around and ask fifty people what the purpose of marriage is. I guarantee that 99% of them won't even mention children. Read any book that talks about marriage and if it mentions children it is only because they are a part of some story. You know, as everyone does, that a marriage is meant to be a union of two people in love. Until recently nobody would think to define it as a man and a women (though, admittedly, that was generally assumed). Tell you what. Let's find out. I'll start a thread right now asking people to define marriage. Let's see what we get.

I've made my position abundantly clear, I think. Same-sex couples do not need marriage. They don't even need separate but equal, they need something entirely different. If they need anything they need something addressing property rights, power-of-attorney and inheritance designees governed by wills and estate laws and civil contracts etc.

You have made your position clear. That you don't know what marriage actually is or the rights it confers. You have made it clear that you don't understand current tax law, marriage law, civil law, next-of-kin rights, property rights, inheretence law, history, anthropology, sociology or the basics of forming a thesis and supporting it.

If they need or want to legally join their separate estates, then address those laws and concerns where they are.

They are. All of those rights are easily confered by granting them marriage, the union of two people in love, as it is currently and always has been defined. There is no need for several hundred laws to be passed when just recognizing the current law will do. The only person here arguing to change the current law of the land is you.

Marriage (as far as government recognition of it anyway) is about producing heirs. Still is.

Still waiting for you to show anything that supports this position.

Historically and legally speaking, since when does "love" have anything to do with marriage laws?

Now which one of us is trying to re-write history? It seems that you are trying to re-write the memory of it as fast as you can.

Historically and legally speaking, since when does "love" have anything to do with marriage laws?

Now which one of us is trying to re-write history? It seems that you are trying to re-write the memory of it as fast as you can.

I wasn't talking about the law. You are suggesting that your definition of marriage is self-evident. If that's true PEOPLE should all agree with you, like we all agree that fire is hot (it's self-evident). I'm saying what is self-evident to me is that marriage is the union of two people in love.

Interesting. No mention of children in the thread defining marriage yet. Strange for something so 'self-evident'.

Historically and legally speaking, since when does "love" have anything to do with marriage laws?

Now which one of us is trying to re-write history? It seems that you are trying to re-write the memory of it as fast as you can.

Pay attention dear.

Whatever it may have been historically,

I'm not trying to rewrite history, otherwise I wouldn't have said that would I? What I'm saying is that history doesn't matter that much in this debate, because we don't live in history. We live in now.

marriage now is about love and other related good stuff.

Because now marriage is an ideal. Notice that there is no longer a single model of what constitutes marriage around the world. That's because different cultures pursue slightly different ideals of marriage, and different countries are moving towards those ideals at different rates.

Core to those ideals, at least in the west, is the idea that you love someone and want to commit to them for life so you marry them. Or do you not think that love is a signifigant factor in marriage?

And once you get into that territory, you really do not have a leg to stand on.

Hence your wild attack.

Do not dare accuse me of rewriting history. I'm sure there is a better knowlege of world history, science and philosophy in my little finger than there is in your whole being. All three have cropped up in this thread, and so far you have managed to betray your total lack of understanding of each. I have a belief in freedom of everything, another notion which you, my evangelical chum, betray as you warp the few shreds of evidence you can lay your hands on to fit your personal prejudice.

Edit: Aplogies to anyone you thinks that was rude. I'm having a bad day. The point is still valid.

I wasn't talking about the law. You are suggesting that your definition of marriage is self-evident. If that's true PEOPLE should all agree with you, like we all agree that fire is hot (it's self-evident). I'm saying what is self-evident to me is that marriage is the union of two people in love.

Strange but true.

Interesting. No mention of children in the thread defining marriage yet. Strange for something so 'self-evident'.

:rolleyes:

The Roman wife (for example), needed to have children to increase her status in society; on epitaphs they would list the number of children she had. Even more respected was the wife who looked after her children personally, as did Athenodora whose relatives inscribed this for her.

"She bore children and nursed them when they were infants. Earth took this young mother and keeps her, though the children need her milk."

Later, women in the Augustan age had an added incentive to bear children. Once a woman had three offspring, she was released from all guardianship and was free to conduct business by herself. For a slave woman the quota was four children. There were incentives for men to have larger families as well, such as the decree by Augustus that priority would be given, not to the consul who was older, but to the one with most children.

How about YOU prove that marriage was ever anything that didn’t involve a man and a woman?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9208102#post9208102

Feel free to add your definition of marriage to the thread. I think it will go a long way to establish what is, in fact, self-evident.

How about YOU prove that marriage was ever anything that didn’t involve a man and a woman?

Ever includes now, and it isn't any more.

:rolleyes:

The Roman wife (for example), needed to have children to increase her status in society; on epitaphs they would list the number of children she had. Even more respected was the wife who looked after her children personally, as did Athenodora whose relatives inscribed this for her.

"She bore children and nursed them when they were infants. Earth took this young mother and keeps her, though the children need her milk."

Later, women in the Augustan age had an added incentive to bear children. Once a woman had three offspring, she was released from all guardianship and was free to conduct business by herself. For a slave woman the quota was four children. There were incentives for men to have larger families as well, such as the decree by Augustus that priority would be given, not to the consul who was older, but to the one with most children.

How about YOU prove that marriage was ever anything that didn’t involve a man and a woman?

You've managed to show that society incentivizes children. When did anyone argue that this wasn't true? Child tax credit anyone? You have yet to show this was the sole, main or express purpose of marriage.

I didn't suggest that historically marriage was every anything that didn't involve a man and a woman. Unfortunately for the biggots out there, our constitution forbids descrimination on the basis of race, creed, sex, etc. I'm not claiming civil rights has a historical basis. In fact, I think it doesn't. You are the one making the historical argument about what marriage is "supposed to be". You have yet to actually present a defense for you claim. Nice try at dodging the point.

I've claimed what marriage IS and it's been requested that I show this to be based on what it HAS always been. Thus, the post above.


I've also said that what you want to do to it (change the definition of marriage) serves no purpose. It is wrong and harmful by disjoining marriage laws from the protection family in society. That's the topic of the thread now isn't it?

I've also said that what you want to do to it (change the definition of marriage) serves no purpose. It is wrong and harmful by disjoining marriage laws from the protection family in society.

But it does serve a purpose. It means that my partner will be my husband. Give me a good reason why that's bad.

:rolleyes:

The Roman wife (for example), needed to have children to increase her status in society; on epitaphs they would list the number of children she had. Even more respected was the wife who looked after her children personally, as did Athenodora whose relatives inscribed this for her.

"She bore children and nursed them when they were infants. Earth took this young mother and keeps her, though the children need her milk."

Later, women in the Augustan age had an added incentive to bear children. Once a woman had three offspring, she was released from all guardianship and was free to conduct business by herself. For a slave woman the quota was four children. There were incentives for men to have larger families as well, such as the decree by Augustus that priority would be given, not to the consul who was older, but to the one with most children.


How does having incentives for large families equate to "Marriage is only about children"?

I've claimed what marriage IS and it's been requested that I show this to be based on what it HAS always been. Thus, the post above.


I've also said that what you want to do to it (change the definition of marriage) serves no purpose. It is wrong and harmful by disjoining marriage laws from the protection family in society. That's the topic of the thread now isn't it?

See, but you say we are changing the definition. But so are you. You claim that your definition is the historical definition, so show that you are correct. As of yet, you have shown no historical link between children and marriage.