Maine, Be HONEST with Gays

[ThinkingMan]

So all "inner city style" people are irresponsible?

No - but inner cities are a wreck due to irresponsibility and other social ills, supported by Democrats for 40 years.

[toreyj01]

No state has the right, nor the fed, nor any church to re-define marriage. Marriage is what it is, which has been defined by the biological fact of our reproduction and how stablizing this unit and institutionalizing it benefits society.

You yourself are a product of these facts. Why you have such a problem dealing with these facts is a result of your failed reasoning and trying to project some emotionalized sense of "equality" and "social justice" on the situation, one failing to recognized the truths.

It's not about "feelings" nor "justice" nor "rights" and never will be.

You are tap dancing.

The Episcopalians openly marry gays, even in states where it is not legally sanctioned. Many smaller denominations do as well.

Do they have the right to do that if it is not legal in that state?

Yes or no, please.

[ThinkingMan]

Does your impending spouse know this?

Impending?

Yes she does, and she also realizes it is a disgrace - when deviant aggrieved minority groups push to redefine (deconstruct, actually) something that we hold sacred to fit their deviant lifestyle.

[Trip]

If marriage were simply defined by the biological aspects, there would be no need or merit for the government's intrusion into the practice. Now I know, the literally 1000+ federal benefits provided to married couples just pop up and aren't in any way subsidized, but the government's sanction of marriage on infertile couples contradicts the tenants you claim it's founded on, which makes government marriage itself just as much of a degradation of the term as allowing homosexuals the privilege to one another. People that really cared for the preservation of the sanctity or natural context would be marching on DC and tearing up their county-issued marriage certificates.

Government hasn't "intruded into the practice". That is a falsehood undermined by the facts.

The benefits provided married couples have come about because of marriage being a value to society.

Your false interpretation that marriage is somehow an obligation to reproduce is nowhere indicated by my argument. The fact is that everyone in society is the product of a hetersexual union, even yourself, and without any obligation to reproduce. The value of marriage to society is not just the reproduction but the stable unit marriage provides society in promoting healthy citizens. Stabilizing this unit is why society has given marriage benefits.

Your introducing government as a party somehow responsible for denigrating marriage when what you cite has been supporting its stability is a red herring and nowhere supported by the facts.

[Trip]

You are tap dancing.

The Episcopalians openly marry gays, even in states where it is not legally sanctioned. Many smaller denominations do as well.

Do they have the right to do that if it is not legal in that state?

Yes or no, please.

I'm not tap dancing. You think Episcopalians are somehow immune to false ideology and being led astray by social engineering? Of course not.


I've already stated that no church has any right to re-define marriage any more so than do any state or federal government. What part of that don't you get?

You still imagine you're going to come up with some hypothetical or real singular case, or even cluster of cases, that will somehow undermine what marriage is and has been over centuries? Phat chance.


You're an ideolog "must... somehow.... justify ... gay... marriage.... social justice.. depends ... on it"

[ThinkingMan]

Yes, we are attempting to redefine a concept of marriage that has almost existed for less than seventy years. Gasp!

If the inner city would hold true to some simple values instead of cranking out non-wedlock babies, maybe they wouldn't be such a disaster to society.

[toreyj01]

I'm not tap dancing. You think Episcopalians are somehow immune to false ideology and being led astray by social engineering? Of course not.


I've already stated that no church has any right to re-define marriage any more so than do any state or federal government. What part of that don't you get?

You still imagine you're going to come up with some hypothetical or real singular case, or even cluster of cases, that will somehow undermine what marriage is and has been over centuries? Phat chance.


You're an ideolog "must... somehow.... justify ... gay... marriage.... social justice.. depends ... on it"
Not at all what I am saying, thanks for playing though.

I just now have you on record saying that the state and/or the federal government has the right to tell churches which ceremonies they perform and who is allowed to receive them.

Because that is what you are saying.

Right?

[Mobulis]

Impending?

Yes she does, and she also realizes it is a disgrace - when deviant aggrieved minority groups push to redefine (deconstruct, actually) something that we hold sacred to fit their deviant lifestyle.

Your marriage is only diminished if YOU think it is and not from some outside source.

[ThinkingMan]

Your marriage is only diminished if YOU think it is and not from some outside source.

Not true.

Things aren't sacred and meaningful just because you want them to be.

Otherwise, anything sacred could be all things to all people.

[toreyj01]

Not true.

Things aren't sacred and meaningful just because you want them to be.

Otherwise, anything sacred could be all things to all people.Yeah, we wouldn't want everyone to experience sacred things, part of what makes it special is that some people cannot ever experience it.

It rare, just like Beanie Babies!

[Mobulis]

Not true.

Things aren't sacred and meaningful just because you want them to be.

Otherwise, anything sacred could be all things to all people.

Then what source outside of society makes marriage sacred and meaningful?

[Trip]

Not at all what I am saying, thanks for playing though.

I just now have you on record saying that the state and/or the federal government has the right to tell churches which ceremonies they perform and who is allowed to receive them.

Because that is what you are saying.

Right?

Let me quote myself directly

"I've already stated that no church has any right to re-define marriage any more so than do any state or federal government. What part of that don't you get?"

No church has any right to re-define marriage and make it be whatever it wants.
No state has any right to re-define marriage
The federal government has no right to re-define marriage.

I never said the state or fed have any right to tell the church what marriage is, but they do have the right to indicate what marriage is not, if based on the standing definition of marriage (that's sort of what DOMA did).

[ThinkingMan]

Then what source outside of society makes marriage sacred and meaningful?

What gives tradition its meaning?

What makes any sacred institution meaningful?

[toreyj01]

Let me quote myself directly

"I've already stated that no church has any right to re-define marriage any more so than do any state or federal government. What part of that don't you get?"

No church has any right to re-define marriage and make it be whatever it wants.
No state has any right to re-define marriage
The federal government has no right to re-define marriage.

I never said the state or fed have any right to tell the church what marriage is, but they do have the right to indicate what marriage is not, if based on the standing definition of marriage (that's sort of what DOMA did).Cool so you do not believe in the separation of church and state.

Gotcha.

[ThinkingMan]

Yeah, we wouldn't want everyone to experience sacred things, part of what makes it special is that some people cannot ever experience it.

It rare, just like Beanie Babies!

Everyone is permitted to experience sacred things.

Being rare has nothing to do with it being sacred.

Where in the world were you going with this?

[Trip]

Your marriage is only diminished if YOU think it is and not from some outside source.

False.

Marriage does not exist in isolation. Marriage is an institution of society and integral to that society. If society has denigrated and diminished marriage, then each marriage is less.

[Mobulis]

What gives tradition its meaning?

What makes any sacred institution meaningful?

Thats what im asking you.

[ThinkingMan]

Cool so you do not believe in the separation of church and state.

Gotcha.

That's quite a leap you made there.

That's not what he said at all.

[ThinkingMan]

Thats what im asking you.

And I'm answering you in the form of another, more obvious question. Or two.

[toreyj01]

That's quite a leap you made there.

That's not what he said at all.

Thats exactly what he said. He said the church has no right enacting a holy sacrament if it is against the legal definition of who is entitled to have it.

And the legal definition cannot be changed.

Thus the government has the right to tell the church who they are allowed to perform a sacrament on. Thus there is no separation of church and state, because the state dictates the actions of the church.

He said it, I did not. I don't agree with him, if you haven't caught that.

[toreyj01]

If the inner city would hold true to some simple values instead of cranking out non-wedlock babies, maybe they wouldn't be such a disaster to society.

We are really treading a slippery slope here.

Cranking out babies?

Stereotype much?

[toreyj01]

Everyone is permitted to experience sacred things.

Being rare has nothing to do with it being sacred.

Where in the world were you going with this?

Since marriage is sacred, that means you have no problems with Gays being married in churches then, correct?

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

If the inner city would hold true to some simple values instead of cranking out non-wedlock babies, maybe they wouldn't be such a disaster to society.

This is a great talking point, but three-quaters of Americans live in urban/suburban areas. So you're basically indicting most of the country's population. One side of the urban/rural divide is disappearing, and it's not city folks.

[Trip]

Thats exactly what he said. He said the church has no right enacting a holy sacrament if it is against the legal definition of who is entitled to have it.

And the legal definition cannot be changed.

Thus the government has the right to tell the church who they are allowed to perform a sacrament on. Thus there is no separation of church and state, because the state dictates the actions of the church.

He said it, I did not. I don't agree with him, if you haven't caught that.

You create **** out of thin air. It's really annoying and dishonest.

I didnt say holy sacrament nor that the church cannot "enact it".

Nor was I anywhere referring to any "LEGAL" definition of marriage. In fact everything I indicated was OUTSIDE the law and determined by society and practice itself. If it were a "legal definition" then the same legal authority could change it. But it's not any legal definition as no one has any authority over marriage and has no inherent right to change it; marriage pre-exists every referenced authority.

No church gains any sort of authority to change the definition of marriage just by calling it "sacrament".

[Bluesgtr44]

Since marriage is sacred, that means you have no problems with Gays being married in churches then, correct?

In their own churches? No.......I know you get it, you just don't like it! Too bad!

[toreyj01]

You create **** out of thin air. It's really annoying and dishonest.

I didnt say holy sacrament nor that the church cannot "enact it".

Nor was I anywhere referring to any "LEGAL" definition of marriage. In fact everything I indicated was OUTSIDE the law and determined by society and practice itself. If it were a "legal definition" then the same legal authority could change it. But it's not any legal definition as no one has any authority over marriage and has no inherent right to change it; marriage pre-exists every referenced authority.

No church gains any sort of authority to change the definition of marriage just by calling it "sacrament".
Who enforces it if the churches go against the defintion?

[Trip]

Who enforces it if the churches go against the defintion?

Society a a whole does. we just don't recognize their marriages.

That's what DOMA does.

The "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) which was passed September 21, 1996, 13 years ago. DOMA was a recognition of what marriage has been long recognized to be, even before this country, and was not any sort of imposition of federal authority on states and individual rights. DOMA was done because people were influencing states Legislatures and Judiciaries to push forward an agenda the rest of the country would have to accept due to the "full faith and credit clause" of Article IV, Section 1.

All DOMA did was indicate that no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs recognize a relationship between persons of the same sex as equivalent to marriage. It didn't prohibit states from giving marriage to same sex partners. It didn't prohibit same sex partners from forming "civil unions".

It didn't not "enact any law" establishing or prohibiting religion.

[Bluesgtr44]

We are really treading a slippery slope here.

Cranking out babies?

Stereotype much?

Yep! Stereotying is no more a "bad" thing than discrimination is......it's how it is applied that can make it either bad or good. So, keeping this in mind......is denial of facts that point to a certain pattern in which one may be seeking a solution or resolution......."bad" stereotyping? Or is it really inconvenient stereotying?

[Bluesgtr44]

This is a great talking point, but three-quaters of Americans live in urban/suburban areas. So you're basically indicting most of the country's population. One side of the urban/rural divide is disappearing, and it's not city folks.

Maybe not in your neck of the woods....and I would think that there is a very good (liberal) reason for that......pandering can be rewarding politically.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Maybe not in your neck of the woods....and I would think that there is a very good (liberal) reason for that......pandering can be rewarding politically.

My "neck of the woods" is most of America.

[Bluesgtr44]

My "neck of the woods" is most of America.

And how's that pannin' out for ya.....I lived in nothern PA for a couple of years. They have been in a pile of crap for almost 20 yrs. now waiting for some govt. crap to bail them out. I still have relatives there and it's just not getting any better. Rural or not! Tommy, I disagree with you on the differences between the big cities and the outlying areas.....cities have become panderous bastions to the liberal elitists. Watched it happen with my own eyes. They are their own worst enemies by handing over their local control, not to the state....but right on up to the feds and all they do is use these people.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

And how's that pannin' out for ya.....I lived in nothern PA for a couple of years. They have been in a pile of crap for almost 20 yrs. now waiting for some govt. crap to bail them out. I still have relatives there and it's just not getting any better. Rural or not! Tommy, I disagree with you on the differences between the big cities and the outlying areas.....cities have become panderous bastions to the liberal elitists. Watched it happen with my own eyes. They are their own worst enemies by handing over their local control, not to the state....but right on up to the feds and all they do is use these people.

Yeah, it's economic Armageddon here in Pittsburgh, which is why we're the only big metro area in the country that didn't get crushed by the recession, we were named the most livable city in America by The Economist and just hosted the G-20.

[Bluesgtr44]

Yeah, it's economic Armageddon here in Pittsburgh, which is why we're the only big metro area in the country that didn't get crushed by the recession, we were named the most livable city in America by The Economist and just hosted the G-20.

I have a friend of mine who just moved back to Pitt. and he is checking into the housing deals he can get from the downturn in the economy. Says there are a lot of them out there......I'm not saying there aren't some good things, Tommy.....it's just not stacking up very well. He moved back just before the Super Bowl last year and that's all the E-mail I got from him for the next week. I did send him that 20 bucks..........damned Cardinals!

edit: BTW, I was up near Erie....too damn cold!

[toreyj01]

Society a a whole does. we just don't recognize their marriages.

That's what DOMA does.

The "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) which was passed September 21, 1996, 13 years ago. DOMA was a recognition of what marriage has been long recognized to be, even before this country, and was not any sort of imposition of federal authority on states and individual rights. DOMA was done because people were influencing states Legislatures and Judiciaries to push forward an agenda the rest of the country would have to accept due to the "full faith and credit clause" of Article IV, Section 1.

All DOMA did was indicate that no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs recognize a relationship between persons of the same sex as equivalent to marriage. It didn't prohibit states from giving marriage to same sex partners. It didn't prohibit same sex partners from forming "civil unions".

It didn't not "enact any law" establishing or prohibiting religion.So now you are saying that any church can marry any couple, its just that the state and feds will not recognize it, or society at large won't.

Is that accurate?

[akuma]

So now you are saying that any church can marry any couple, its just that the state and feds will not recognize it, or society at large won't.

Is that accurate?

he doesnt know what he is saying.... the spinning has made his arguments meaningless

[Guvnah]

The Episcopalians openly marry gays, even in states where it is not legally sanctioned. Many smaller denominations do as well.

Do they have the right to do that if it is not legal in that state?

Yes or no, please.

I tend to have a different view of this among my fellow conservatives.

I say that any two people can wed. Any church can to what it wants.

And it's perfectly legal in every state -- even those that do not legally sanction it. We truly do not have a question about whether or not gays have the right to marry. They most certainly do.

The legal question is only whether or not the state will recognize the union and grant it the benefits that state gives to marriages.

I understand what Trip is saying. Given a certain definition of marriage, one rooted in natural law, combinations of unions can call themselves marriage, but assertion does not change natural law. Government law does not change natural law. Church practices cannot change natural law.

People have a right to say whatever they want. Churches, governments, individuals, groups can call a dog a cat, but it will still be a dog. Natural law is not subject to the whims of mankind.

[Mobulis]

I tend to have a different view of this among my fellow conservatives.

I say that any two people can wed. Any church can to what it wants.

And it's perfectly legal in every state -- even those that do not legally sanction it. We truly do not have a question about whether or not gays have the right to marry. They most certainly do.

The legal question is only whether or not the state will recognize the union and grant it the benefits that state gives to marriages.

I understand what Trip is saying. Given a certain definition of marriage, one rooted in natural law, combinations of unions can call themselves marriage, but assertion does not change natural law. Government law does not change natural law. Church practices cannot change natural law.

People have a right to say whatever they want. Churches, governments, individuals, groups can call a dog a cat, but it will still be a dog. Natural law is not subject to the whims of mankind.


Marriage is not a natural law.

[akuma]

You create **** out of thin air. It's really annoying and dishonest.

I didnt say holy sacrament nor that the church cannot "enact it".

Nor was I anywhere referring to any "LEGAL" definition of marriage. In fact everything I indicated was OUTSIDE the law and determined by society and practice itself. If it were a "legal definition" then the same legal authority could change it. But it's not any legal definition as no one has any authority over marriage and has no inherent right to change it; marriage pre-exists every referenced authority.

No church gains any sort of authority to change the definition of marriage just by calling it "sacrament".

well what everyone here is talking about with gays getting married is the LEGAL definition - which by the way can be what we as a society want for it to mean - as the law isnt obligated to be in line with tradition or even one particular philosophical way of thinking.

and society changes the meaning of words and ideas all the time - societies that dont become old and eventually die by insisting on being inflexible or so tradition bound that they resist change.

thats idiocy to say there is not "authority" over marriage- there is - the authority is the law - you can claim all day that you are "married" and if you arent at a clerk or your person who "married" you isnt authorized by the law to do so - you arent "married".

oh and as i said and as Tommy said - marriage has changed mightily throughout the last few decades - let alone throughout human history - marriage as we practice it here in the US isnt and cant be the "backbone" of society since marriage as we practice it in the US ( indeed in much of western society ) has only been IN practice for 60 or 70 years.

something in practice for 60-70 years is NOT the whole of human existence... but if you are one of those people who dont believe there were dinosaurs and that the earth is only a few thousand years old - then maybe 60-70 years IS the whole of human existence.

[akuma]

I tend to have a different view of this among my fellow conservatives.

I say that any two people can wed. Any church can to what it wants.

And it's perfectly legal in every state -- even those that do not legally sanction it. We truly do not have a question about whether or not gays have the right to marry. They most certainly do.

The legal question is only whether or not the state will recognize the union and grant it the benefits that state gives to marriages.

I understand what Trip is saying. Given a certain definition of marriage, one rooted in natural law, combinations of unions can call themselves marriage, but assertion does not change natural law. Government law does not change natural law. Church practices cannot change natural law.

People have a right to say whatever they want. Churches, governments, individuals, groups can call a dog a cat, but it will still be a dog. Natural law is not subject to the whims of mankind.

marriage isnt a natural law - marriage is an artifice - its a creation - we made it up -

[Guvnah]

False.

Marriage does not exist in isolation. Marriage is an institution of society and integral to that society. If society has denigrated and diminished marriage, then each marriage is less.

That discussions like this try to suggest marriage is not a pillar institution of society shows how marriage is diminished.

Society MUST decide whether or not it sees something special in marriage, what that specialness is, and re-dedicate its support to that specialness.

As it stands now, marriage in this society is little more than a business contract that is subject to termination at the whim of either party.

[Guvnah]

marriage isnt a natural law - marriage is an artifice - its a creation - we made it up -


Thanks. You demonstrate my point in post 290.

[akuma]

Thanks. You demonstrate my point in post 290.

what that marriage isnt a natural law? where is it one? - where does marriage occur whether people want it to or not?

That discussions like this try to suggest marriage is not a pillar institution of society shows how marriage is diminished.

Society MUST decide whether or not it sees something special in marriage, what that specialness is, and re-dedicate its support to that specialness.

As it stands now, marriage in this society is little more than a business contract that is subject to termination at the whim of either party.

well society changes - boo hoo- yours is the lament all persons have had since there was a society


as far as the LAW is concerned -well that IS what it is, a contract - if you want to make marriage some special thing that has all sorts of powers and gee whiz bang abilities as if its a pink unicorn with special rays...knock yourself out.

dont bemoan that others arent afflicted with such an obsession- there are people who are crazed about stamp collecting -maybe the "marriage is superduper special and made only for a man and woman "-people should take their cue from them.

[Guvnah]

...knock yourself out.

...

That's the point of the current social battle.

The knife cuts both ways. Your side bemoans that my side doesn't see it your way.

Boo hoo to you too.

[akuma]

That's the point of the current social battle.

The knife cuts both ways. Your side bemoans that my side doesn't see it your way.

Boo hoo to you too.


no

i dont bemoan what you think - i could care less- my problem is the insistance by those who are like you that the LAW only allow for your point of view.

frankly i dont care who you marry - or what you eat or how big a car it is you drive or whether you have an abortion .

THATS the problem

[Trip]

well what everyone here is talking about with gays getting married is the LEGAL definition - which by the way can be what we as a society want for it to mean - as the law isnt obligated to be in line with tradition or even one particular philosophical way of thinking.

and society changes the meaning of words and ideas all the time - societies that dont become old and eventually die by insisting on being inflexible or so tradition bound that they resist change.

thats idiocy to say there is not "authority" over marriage- there is - the authority is the law - you can claim all day that you are "married" and if you arent at a clerk or your person who "married" you isnt authorized by the law to do so - you arent "married".

oh and as i said and as Tommy said - marriage has changed mightily throughout the last few decades - let alone throughout human history - marriage as we practice it here in the US isnt and cant be the "backbone" of society since marriage as we practice it in the US ( indeed in much of western society ) has only been IN practice for 60 or 70 years.

something in practice for 60-70 years is NOT the whole of human existence... but if you are one of those people who dont believe there were dinosaurs and that the earth is only a few thousand years old - then maybe 60-70 years IS the whole of human existence.


No, what everyone is talking about here is NOT any sort of "legal definition". For there to be any legal definition then a legal authority must have established that definition and even that institution. Nowhere can you point to either.

Even when DOMA indicates the definition it is not doing so with any authority to "establish a definition" but rather to recognize the existing definition. Marriage is not whatever persons want to make it. That is their contemporary philosophy projected on the issue and nowhere the fact of that issue. As my previous paragraph indications, no one has ever in the history of the country established any sort of legal definition and every recognition of marriage has involved the recognition of marriage and documentation of that marriage. Marriage no more involves multiple persons on this country than it involves two of the same sex.

Guvnah is correct to some extent that marriage is established in natural law and by the means we procreate and the resulting offspring are brought into adulthood. Marriage is the self-evident (natural) recognition of the means by which society is promoted and advanced. Marriage is so universal that it's existence comes about by natural course within widely varied societies from wanting to promote that society itself.

And Akuma, here is where your political philosophy stands as a barrier to your understanding. You say, "my problem is the insistance by those who are like you that the LAW only allow for your point of view." Many things in life are not about choice or merely individual happiness. In reality not all choices are equal nor should their recognition and results be made to be equal. Some things are not subject to individual whim. Not all choices are the same.

[Trip]

dont bemoan that others arent afflicted with such an obsession- there are people who are crazed about stamp collecting -maybe the "marriage is superduper special and made only for a man and woman "-people should take their cue from them.

If you were produced by any other means than hetersexual union, then your remonstrances might actually have some significance. But your arguments are thoroughly only you operating by your own idealization involving a fabricated projection of a false equality. The fact is equality does not exist.

As it is you're only bemoaning reality.

[mtdim]

No, what everyone is talking about here is NOT any sort of "legal definition". For there to be any legal definition then a legal authority must have established that definition and even that institution. Nowhere can you point to either.


Can you elaborate on this sentiment? If we're not talking about a legal definition, then what exactly are we talking about? Proponents of gay marriage don't bemoan the fact that individual people or churches won't recognize such marriages, they are bemoaning the fact that the government doesn't recognize such marriages. Whatever the so-called "natural" definition of marriage might be, there is no reason why the government must recognize only this "natural definition."

In fact, the whole discussion about the "definition of marriage" is a red herring. What matters is that two people of a different sex can register their relationship with the government and receive certain benefits, and the question is whether or not it is wrong to deny this same privilege to two people of the same sex. Whether we call this "marriage" or "civil union" or "banana sandwich" is not relevant.

[Guvnah]

i dont bemoan what you think


Of course you do.

Else you wouldn't keep repeating the same drivel to me in thread after thread, over how ever many years we've been participating on this board together.

But you do.

No question, the knife cuts both ways. I'm not ashamed to say that I care about what you think.



my problem is the insistance by those who are like you that the LAW only allow for your point of view.


Again, the knife cuts both ways.

In the end, either you view of the LAW is implemented, or mine.

But as far as you are concerned, it is not YOU who is insisting on anything. It is me.

And therein demonstrates why I have very little respect for your arguments here.

frankly i dont care who you marry - or what you eat or how big a car it is you drive or whether you have an abortion .


I'm sure you understand that I don't care who you marry (or anyone else) either.

I just care about what society supports and recognizes.

I have no idea why you smokescreened this with cars.

But you and I have gone at it over abortion (another smokescreen/rathole to this thread). I'm sure you care about someone killing your next door neighbor, or even if murder is permitted in some state all the way across the country from you. I certainly do. You and I differ only in our recognition of the human life that is at stake in abortion. You know I consider your position on that point intrinsically evil. And I know you care about my opinion on that else you wouldn't have raised it here out of the blue.

You care about what I think. I can tell just by the way I get under your skin when we exchange posts on certain issues. You care a lot. Assert the contrary all you want. Your responses to me betray your opinion.


THATS the problem

If you insist.

[Guvnah]

Proponents of gay marriage don't bemoan the fact that individual people or churches won't recognize such marriages, ...

Oh ********.

Of course they do, else we wouldn't be called homophobes for supporting laws that prevent such recognition.

[Guvnah]

In fact, the whole discussion about the "definition of marriage" is a red herring. What matters is that two people of a different sex can register their relationship with the government and receive certain benefits, and the question is whether or not it is wrong to deny this same privilege to two people of the same sex. Whether we call this "marriage" or "civil union" or "banana sandwich" is not relevant.

I'm for limiting government. Therefore keep the status quo on who gets those benefits (if not contract it even more!) "Marriage" is the framework under which those benefits are allocated, so it most certainly is crucial that "marriage" be defined (or, in the absence of a definition, as Trip points out, holding the line on the pool that is currently getting the benefits.)

For what it's worth, "two people of a different sex can register their relationship with the government" is NOT a true statement. Only those who actually enter into MARRIAGE (as recognized by the state) can register and get benefits. That further debunks your opening sentence.

[mtdim]

Oh ********.

Of course they do, else we wouldn't be called homophobes for supporting laws that prevent such recognition.

Really? I have a feeling that most gay couples don't care whether or not you specifically view their marriage as valid, but rather they get angry when, as you pointed out, you support laws that prevent the government from recognizing their marriage. So my point stands: government recognition of marriage is what's at issue here, not personal recognition.

I'm for limiting government. Therefore keep the status quo on who gets those benefits (if not contract it even more!)

Marriage could be denied in any number of arbitrary ways. Would you support any arbitrary restriction on who can marry simply because it means a more limited government? Do you think the government could just, for example, deny marriage licenses to people with curly hair? Or would there have to be a good reason to do so?

"Marriage" is the framework under which those benefits are allocated, so it most certainly is crucial that "marriage" be defined (or, in the absence of a definition, as Trip points out, holding the line on the pool that is currently getting the benefits.)

Yes, but my point is that "Marriage" is just an unimportant name for that framework. We could just as easily call it "banana sandwich" and nothing would be different. When it comes to laws, what matters is the meaning and effect of the law, not the specific word choice. We could likewise change all instances of the word "murder" to the word "apple" in our laws and there would be no practical difference; murderers would still go to prison, only they would go to prison for "first degree apple" instead of "first degree murder."


For what it's worth, "two people of a different sex can register their relationship with the government" is NOT a true statement. Only those who actually enter into MARRIAGE (as recognized by the state) can register and get benefits. That further debunks your opening sentence.

Yes, there are certain conditions to the registration (as is true with all government privileges). But that is what marriage (in the relevant legal sense) amounts to; a registration of a relationship with the government. The question is whether we should offer such registration and resulting benefits to two people of a different sex but not two people of the same sex. As I've pointed out, all quibbling about the "definition of marriage" is totally irrelevant; what matters is specific government benefits and who can get them.

[akuma]

Of course you do.

Else you wouldn't keep repeating the same drivel to me in thread after thread, over how ever many years we've been participating on this board together.

But you do.

No question, the knife cuts both ways. I'm not ashamed to say that I care about what you think.




Again, the knife cuts both ways.

In the end, either you view of the LAW is implemented, or mine.

But as far as you are concerned, it is not YOU who is insisting on anything. It is me.

And therein demonstrates why I have very little respect for your arguments here.



I'm sure you understand that I don't care who you marry (or anyone else) either.

I just care about what society supports and recognizes.

I have no idea why you smokescreened this with cars.

But you and I have gone at it over abortion (another smokescreen/rathole to this thread). I'm sure you care about someone killing your next door neighbor, or even if murder is permitted in some state all the way across the country from you. I certainly do. You and I differ only in our recognition of the human life that is at stake in abortion. You know I consider your position on that point intrinsically evil. And I know you care about my opinion on that else you wouldn't have raised it here out of the blue.

You care about what I think. I can tell just by the way I get under your skin when we exchange posts on certain issues. You care a lot. Assert the contrary all you want. Your responses to me betray your opinion.



If you insist.


i do

im not the one dictating or insisting that "society" needs to validate my ideas - the very essence of the position that somehow "marriage" is unchanging or that have more signifigance than what it does is selfdelusion at best and an outright lie at worst

marriage defined as only a union between a man and women is about about as unchanging as the seasons.

the arguments abut this isue from the right contradict themselves over and over - and rather than simply declare what this really is some insincere paen about a concern is advanced

lets call a spade a spade- the argument in opposition is very simple for those who claim "gays cant get married" - its been posted before - just simply run with it and people will know the basis on which the argument lies.

"because i say so" - thats essentially what the conflict is with righties who seek all manner of ridiculous rationalization and deny this truthful statement - and its why those rationalizations offered by those "Defenders" of the institution contradict themselves when they are extended.

those on the right insisting that gays not being allowed or not having a legal recognition of marriage stems from a "concern" is dishonest- it dishonest because when it gets right down to brass tacks its completely and totally "because i said so" that comes out of the defenders of "tradition".

[Trip]

i do

im not the one dictating or insisting that "society" needs to validate my ideas - the very essence of the position that somehow "marriage" is unchanging or that have more signifigance than what it does is selfdelusion at best and an outright lie at worst

marriage defined as only a union between a man and women is about about as unchanging as the seasons.

<snip>

"because i say so" -

<snip>



So, society has found a new way to replicate itself and now this new method has replaced sexual reproduction?

This is gonna make cold fusion look like peanuts.

[Mobulis]

So, society has found a new way to replicate itself and now this new method has replaced sexual reproduction?

This is gonna make cold fusion look like peanuts.

You keep forgetting that you can have kids without being married.

[akuma]

So, society has found a new way to replicate itself and now this new method has replaced sexual reproduction?

This is gonna make cold fusion look like peanuts.


you dont need "marriage" to reproduce- all you really need is either sex or a good lab or a turkey baster and willing partners.

"society" doesnt make a decision about "replicating" - at least not a concious one- people decide such a thing- every society that HAS tried to engineer WHO and who doesnt "replicate" has been an UNFREE society and theyve failed.

lastly - the defenders of "marriage" need to pick what argument they want to make - are they arguing about gay sex or are they arguing about marriage?

i mean really - again lets speak to truth here- if those defenders of marriage were so concerned about the institution then they should be all over HETERO SEXUALS who are doing WAY WAY more to "diss" the institution of marriage than any same sex union ever could.

invariably as exampled above the arguments drift back and forth, which only illustrates that the entire issue ISNT about "marriage" its about excluding gays or "punishing " gays for being gay - ie "if you are gay then i will show my disagreement by supporting things that will deny you access"- essentialy trying to use the law as a cudgel.

so please - get after the Britneys and Newts and Anna Nicoles and Donald Trumps of the world - youd have some credibility about wanting to "defend" the institution of "marriage"....but that would be a first - ideologues rarely care about credibility unless its to impress others that THINK like they do.

[Trip]

You keep forgetting that you can have kids without being married.

You keep forgetting that marriage is rewarded because they can have kids.

[mdk190]

This is borderline Washington Policy, but, as a part of the national momentum on this topic, I post:

The vote in Maine on gay marriage must be rejected by the people because it promotes homosexuality to homosexuals. Heterosexuals have no understanding of what this means. They should not be involved in such an evil because they feel “it’s only fair.” Heterosexuals have no idea what they are doing.

Maine don’t be the stool pigeons of this modern barbarism. People can be what they want. If they want marriage and a family, they can have it. This IS America. You don’t have to LIE to people to make them "feel" better. All the lies will not make a gay couple a family. It just makes them gay folks who were lied to --Nice… real nice. Be honest Maine. If folks in this country do not get honest quickly, no, this will no longer be the United States of America.

Modern barbarism? :)) Wow!

Yes, yes, if gays are allowed to marry the USA will come to end. If I cleared my bank account every time one of you self righteous moralist predicted the end is near I would have to live in the lobby. You claim that you wished to "be honest" in this thread and all we see is hyperbole and illogical comparisons.

[WorldWatcher]

You keep forgetting that marriage is rewarded because they can have kids.


1. Couples that have children who are of the same-sex are denied (in most places) the benefits of marriage, even if they have children in the same manner as infertile different-sex couples (i.e. IVF, Adoption, Surrogacy).

2. The benefits of marriage are awarded to different-sex couples even if they have no intention of having kids or are physically incapable of having kids yet denied to same-sex couples (in most places).

3. The "rewards" (i.e. tax advantages, medical decision, etc...) associated with having children are available to different-sex or same-sex parents whether they are married or not.

4. You say they are rewarded because "they can have kids" which is untrue, no state that I know of tests any couple as to fertility to ensure they can have kids.



>>>>

[akuma]

You keep forgetting that marriage is rewarded because they can have kids.



no - theres no committee or panel that says "great you had kids now you can get married" -in fact such a thing is something that cons rail against so how you can post such a ridiculous thing as "marriage is a reward for having kids or having the ABILITY to have kids " is again just plain dishonest.

and certainly couples who CANT have kids can still get married- dont see any vanguards of the institution railing against childless couples who decide to get hitched or that have gotten hitched.

again another absurd argument that doesnt stand up to scrutiny.

[Trip]

you dont need "marriage" to reproduce- all you really need is either sex or a good lab or a turkey baster and willing partners.
-Marriage was awarded because they can produce, not vica versa, silly libs.
-Still need a man and woman. No one said sex was mandatory.
-Were you the product of turkey baster?

"society" doesnt make a decision about "replicating" - at least not a concious one- people decide such a thing- every society that HAS tried to engineer WHO and who doesnt "replicate" has been an UNFREE society and theyve failed.

Irrelevant: society isn't saying WHO can replicate for either gays or hoterosexuals.

Marriage has nothing to do with any permission or expectation to replicate. Society has just recognized enuring heterosexual unions because this is how people DO replicated and society is served by these unions being stable.


lastly - the defenders of "marriage" need to pick what argument they want to make - are they arguing about gay sex or are they arguing about marriage?

i mean really - again lets speak to truth here- if those defenders of marriage were so concerned about the institution then they should be all over HETERO SEXUALS who are doing WAY WAY more to "diss" the institution of marriage than any same sex union ever could.

I didnt bring up gay sex, generally you or the propenents of gay marriage do. The only fact of gay sex i brought up is that they cannot reproduce. Even thoughout this thread gay sex has bee discussed very rarely.


invariably as exampled above the arguments drift back and forth, which only illustrates that the entire issue ISNT about "marriage" its about excluding gays or "punishing " gays for being gay - ie "if you are gay then i will show my disagreement by supporting things that will deny you access"- essentialy trying to use the law as a cudgel.

-There wasn't an example above.

-My arguments didn't drift back and fourth, yours did.

-The "entire argument is about "being gay" because being gay isn't the same as being heterosexual- well, that is the truth of it. The reason gays were introduced was you guys, and gays, not us. Don't intruduce gays and then blame hetersexuals for it!

- The entire issue is about marriage because, if you change the definition of marriage, then you have FOREVER changed marriage.

- Gays are not denied access. They just don't have the key the opens the door. They are not how we reproduce. They are not the definition of marriage. This isn't about "laws', this is about facts. Your blurring what marriage is does not change the FACT of what marriage *IS* and why it has been recognized.


so please - get after the Britneys and Newts and Anna Nicoles and Donald Trumps of the world - youd have some credibility about wanting to "defend" the institution of "marriage"....but that would be a first - ideologues rarely care about credibility unless its to impress others that THINK like they do.

That just shows that *******s from both sides of the aisle can screw up marriage. Was this ever any sort of surprise to you? This fact shows why an enduring heterosexual union - marriage - is and has been regarded as a benefit to society.

You entire post reverses cause and effect and then the end you make the case for whay enduring hetersexual unions are valued by society. Nice.. Thanks.

[Trip]

no - theres no committee or panel that says "great you had kids now you can get married" -in fact such a thing is something that cons rail against so how you can post such a ridiculous thing as "marriage is a reward for having kids or having the ABILITY to have kids " is again just plain dishonest.

and certainly couples who CANT have kids can still get married- dont see any vanguards of the institution railing against childless couples who decide to get hitched or that have gotten hitched.

again another absurd argument that doesnt stand up to scrutiny.

No, you've twisted the argument to be something it's not, which is not the argument itself being ridiculous but rather you.

Marriage is not a mandate or expectation to have kids. It is not a recognition of any singular relationship but rather the acknowledgment OVERALL of the value of stable heterosexual unions to the advancement of society and recognizing this fact.

[mdk190]

no - theres no committee or panel that says "great you had kids now you can get married" -in fact such a thing is something that cons rail against so how you can post such a ridiculous thing as "marriage is a reward for having kids or having the ABILITY to have kids " is again just plain dishonest.

and certainly couples who CANT have kids can still get married- dont see any vanguards of the institution railing against childless couples who decide to get hitched or that have gotten hitched.

again another absurd argument that doesnt stand up to scrutiny.

Let's be honest in this thread, many conservatives could care less about marriage they only care about denying gay Americans are access.

[Trip]

Let's be honest in this thread, many conservatives could care less about marriage they only care about denying gay Americans are access.

Let's be honest: your statement has nothing to do with evidence or argument on your part, and only running to your expectation that gays be the same as hetersexual marriage, which cannot ever be true.

For you to actually be honest, you need to actually engage a more honest argument.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

You know, it's kinda interesting, because my generation (Gen Y) is not into getting married at all, but it certainly has nothing to do with teh gays. It's more about the fact that most of our parents are divorced, have gotten remarried at least once if not multiple times, bringing in the nightmare of step-parents, half-siblings, visitation days, dad ditching his "old family" for his new one with Wife Number Two or Three or Four, etc. That's really what has destroyed the "sanctity of marriage" in our eyes.

I mean, out of all my friends who have kids and live with the mother, like two of them actually got married; the rest have no interest, and it's usually the woman who's against it.

[akuma]

these are your two quotes

-Marriage was awarded because they can produce, not vica versa, silly libs.


Irrelevant: society isn't saying WHO can replicate for either gays or hoterosexuals.

Marriage has nothing to do with any permission or expectation to replicate. Society has just recognized enuring heterosexual unions because this is how people DO replicated and society is served by these unions being stable.


you just contradicted yourself in the SAME post - honestly you cant even keep your arguments straight -


<snip>

- The entire issue is about marriage because, if you change the definition of marriage, then you have FOREVER changed marriage.

- Gays are not denied access. They just don't have the key the opens the door. They are not how we reproduce. They are not the definition of marriage. This isn't about "laws', this is about facts. Your blurring what marriage is does not change the FACT of what marriage *IS* and why it has been recognized.

well seeing as you you say being married has NOTHING to do with an ability or the ability to reproduce its mightily odd you write what you wrote above.

or has that changed ..again.

and lastly for the UMPTHEENTH kazillion time - the definition of MARRIAGE has changed ...ALWAYS - its never been static .



That just shows that *******s from both sides of the aisle can screw up marriage. Was this ever any sort of surprise to you? This fact shows why an enduring heterosexual union - marriage - is and has been regarded as a benefit to society.

You entire post reverses cause and effect and then the end you make the case for whay enduring hetersexual unions are valued by society. Nice.. Thanks.


trump and spears and newts failed marriages rife with cheating and numerous divorces demonstrate why a heterosexual union is best??? on what planet?

please stop the arguments you make are embarrasingly hypocritical in this debate -

[Trip]

1. Couples that have children who are of the same-sex are denied (in most places) the benefits of marriage, even if they have children in the same manner as infertile different-sex couples (i.e. IVF, Adoption, Surrogacy).

Couples that have children in the same manner as different sex couples don't exist. Creating hypothetics that hobble the hetersexuals and contrivances to benefit gays still odesnt make them the same nor result in any sort of valid argument.

The recognition of marriage overall does not come about from indivudual cases but overall benefit to society.

Reproduction still requires two different-sex individuals no matter how you might writhe and connive.


2. The benefits of marriage are awarded to different-sex couples even if they have no intention of having kids or are physically incapable of having kids yet denied to same-sex couples (in most places).

We did this already, and already before this many times. Marriage is not an indivudal case opbligatin to have children but, as per above, the overall recognition of the importance of stability of the unions by which society is advanced and promoted.


3. The "rewards" (i.e. tax advantages, medical decision, etc...) associated with having children are available to different-sex or same-sex parents whether they are married or not.

Not sure what your point is here, but I am sure that it has nothing to do with why hetersexual unions have been recognized and valued by society.


4. You say they are rewarded because "they can have kids" which is untrue, no state that I know of tests any couple as to fertility to ensure they can have kids.

Again, the individual case is not why marriage is recognized but rather the overall historic contribution to society. It's not a mandate but a recognition.

Man and woman "Can theoretically have kids"; gender and like-gender cannot possibly have kids and never have.



I'm really not going to argue the same arguments with you again simply because you want to see if they "fly" one more time.

[akuma]

No, you've twisted the argument to be something it's not, which is not the argument itself being ridiculous but rather you.

Marriage is not a mandate or expectation to have kids. It is not a recognition of any singular relationship but rather the acknowledgment OVERALL of the value of stable heterosexual unions to the advancement of society and recognizing this fact.

really?


but you just said this..

You keep forgetting that marriage is rewarded because they can have kids.


contradiction - well isnt that funny


wait theres more



That just shows that *******s from both sides of the aisle can screw up marriage. Was this ever any sort of surprise to you? This fact shows why an enduring heterosexual union - marriage - is and has been regarded as a benefit to society.

how does citing easily entered into failed hetrosexual marraiges demonstrate an enduring heterosexual union .... and then you say its beneficial???? you really are saying stuff just to say it- please stop - your debating this just makes you look dishonest and presumes everyone else has the memory of a goldfish.

[Trip]

these are your two quotes






you just contradicted yourself in the SAME post - honestly you cant even keep your arguments straight -


You're not enduring something that might in any way inhibit your thought processes, are you?

Nowhere there do i contradict myself. "Can reproduce" is a statement of possibility, not any sort of permission.



well seeing as you you say being married has NOTHING to do with an ability or the ability to reproduce its mightily odd you write what you wrote above.

Marriage has EVERYTHING to do with the possibility to reproduce, but not on a individual case basis. It is possible that man and woman reproduce and this possibility is what has led to every single person that populates the face of the earth and the continuation of every society. Yet this possibility is not a mandate that indivudal cases must do so, or even can do so.


and lastly for the UMPTHEENTH kazillion time - the definition of MARRIAGE has changed ...ALWAYS - its never been static .

Marriage itself has NEVER changed, just the considerations and ritual around it have changed. Marriage has ALWAYS been between man and woman.





trump and spears and newts failed marriages rife with cheating and numerous divorces demonstrate why a heterosexual union is best??? on what planet?

please stop the arguments you make are embarrasingly hypocritical in this debate -


STOP ****ing restating my arguments as nothing I ever said. It is dishonest.

The fact of those OBVIOUSLY unstable relationships is WHY SOCIETY has come to value the importance of a stable heterosexual unions and promotes it with the institutionalization of "marriage".

[akuma]

Couples that have children in the same manner as different sex couples don't exist. Creating hypothetics that hobble the hetersexuals and contrivances to benefit gays still odesnt make them the same nor result in any sort of valid argument.

The recognition of marriage overall does not come about from indivudual cases but overall benefit to society.

Reproduction still requires two different-sex individuals no matter how you might writhe and connive.
really because thats not what you said three posts before


We did this already, and already before this many times. Marriage is not an indivudal case opbligatin to have children but, as per above, the overall recognition of the importance of stability of the unions by which society is advanced and promoted.



Not sure what your point is here, but I am sure that it has nothing to do with why hetersexual unions have been recognized and valued by society.



Again, the individual case is not why marriage is recognized but rather the overall historic contribution to society. It's not a mandate but a recognition.

but it isnt - youve yet to show any evidece that society has always had this
"goal"- and the evidence is mounting that this is really something you are pulling out of your ass -
Man and woman "Can theoretically have kids"; gender and like-gender cannot possibly have kids and never have.

that wasnt the argument - the argument was that marraige does NOT mean only a legal recognition of two parties being legally joined and those parties NEEDING to be of the opposite sex.



I'm really not going to argue the same arguments with you again simply because you want to see if they "fly" one more time.

you cant seem to make up your mind what your argument is .....

[Trip]

really?


but you just said this..




contradiction - well isnt that funny


wait theres more

Again, again, the individual case is not why marriage is recognized but rather the overall historic contribution to society. It's not a mandate but a recognition.

Man and woman "Can theoretically have kids"; gender and like-gender cannot possibly have kids and never have.

Actually read that and wrap your mind around it.

how does citing easily entered into failed hetrosexual marraiges demonstrate an enduring heterosexual union .... and then you say its beneficial???? you really are saying stuff just to say it- please stop - your debating this just makes you look dishonest and presumes everyone else has the memory of a goldfish.

I did not say these failed relationships "DEMONSTRATE any enduring hetersexual union" but rathat that these demonstrate the need for them.


Up above Tommy speaks about all the failed marriages of the Gen Y's parents, and the frustratoin and hardship born by Gen Ys as a result. Instead of recognizing the importance of marriage being stable (why society promotes it), he instead blames this on the word "marriage" and disregards marriage when this is the problem overall. Promoting further disregard for marriage in its re-definition will do nothing to solve any of the problem nor resulting frustration, nor the detriment to society.

[Trip]

really because thats not what you said three posts before


It's what i said, just not what you read. You've a serious problem projecting your understanding onto what I say, even to the point of fabricating things from my statements nowehere any part of those statements.


but it isnt - youve yet to show any evidece that society has always had this
"goal"- and the evidence is mounting that this is really something you are pulling out of your ass -


So you're arguing here that the means by which offspring are invariably produced and reared, and these being stable and enduring, is nowhere a benefit to society?

If you want to make that case, then you need to detaile with compete thoughts and sentences because thus far the only the only thing coming from those nether regions is you trumpeting your own ignorance.


that wasnt the argument - the argument was that marraige does NOT mean only a legal recognition of two parties being legally joined and those parties NEEDING to be of the opposite sex.

That they CAN theoretically have kids (and have) is INHERENTLY a part of not just the argument, but the FACT of the reward of marriage! Quite obviously it's not just "two parties".

And your introducing stuff again nowhere relevant, like "legal". Is that some sort of involuntary impulse?

I'm seriously nauseous. I'm not sure if it is the flu or too much chocolate consumed in passing out that chocolate, or the argument here. But i'm taking a break.

[akuma]

You're not enduring something that might in any way inhibit your thought processes, are you?

Nowhere there do i contradict myself. "Can reproduce" is a statement of possibility, not any sort of permission.




Marriage has EVERYTHING to do with the possibility to reproduce, but not on a individual case basis. It is possible that man and woman reproduce and this possibility is what has led to every single person that populates the face of the earth and the continuation of every society. Yet this possibility is not a mandate that indivudal cases must do so, or even can do so.



Marriage itself has NEVER changed, just the considerations and ritual around it have changed. Marriage has ALWAYS been between man and woman.







STOP ****ing restating my arguments as nothing I ever said. It is dishonest.

The fact of those OBVIOUSLY unstable relationships is WHY SOCIETY has come to value the importance of a stable heterosexual unions and promotes it with the institutionalization of "marriage".

people dont reproduce on any basis BUT an individual one - and you contradicted your you statement above in this post where you say

-Marriage was awarded because they can produce, not vica versa, silly libs.

its pointed out to you that marriages occur all the time where couples DONT reproduce and do so conciously by choice - and that marriages occur where couples who CANNOT reproduce ALSO occur just as frequently ....

of course its funny that you cite bad relationships and the messed up way people who DO get married as an example of how those relationships are valuable - but im thinking that your post is something like the phrase "jumbo shrimp".

i am not restating or changing anything -

[akuma]

It's what i said, just not what you read. You've a serious problem projecting your understanding onto what I say, even to the point of fabricating things from my statements nowehere any part of those statements.




So you're arguing here that the means by which offspring are invariably produced and reared, and these being stable and enduring, is nowhere a benefit to society?

If you want to make that case, then you need to detaile with compete thoughts and sentences because thus far the only the only thing coming from those nether regions is you trumpeting your own ignorance.



That they CAN theoretically have kids (and have) is INHERENTLY a part of not just the argument, but the FACT of the reward of marriage! Quite obviously it's not just "two parties".

And your introducing stuff again nowhere relevant, like "legal". Is that some sort of involuntary impulse?

I'm seriously nauseous. I'm not sure if it is the flu or too much chocolate consumed in passing out that chocolate, or the argument here. But i'm taking a break.
its all of the spinning your posts are doing

the vagueness of your argument ( or idiocy) is being detailed

you said

-Marriage was awarded because they can produce, not vica versa, silly libs.

but people get married BEFORE they have kids not after; thats what a "reward" is

- A happens; then B, the "reward" happens -

the ABILITY to have kids isnt a prerequisite for marraige. maybe for King Henry the 8th its was but generally as a matter of law - you can get married whether you can have kids or not.

So you're arguing here that the means by which offspring are invariably produced and reared, and these being stable and enduring, is nowhere a benefit to society?

but the fact is NOWHERE have you shown that such a process can ONLY be accomplished with male and female marriage - or even that male female unions are somehow BETTER than same sex unions. let alone that the LAW should only recognize one and not the other,

how offspring are concieved has nothing to do with how they are raised - and as far as benefits to society - well EVERY society that tries to engineer and value those who can or cant reproduce has pretty much been controlling dictatorial and generally unfree.

[Trip]

people dont reproduce on any basis BUT an individual one - and you contradicted your you statement above in this post where you say

Marriage, has been recognized by society with the institutionalization of the structure, BECAUSE of the OVERALL CONTRIBUTION to that society of enduring heterosexual unions and the fact they can produce offspring, the means by which society is advanced.

This is nowhere any sort of INDIVIDUAL CASE MANDATE to produce offspring. "Actual individual case performance need not equate with overall reason for valuing marriage by society"



its pointed out to you that marriages occur all the time where couples DONT reproduce and do so conciously by choice - and that marriages occur where couples who CANNOT reproduce ALSO occur just as frequently ....

So.................................. WHAT?

It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that invidual cases are irrelevant to the reason why marriage is valued overall.




of course its funny that you cite bad relationships and the messed up way people who DO get married as an example of how those relationships are valuable - but im thinking that your post is something like the phrase "jumbo shrimp".

I'm recognizing you as having a degree of common sense nowhere in evidence when I say that I believe you don't think those "bad relationship" are anywhere the result of them having been recognized as marriage.

Just as "Marriage" is no guarantee (or demand) that they produce offspring, so too is "Marriage" not a guarantee of endurance, but rather the goal to promote that endurance and success.


i am not restating or changing anything -

You are repeatedly doing so and then intruducing things nowhere relevant, such as "legal".

From now on, if you're saying that I am contradicting myself, why don't you reference my specific statements and then follow these with a statement on your own specifically why these are contradictions (in your view).

Again, marriage has not been recognized by societies (plural) because of any individual case basis but rather by overall contribution and value of those enduring heterosexual unions to society. Your repeated inclination to turning the argument to individual cases is not a relevant argument nor creating contradictions on my part..

[mtdim]

So you're arguing here that the means by which offspring are invariably produced and reared, and these being stable and enduring, is nowhere a benefit to society?

Obviously society would end if offspring stopped being produced. But do you actually think recognizing marriage benefits society in that sense? Do you think everyone would stop having sex and stop reproducing if there was no such thing as civil marriage? On the contrary, sex and pregnancy out of wedlock is widespread in our society, and at this point we'd probably be better off if people reproduced a little less.

I believe the purpose of civil marriage is to formally recognize relationships so that married people can have an easier time getting by; they can file taxes jointly, they have automatic inheritance, automatic hospital visitation, etc. Married couples can avoid the legal headaches that non-married couples would have to endure to get these things. The indirect benefit is that this means that, hopefully, marriages (of both the heterosexual and homosexual type) have a better chance of being a good environment for raising children.

Doesn't that explanation fit the facts a little better than your 'recognition of sexual reproduction' theory?

[Trip]

its all of the spinning your posts are doing

the vagueness of your argument ( or idiocy) is being detailed

you said

Your inability to grasp what even the most primitive societies have grasped over the centuries is not my vagueness nor idiocy.



but people get married BEFORE they have kids not after; thats what a "reward" is

- A happens; then B, the "reward" happens -

the ABILITY to have kids isnt a prerequisite for marraige. maybe for King Henry the 8th its was but generally as a matter of law - you can get married whether you can have kids or not.

By your own previous statements, kids can result from hetersexual unions at any time, so this before/after marriage thing you're arguing is not only irrelevant but also profoundly silly.

The "HAPPENS" in the case of marriage is that a man and woman indicate their intention to make a life-long, enduring commitment to one another. Quite obviously the "A" is not children that lead to the recognition of marriage.



but the fact is NOWHERE have you shown that such a process can ONLY be accomplished with male and female marriage - or even that male female unions are somehow BETTER than same sex unions. let alone that the LAW should only recognize one and not the other,

Quite obviously as stated above, producing offspring (children) is not a process that can "ONLY" be accomplished by male and female "MARRIAGE". I've never stated that to be true nor was that ever any part of my argument.

However it is also QUITE OBVIOUS that same-sex couples do not EVER produce offspring, and even MORE OBVIOUSLY male-female unions are QUITE A LOT BETTER than same-sex unions at accomplishing this task, which they are incapable of.

THis STILL has nothing to do with "the LAW" but rather society. The LAW has only acknowledged those marriages. The law did not create the definition of what that marriage was nor the reason it is valued.


how offspring are concieved has nothing to do with how they are raised - and as far as benefits to society - well EVERY society that tries to engineer and value those who can or cant reproduce has pretty much been controlling dictatorial and generally unfree.

How a society lives is how a child should be raised. Children are not possibly the result of homosexual unions so giving these unions children forced into a unit they could not possibly have resulted from is the only controlling, dictatorial and un-free thing going on associated with these considerations.

[Trip]

Obviously society would end if offspring stopped being produced. But do you actually think recognizing marriage benefits society in that sense? Do you think everyone would stop having sex and stop reproducing if there was no such thing as civil marriage? On the contrary, sex and pregnancy out of wedlock is widespread in our society, and at this point we'd probably be better off if people reproduced a little less.

AGAIN, the recognition of marriage is not an individual case obligation to have children. Marriage is only recognized because of the historic and longstanding benefit to society that enduring heterosexual unions provide.

Sex and preganancy out of wedlock is one profound argument IN FAVOR OF MARRIAGE, a commitment to an enduring man-woman relationship, rather than any sort of argument against it.



I believe the purpose of civil marriage is to formally recognize relationships so that married people can have an easier time getting by; they can file taxes jointly, they have automatic inheritance, automatic hospital visitation, etc. Married couples can avoid the legal headaches that non-married couples would have to endure to get these things. The indirect benefit is that this means that, hopefully, marriages (of both the heterosexual and homosexual type) have a better chance of being a good environment for raising children.

Doesn't that explanation fit the facts a little better than your 'recognition of sexual reproduction' theory?

There is nothing theoretical in what I've written; it is fact, and the fact of why Marriage was recognized and institutionalized in societies across the world.

The purpose of marriage is to recognize heterosexual unions, not just "any relationship" or "relationships" overall. There are lots of relationships in society, but these do not benefit society in the way that heterosexual unions do in advancing and promoting society, being its very backbone.

Non married couples have not made any sort of commitment to have an enduring relationship, even if they are heterosexual.

Benefits are not just given out willy-nilly, but are the result of recognized value to society. Contrary to the liberal mentality of special interests milking society for everything they can get, homosexuals have run into a longstanding institution in society that is recognized not for what it can get, but what it GIVES SOCIETY, thereby making re-defining it to serve gay wants entirely inappropriate.

[mtdim]

AGAIN, the recognition of marriage is not an individual case obligation to have children. Marriage is only recognized because of the historic and longstanding benefit to society that enduring heterosexual unions provide.

I didn't say marriage is the recognition of an individual obligation to have children (I think you've been reading akuma's posts for too long :razz:). Rather, I said that people in general will have sex and reproduce regardless of whether or not we have civil marriage which recognizes their relationship. Therefore, marriage as either an encouragement or recognition of sexual reproduction makes no sense (what good comes from recognizing that heterosexuals have sex? Giving them benefits won't make them have sex more).

However, marriage as a means of encouraging relationship longevity and stability (with the added benefit that such relationships are conducive to healthy child rearing) makes a lot of sense, and such a view of marriage can apply equally to homosexual couples.

[Mobulis]

-Marriage was awarded because they can produce, not vica versa, silly libs.
-Still need a man and woman. No one said sex was mandatory.
-Were you the product of turkey baster?


Irrelevant: society isn't saying WHO can replicate for either gays or hoterosexuals.

Marriage has nothing to do with any permission or expectation to replicate. Society has just recognized enuring heterosexual unions because this is how people DO replicated and society is served by these unions being stable.



I didnt bring up gay sex, generally you or the propenents of gay marriage do. The only fact of gay sex i brought up is that they cannot reproduce. Even thoughout this thread gay sex has bee discussed very rarely.



-There wasn't an example above.

-My arguments didn't drift back and fourth, yours did.

-The "entire argument is about "being gay" because being gay isn't the same as being heterosexual- well, that is the truth of it. The reason gays were introduced was you guys, and gays, not us. Don't intruduce gays and then blame hetersexuals for it!

- The entire issue is about marriage because, if you change the definition of marriage, then you have FOREVER changed marriage.

- Gays are not denied access. They just don't have the key the opens the door. They are not how we reproduce. They are not the definition of marriage. This isn't about "laws', this is about facts. Your blurring what marriage is does not change the FACT of what marriage *IS* and why it has been recognized.



That just shows that *******s from both sides of the aisle can screw up marriage. Was this ever any sort of surprise to you? This fact shows why an enduring heterosexual union - marriage - is and has been regarded as a benefit to society.

You entire post reverses cause and effect and then the end you make the case for whay enduring hetersexual unions are valued by society. Nice.. Thanks.

Where did marriage come from?

[Satchmopants]

Where did marriage come from?

Genesis 2:24 (New International Version)


24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

[Mobulis]

Genesis 2:24 (New International Version)



24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Marriage exited long before Christianity.

[Trip]

I didn't say marriage is the recognition of an individual obligation to have children (I think you've been reading akuma's posts for too long :razz:). Rather, I said that people in general will have sex and reproduce regardless of whether or not we have civil marriage which recognizes their relationship. Therefore, marriage as either an encouragement or recognition of sexual reproduction makes no sense (what good comes from recognizing that heterosexuals have sex? Giving them benefits won't make them have sex more).

Marriage is neither an encouragement nor benefit for having sex, neither of which I've said.

Marriage does not of itself involve sex! (i can promise you that)



However, marriage as a means of encouraging relationship longevity and stability (with the added benefit that such relationships are conducive to healthy child rearing) makes a lot of sense, and such a view of marriage can apply equally to homosexual couples.

Marriage, as you say, is the recognition of the commitment to encourage longevity.

However homosexuals do not have children. It is an impossibility.

Therefore marriage longevity among homosexuals can NOT "apply equally" to benefit society.

Furthermore, the delivery of children unto homosexual couples by the social engineering of homosexual adoption is an abomination and abuse of the adoptees, forcing them into an environment and lifestyle from which the could not possibly have originated and is done to falsely validate the homosexual relationship in violation of the adoption agency's sole responsibility to the well being of the child.

[mdk190]

Let's be honest: your statement has nothing to do with evidence or argument on your part, and only running to your expectation that gays be the same as hetersexual marriage, which cannot ever be true.

For you to actually be honest, you need to actually engage a more honest argument.

Honest debate does not include hyperbole, fear mongering, and slippery slope fallacies all of which has been injected into the debate by the social dinosaurs around here.

[Trip]

Honest debate does not include hyperbole, fear mongering, and slippery slope fallacies all of which has been injected into the debate by the social dinosaurs around here.

Fortunately hyperbole, fear mongering and slippery slope fallacies are nowhere a part of my or others arguments.

I think you meant "socialist dinosaurs" particularly since socialism is a long tried and failed policy which even Europe is drawing away from.

If you pull up the convenient stickers that are your labels, you'll find that your philosophy has all the depth and murkiness of the typical sidewalk puddle.

[mdk190]

Fortunately hyperbole, fear mongering and slippery slope fallacies are nowhere a part of my or others arguments.


You're joking right?

Allowing gays to marry means you will allowed to marry trees, animals, children etc. (fearing mongering and slippery slope)This nonsense is used quite often in gay marriage threads around here. You just choose to ignore it.

Allowing gays to marry will bring about the destruction of morality. (hyperbole, fear mongering, and slippery slope) This gem is often touted here as well. Last time I checked Massachusetts has been marrying homosexuals for years now and they seem to still exists and they haven't descend into social/moral chaos.


Then of course there is old biblical approach employed by social conservatives whom use the Bible for their justification for discrimination against homosexuals. Pretty hypocritical to deny access to one sin and allow access for all others.

Even with all these absurd tactics you're side still has been losing the cultural war. Keep up the shoddy work!

[Trip]

You're joking right?

Allowing gays to marry means you will allowed to marry trees, animals, children etc. (fearing mongering and slippery slope)This nonsense is used quite often in gay marriage threads around here. You just choose to ignore it.

Allowing gays to marry will bring about the destruction of morality. (hyperbole, fear mongering, and slippery slope) This gem is often touted here as well. Last time I checked Massachusetts has been marrying homosexuals for years now and they seem to still exists and they haven't descend into social/moral chaos.


Then of course there is old biblical approach employed by social conservatives whom use the Bible for their justification for discrimination against homosexuals. Pretty hypocritical to deny access to one sin and allow access for all others.

Even with all these absurd tactics you're side still has been losing the cultural war. Keep up the shoddy work!

None of those arguments are anything to do with the Truth of why Marriage is what it is.

And that "culture war" you refer to? Well it's been more of a "culture-less Tyranny" (ie PC, "fairness", Hate crimes, etc) .

You haven't seen the real Culture War yet but those fires on the horizon, they're We the people amassing for it, to throw you socialist scum out, if not for good, for a very, very long time. Ya see, people don't fight near as hard for their right to other's property as they fight for their own property and their right to it, even if they don't actually have any property. That's how this country was formed and it's why the eagle in my sig is ablaze.

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."

Samuel Adams

[reflechissez]

what do you suppose conventional marriage could have looked like if women had had the same legal rights as men throughout history -- the right to education, credit, land ownership, well-paying jobs? until well into the 20th century, a single woman's life did not amount to much economically. she had a lower stature in society, was considered a spinster, was a burden to her family and, a few centuries back, might even be called a witch and be killed. and if she had a child out of wedlock...fuggetaboutit. the only way out was to marry a man. marrying another woman would not have been financially or socially beneficial.

this notion that conventionally-held marriage (between a man and a woman) somehow exists because it's the "backbone" of our society is a made-up construct. in addition, just because it takes opposite genders to make a child, doesn't mean that marriage HAS to be between a man a woman. i can understand if someone is of the opinion that it SHOULD be that way. that's just an opinion, not a law of the universe. gravity is a law of the universe.

[mtdim]

Marriage, as you say, is the recognition of the commitment to encourage longevity.

Now we're getting close.... so why are stable relationships a benefit to society?


Furthermore, the delivery of children unto homosexual couples by the social engineering of homosexual adoption is an abomination and abuse of the adoptees, forcing them into an environment and lifestyle from which the could not possibly have originated and is done to falsely validate the homosexual relationship in violation of the adoption agency's sole responsibility to the well being of the child.

A black child could not have originated from white parents. Does that make adoptions of black children into white families "an abomination and abuse of the adoptees"? I only ask because it follows directly from the same reasoning you provide for calling adoption to homosexual couples "an abomination and abuse of the adoptees." I'm going to assume (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't actually think it's wrong for a white couple to adopt a black child. If I'm correct in this assumption, you're going to have to provide a different reason why you think homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

[Trip]

this notion that conventionally-held marriage (between a man and a woman) somehow exists because it's the "backbone" of our society is a made-up construct. in addition, just because it takes opposite genders to make a child, doesn't mean that marriage HAS to be between a man a woman. i can understand if someone is of the opinion that it SHOULD be that way. that's just an opinion, not a law of the universe. gravity is a law of the universe.

No, that Marriage is the backbone of society is a FACT.

That there is any other form of marriage involving two-somethingelses is a made-up construct.

Marriage being between a man and woman isn't a "has to be" - it is an "IS". Anything else is a fabrication of what IS NOT marriage.

The law of the universe is we don't reproduce any other way than man and woman.

If you came into being by any other way than man and woman then your entire existence would not be denying and undermining your post, as it is now.

[Trip]

A black child could not have originated from white parents. Does that make adoptions of black children into white families "an abomination and abuse of the adoptees"? I only ask because it follows directly from the same reasoning you provide for calling adoption to homosexual couples "an abomination and abuse of the adoptees." I'm going to assume (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't actually think it's wrong for a white couple to adopt a black child. If I'm correct in this assumption, you're going to have to provide a different reason why you think homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

I'm not entirely certain of the statistic but "blacks" in America seem to have commonly had some white in their family tree. This is sort of irrelevant because skin color is entirely irrelevant to marriage. The only preclusion of interracial marriage came as a part of racial prejudice and not as any part of marriage itself.

[reflechissez]

No, that Marriage is the backbone of society is a FACT.

That there is any other form of marriage involving two-somethingelses is a made-up construct.

Marriage being between a man and woman isn't a "has to be" - it is an "IS". Anything else is a fabrication of what IS NOT marriage.

The law of the universe is we don't reproduce any other way than man and woman.

If you came into being by any other way than man and woman then your entire existence would not be denying and undermining your post, as it is now.

i see you didn't address any of my points about why women historically HAD to be married to men for economic and societal reasons.

using the words "backbone" and the fact that reproduction is a male/female phenomenon does not in any way preclude same-sex marriages. just because marriage has been conventionally heterosexual, doesn't mean it can't/won't change. i get that you won't like it and think it shouldn't be that way.

[reflechissez]

I'm not entirely certain of the statistic but "blacks" in America seem to have commonly had some white in their family tree. This is sort of irrelevant because skin color is entirely irrelevant to marriage. The only preclusion of interracial marriage came as a part of racial prejudice and not as any part of marriage itself.

you soooo didn't answer his question.

[Mobulis]

No, that Marriage is the backbone of society is a FACT.

That there is any other form of marriage involving two-somethingelses is a made-up construct.

Marriage being between a man and woman isn't a "has to be" - it is an "IS". Anything else is a fabrication of what IS NOT marriage.

The law of the universe is we don't reproduce any other way than man and woman.

If you came into being by any other way than man and woman then your entire existence would not be denying and undermining your post, as it is now.

Except that marriage and having children are completely independent from each other, so this means nothing.

[ThinkingMan]

what do you suppose conventional marriage could have looked like if women had had the same legal rights as men throughout history -- the right to education, credit, land ownership, well-paying jobs? until well into the 20th century, a single woman's life did not amount to much economically. she had a lower stature in society, was considered a spinster, was a burden to her family and, a few centuries back, might even be called a witch and be killed. and if she had a child out of wedlock...fuggetaboutit. the only way out was to marry a man. marrying another woman would not have been financially or socially beneficial.

this notion that conventionally-held marriage (between a man and a woman) somehow exists because it's the "backbone" of our society is a made-up construct. in addition, just because it takes opposite genders to make a child, doesn't mean that marriage HAS to be between a man a woman. i can understand if someone is of the opinion that it SHOULD be that way. that's just an opinion, not a law of the universe. gravity is a law of the universe.

Ridiculous.

Marriage and its place in our culture doesn't exist just because women were historically subjugated.

You ignore the disease on our society that is the lack of family, yet try to make arguments that marriage has no place in a stable, well functioning society.

And you also use things like adoption, and in-vitro as proof that marriage has no place.

Your post reeks of ignorance. No offense.

[ThinkingMan]

Except that marriage and having children are completely independent from each other, so this means nothing.

And that is also very wrong.

[Lima India Bravo]

And that is also very wrong.

Originally Posted by Mobulis
Except that marriage and having children are completely independent from each other, so this means nothing.
People can marry and not have children. People can have children and not marry. How is the premise of the post "very wrong"?

[Trip]

i see you didn't address any of my points about why women historically HAD to be married to men for economic and societal reasons.

using the words "backbone" and the fact that reproduction is a male/female phenomenon does not in any way preclude same-sex marriages. just because marriage has been conventionally heterosexual, doesn't mean it can't/won't change. i get that you won't like it and think it shouldn't be that way.

Women married men because of many reasons, among which it was hard to find food and shelter and raise a child. It was hard to fight off beasts in the wild and defend a helpless child at the same time too.

Marriage has been and remains between two heterosexuals because of how we reproduce. This doesn't seem to be on the verge of changing.

[reflechissez]

=ThinkingMan;63308431]Ridiculous.

Marriage and its place in our culture doesn't exist just because women were historically subjugated.

and you come to that conclusion because....?

You ignore the disease on our society that is the lack of family, yet try to make arguments that marriage has no place in a stable, well functioning society.

i never said that. marriage ABSOLUTELY has a place in a stable, well-functioning society -- heterosexual and homosexual marriages contribute to the stability.


And you also use things like adoption, and in-vitro as proof that marriage has no place.


silly goose. not my post nor my argument.


Your post reeks of ignorance. No offense.
i'm sure you meant no offense.:rolleyes:

[Trip]

Except that marriage and having children are completely independent from each other, so this means nothing.

Your distinction is irrelevant:
Marriage is not recognized and awarded for having children. Having children isn't a condition for marriage.

Marriage is recognized because the enduring relationship in which children are conceived and raised to adulthood is beneficial to societal growth and stability.

Gays are nowhere a part of any of this.

[ThinkingMan]

People can marry and not have children. People can have children and not marry. How is the premise of the post "very wrong"?

True.

But that doesn't make them independent.

Marriage and family are historically and culturally woven tightly together.

The left continues to try to deny this.

It helps them ignore the advantages of marriage, and stable family.

Which then helps them deconstruct it.

[ThinkingMan]

=ThinkingMan;63308431]Ridiculous.



and you come to that conclusion because....?

.

i never said that. marriage ABSOLUTELY has a place in a stable, well-functioning society -- heterosexual and homosexual marriages contribute to the stability.





silly goose. not my post nor my argument.



i'm sure you meant no offense.:rolleyes:

It is so your argument, when you say children can be created within same gender relationships.

Same gender marriage (assuming such a thing exists) does not contribute stability to society. It destabilizes it because it deconstructs traditional marriage by redefining it.

Remember now - when you redefine something to be all things to all people, you deconstruct the thing you are redefining.

Think about it.

[ogibillm]

Your distinction is irrelevant:
Marriage is not recognized and awarded for having children. Having children isn't a condition for marriage.

Marriage is recognized because the enduring relationship in which children are conceived and raised to adulthood is beneficial to societal growth and stability.

Gays are nowhere a part of any of this.

just pointing out... marriage provides more benefits to society than just a stable family life for kids.

[Trip]

It is so your argument, when you say children can be created within same gender relationships.

Same gender marriage (assuming such a thing exists) does not contribute stability to society. It destabilizes it because it deconstructs traditional marriage by redefining it.

Remember now - when you redefine something to be all things to all people, you deconstruct the thing you are redefining.

Think about it.

Buddy, while that was a good point, I think you missed your target audience entirely.

Remember, these liberals are the ones who believe that "deconstructing society" and remaking it in their own image is inherently a good thing.

[Trip]

just pointing out... marriage provides more benefits to society than just a stable family life for kids.

True, but its reason for existence is the advancing and promoting of society itself, in fact being the very backbone of society.

Marriage also commonly establishes someone to wash dishes, but that is no reason for its being recognized by society.

[ThinkingMan]

Buddy, while that was a good point, I think you missed your target audience entirely.

Remember, these liberals are the ones who believe that "deconstructing society" and remaking it in their own image is inherently a good thing.

True. I keep forgetting what the left thinks "progress" actually is, and how they've hijacked the word.

[reflechissez]

Women married men because of many reasons, among which it was hard to find food and shelter and raise a child. It was hard to fight off beasts in the wild and defend a helpless child at the same time too.

Marriage has been and remains between two heterosexuals because of how we reproduce. This doesn't seem to be on the verge of changing.

so the fact that women could not own property, were less likely to be educated, could not earn the same as men, etc. had NOTHING to do with why women would marry men? it was hard to find food and shelter in 1927? while running down 8th avenue in manhattan to evade the approaching saber toothed tiger with an infant in tow under each arm?:)):))

marriage has been conventionally heterosexual. and yes, it does seem to be on the verge of changing.

[ThinkingMan]

so the fact that women could not own property, were less likely to be educated, could not earn the same as men, etc. had NOTHING to do with why women would marry men? it was hard to find food and shelter in 1927? while running down 8th avenue in manhattan to evade the approaching saber toothed tiger with an infant in tow under each arm?:)):))

marriage has been conventionally heterosexual. and yes, it does seem to be on the verge of changing.

Yes - it is on the verge of changing, under pressure by minority aggrieved groups. Like everything else that matters in our culture.

[reflechissez]

=ThinkingMan;63308801]It is so your argument, when you say children can be created within same gender relationships.

whose post are you responding to? not mine. i did not say that.

Same gender marriage (assuming such a thing exists) does not contribute stability to society. It destabilizes it because it deconstructs traditional marriage by redefining it.


how do you know? we haven't tried it in large enough numbers to come to that conclusion. i get that you don't like it.
Remember now - when you redefine something to be all things to all people, you deconstruct the thing you are redefining.

if homosexual marriages cause your marriage to "deconstruct" (whatever that means), then i would consider changing my point of view.

Think about it.

i have.

[Trip]

so the fact that women could not own property, were less likely to be educated, could not earn the same as men, etc. had NOTHING to do with why women would marry men? it was hard to find food and shelter in 1927? while running down 8th avenue in manhattan to evade the approaching saber toothed tiger with an infant in tow under each arm?:)):))

marriage has been conventionally heterosexual. and yes, it does seem to be on the verge of changing.

"Conventionally" has nothing to do with why marriage involves two and only two hetersexual partners. It was not decided at random, but by the FACT of how society is benefited in the the production of offspring in a stable invironnment. This is why married couples get financial benefits.

Even this "changing" has nothing to do with and no regard for the reason Marriage was recognized in the first place and is seeking to subvert that overall value to society as mattering for anything.

Marriage is not changing nor are the reasons for marriage being recognized changing.

Marriage is being changed via lies, distortion, false equalization, unrelenting demands, and the abuse of State legislatures and judiciaries to force a new meaning on all of the country through coercion using the "full faith and credit clause" of Article IV, Section 1.

[FOX Watcher]

"Conventionally" has nothing to do with why marriage involves two and only two hetersexual partners. It was not decided at random, but by the FACT of how society is benefited in the the production of offspring in a stable invironnment. This is why married couples get financial benefits.

Even this "changing" has nothing to do with and no regard for the reason Marriage was recognized in the first place and is seeking to subvert that overall value to society as mattering for anything.

Marriage is not changing nor are the reasons for marriage being recognized changing.

Marriage is being changed via lies, distortion, false equalization, unrelenting demands, and the abuse of State legislatures and judiciaries to force a new meaning on all of the country through coercion using the "full faith and credit clause" of Article IV, Section 1.

As they say Trip-- "Out with the old and in with the new."

Saying "But that's the way it's always been done", is no longer an acceptable excuse for discrimination against one's orientation.

You seem to have some very deep-rooted issues with Gay people, to spend so much of your time on here on topics concerning Gay Rights.

[Mobulis]

Buddy, while that was a good point, I think you missed your target audience entirely.

Remember, these liberals are the ones who believe that "deconstructing society" and remaking it in their own image is inherently a good thing.

Its because we know that gay marriage will not deconstruct society.

[reflechissez]

Yes - it is on the verge of changing, under pressure by minority aggrieved groups. Like everything else that matters in our culture.

history is replete with those who feel that changes in convention are bad or less than optimal. there will always be disagreement.

i must say, that you just opened my eyes to something. as an african-american, i have been reticent to agree with those who compared the civil rights of homosexual marriage (and its concurrent legal rights) with the rights of former slaves. i considered it an unequal analogy. but in reading your post, i realized the same sentiment was used by southern landowners (and others) to prevent the abolition of slavery. thank you for the clarity.

having said this, i completely respect your point of view.

[reflechissez]

"Conventionally" has nothing to do with why marriage involves two and only two hetersexual partners. It was not decided at random, but by the FACT of how society is benefited in the the production of offspring in a stable invironnment. This is why married couples get financial benefits.

Even this "changing" has nothing to do with and no regard for the reason Marriage was recognized in the first place and is seeking to subvert that overall value to society as mattering for anything.

Marriage is not changing nor are the reasons for marriage being recognized changing.

Marriage is being changed via lies, distortion, false equalization, unrelenting demands, and the abuse of State legislatures and judiciaries to force a new meaning on all of the country through coercion using the "full faith and credit clause" of Article IV, Section 1.

how do you know with such certainty that homosexual marriages will not confer the same benefits to society that you believe heterosexual marriages do?

[ThinkingMan]

history is replete with those who feel that changes in convention are bad or less than optimal. there will always be disagreement.

i must say, that you just opened my eyes to something. as an african-american, i have been reticent to agree with those who compared the civil rights of homosexual marriage (and its concurrent legal rights) with the rights of former slaves. i considered it an unequal analogy. but in reading your post, i realized the same sentiment was used by southern landowners (and others) to prevent the abolition of slavery. thank you for the clarity.

having said this, i completely respect your point of view.

It is unlikely that you formed that opinion from my posts, because I do not compare, unlike the left, such social ills (which we have solved) with the sanctity of marriage.

The left uses "slavery" as a catch-all excuse to make anything be everything to everyone, in light of it being a "civil right."

Don't get sucked in by this nonsense.

EDIT: and marriage is not between opposite genders by "convention" but by definition.

[reflechissez]

It is unlikely that you formed that opinion from my posts, because I do not compare, unlike the left, such social ills (which we have solved) with the sanctity of marriage.

The left uses "slavery" as a catch-all excuse to make anything be everything to everyone, in light of it being a "civil right."

Don't get sucked in by this nonsense.

actually, i did. i did not say that you made the same comparison. i said that i, too, thought the comparison was bogus. but the simplicity and clarity of your previous two-sentence rebuttal was an epiphany. thanks again.

[ThinkingMan]

actually, i did. i did not say that you made the same comparison. i said that i, too, thought the comparison was bogus. but the simplicity and clarity of your previous two-sentence rebuttal was an epiphany. thanks again.

Epiphanies can be wrong.

Redefining marriage to allow it for same genders is not akin to providing constitutional rights and liberty to formerly enslaved people.

Despite what the left says.

[ThinkingMan]

how do you know with such certainty that homosexual marriages will not confer the same benefits to society that you believe heterosexual marriages do?

How do you know that redefining marriage to mean whatever you want will not result in the dissolution of marriage?

[steerbysteer]

Lev. 18:22 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/Lev.%2018.22), "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev. 20:13 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/Lev.%2020.13), "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
1 Cor. 6:9-10 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/1%20Cor.%206.9-10), "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/Rom.%201.26-28), "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

[Trip]

As they say Trip-- "Out with the old and in with the new."

Saying "But that's the way it's always been done", is no longer an acceptable excuse for discrimination against one's orientation.

You seem to have some very deep-rooted issues with Gay people, to spend so much of your time on here on topics concerning Gay Rights.

They're not being discriminated against.

If anyone is discriminating against homosexuals then it is God, or Evolution, because it is founded in reproduction.

Recognizing that two things are inherently different is no form of "discrimination" as recognized by the law. Advancing a Lie is not progress.

And your trying to pass off another falsehood to advance a falsehood still remains false.

[Trip]

how do you know with such certainty that homosexual marriages will not confer the same benefits to society that you believe heterosexual marriages do?

I'm pretty certain that homosexual relationships do not EVER reproduce.

How about you?

[Trip]

Its because we know that gay marriage will not deconstruct society.

Gay marriage, something that does not exist by definition, would deconstruct society because it undermines the very backbone of a healthy society, marriage.

[Mobulis]

How do you know that redefining marriage to mean whatever you want will not result in the dissolution of marriage?


Because its been going on in a few states for years and nothings happened.

[reflechissez]

Epiphanies can be wrong.

Redefining marriage to allow it for same genders is not akin to providing constitutional rights and liberty to formerly enslaved people.

Despite what the left says.

yes, epiphanies can be wrong. but i still don't agree with you and we are merely arguing opinion, not fact.

[Mobulis]

I'm pretty certain that homosexual relationships do not EVER reproduce.

How about you?


Neither do a lot of heterosexual relationships.

[reflechissez]

How do you know that redefining marriage to mean whatever you want will not result in the dissolution of marriage?

i don't. i'm just not afraid of it.

[Trip]

Neither do a lot of heterosexual relationships.

No, i said "do not EVER".

You yourself are the product of a heterosexual union, so your argument is profoundly silly, since you, yourself stand as proof it is false.

[Trip]

Because its been going on in a few states for years and nothings happened.

Yes, those states have created a rift in the Union with other states having to not only protect their rights and opinons, but what they know to be the FACT of marraige's singular value to society.

Tyranny of a few or of many is still tyranny. Gay marriage is just one cause for this rift in the union. When blood is finally shed ,which it likely will be, will you still say "nothing has happened"?

[reflechissez]

No, i said "do not EVER".

You yourself are the product of a heterosexual union, so your argument is profoundly silly, since you, yourself stand as proof it is false.

it is clear that a large part of your argument about why homosexual marriage should not be allowed is based on the fact that same-sex couples cannot reproduce with one another. that is true...they can't (yet).:)) for you, that is enough justification against homosexual marriage. to me it is not enough justification.

[Mobulis]

No, i said "do not EVER".

You yourself are the product of a heterosexual union, so your argument is profoundly silly, since you, yourself stand as proof it is false.

So what about children produced out of wedlock?

[Trip]

it is clear that a large part of your argument about why homosexual marriage should not be allowed is based on the fact that same-sex couples cannot reproduce with one another. that is true...they can't (yet).:)) for you, that is enough justification against homosexual marriage. to me it is not enough justification.

They can't, yet, and even once they can that method of reproduction will still not be the predominant mans that society is promoted and advanced. It still won't be the same as marriage.


The Truth is not only enough justification but is the Fact of why they are different.

TO you, the fabrication of a false equalization is enough justification for anything, as the left dwells in lies and contrived falsehoods.

[Trip]

So what about children produced out of wedlock?

What about it?

We did this already in this same thread.

Children produced out of wedlock produce an unstable society and even a higher infant mortality. This is WHY marriage is recognized, not any sort of valid argument showing that recognition of marriage to be between man and woman is false.

[Mobulis]

What about it?

We did this already in this same thread.

Children produced out of wedlock produce an unstable society and even a higher infant mortality. This is WHY marriage is recognized, not any sort of valid argument showing that recognition of marriage to be between man and woman is false.

You do realize that homosexuals getting married won't prevent heterosexuals from getting married.

[Gabby]

actually, i did. i did not say that you made the same comparison. i said that i, too, thought the comparison was bogus. but the simplicity and clarity of your previous two-sentence rebuttal was an epiphany. thanks again.

There are huge differences between being a black person and being a gay person.

A black person will always be black. They cannot decide to become another race. A person can look a black person and know that they are black.

None of this holds true for homosexuals. There are many who decide at some point in their lives to not be homosexual any more. Or people who are heterosexual who decide to engage in homosexuality. I've known several people who have done this. I read of many many more.

Saying that the fact that homosexuals cannot marry each other has any similiarity at all to what black slaves and their descendents went through is simply ridiculous.

[Trip]

You do realize that homosexuals getting married won't prevent heterosexuals from getting married.

You do realize that going from one strawman argument to another does not itself represent any positive argument on your part, right?

[Trip]

There are huge differences between being a black person and being a gay person.

A black person will always be black. They cannot decide to become another race. A person can look a black person and know that they are black.

None of this holds true for homosexuals. There are many who decide at some point in their lives to not be homosexual any more. Or people who are heterosexual who decide to engage in homosexuality. I've known several people who have done this. I read of many many more.

Saying that the fact that homosexuals cannot marry each other has any similiarity at all to what black slaves and their descendents went through is simply ridiculous.

Homosexuals are the ones evidencing gender discrimination in marriage.

If they keep up this claim of "discrimination", we should then pursue them as discriminatory in the courts. That would be a fair tit for tat.

[Mobulis]

You do realize that going from one strawman argument to another does not itself represent any positive argument on your part, right?


That's because on the subject of gay marriage you are 100% wrong.

Homosexual marriage IS equal to heterosexual marriage.

[Trip]

That's because on the subject of gay marriage you are 100% wrong.

Homosexual marriage IS equal to heterosexual marriage.

There's no such thing as homosexual marriage; it is precluded by definition.

Even if there were such a thing then it would not be equal to heterosexual marriage as it has been recognized by societies historically, because it is far more than just "two people deciding to be together".

You're not only 100% wrong, you are 100% without any argument as to how you might be right.

[Mobulis]

There's no such thing as homosexual marriage; it is precluded by definition.

Even if there were such a thing then it would not be equal to heterosexual marriage as it has been recognized by societies historically, because it is far more than just "two people deciding to be together".

You're not only 100% wrong, you are 100% without any argument as to how you might be right.

As you are quite well aware the definitions of words CAN change, HAVE changed, and WILL change. And the definition of marriage now includes homosexuals.

[Trip]

As you are quite well aware the definitions of words CAN change, HAVE changed, and WILL change. And the definition of marriage now includes homosexuals.

The definition of words do not change by dictate but by overall consensus of society itself. Imagine the tyranny which would result if Congress itself were to legislate the meaning of words rather than to undergo the troublesome means of actually changing the Constitution. Playing with the meanings of words is toy of tyranny.

Marriage is not what it is because of some definition, but rather because of the overall stability of man-woman unions being of intrinsic value to the success of society, as these unions are the means that society is promoted and advanced, society's backbone.

The recognition of this importance by societies across centuries and despite barriers of geographic, political and time itself, is what led to the recognition of the institution and coining the term (and definition) "Marriage".

Marriage by its definition precludes homosexuals, but only if they choose a same sex partner to marry.

What you and your liberal cohorts advocate is nothing but an obscene tyranny and false, imposed equalization.


"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"

Samuel Adams

[Mobulis]

The definition of words do not change by dictate but by overall consensus of society itself. Imagine the tyranny which would result if Congress were itself to legislate the meaning of words rather than to undergo the troublesome means of actually changing the Constitution. Playing with the meanings of words is toy of tyranny.

Marriage is not what it is because of some definition, but rather because of the overall stability of man-woman unions being of intrinsic value to the success of society, as these unions are the means that society is promoted and advanced, society's backbone.

The recognition of this importance by societies across centuries and despite barriers of geographic, political and time itself, is what led to the recognition of the institution and coining the term (and definition) "Marriage".

Marriage by its definition precludes homosexuals, but only if they choose a same sex partner to marry.

What you and your liberal cohorts advocate is nothing but an obscene tyranny and false, imposed equalization.


"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"

Samuel Adams


And society is being convinced that adding homosexuals to the definition of marriage is the right thing to do.

[Trip]

And society is being convinced that adding homosexuals to the definition of marriage is the right thing to do.

Not really.

As shown by posts in this thread the vast majority of people believe Marriage is fine just as it is, even your President.

Those who want to change marriage are dong so in a backhanded, dishonest fashion.

[IndyBec]

The definition of words do not change by dictate but by overall consensus of society itself. Imagine the tyranny which would result if Congress itself were to legislate the meaning of words rather than to undergo the troublesome means of actually changing the Constitution. Playing with the meanings of words is toy of tyranny.

Marriage is not what it is because of some definition, but rather because of the overall stability of man-woman unions being of intrinsic value to the success of society, as these unions are the means that society is promoted and advanced, society's backbone.

The recognition of this importance by societies across centuries and despite barriers of geographic, political and time itself, is what led to the recognition of the institution and coining the term (and definition) "Marriage".

Marriage by its definition precludes homosexuals, but only if they choose a same sex partner to marry.

What you and your liberal cohorts advocate is nothing but an obscene tyranny and false, imposed equalization.


"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"

Samuel Adams

It is good to see the basic reasons for marriage being discussed. I think those reasons are why the majority of Americans are in favor of traditional marriage. They simply recognize the difference between male-female sexual relationships and any other, regardless of orientation the issues are still there. It's not rocket science.

The only way anyone can get close to arguing the support for same-sex marriage is by dismissing the foundation and only discussing the scaffolding.

[Mobulis]

Not really.

As shown by posts in this thread the vast majority of people believe Marriage is fine just as it is, even your President.

Those who want to change marriage are dong so in a backhanded, dishonest fashion.

How so?

[Mobulis]

It is good to see the basic reasons for marriage being discussed. I think those reasons are why the majority of Americans are in favor of traditional marriage. They simply recognize the difference between male-female sexual relationships and any other, regardless of orientation the issues are still there. It's not rocket science.

The only way anyone can get close to arguing the support for same-sex marriage is by dismissing the foundation and only discussing the scaffolding.

Except that "traditional" marriage isn't being dismissed.

[IndyBec]

Except that "traditional" marriage isn't being dismissed.


The foundation is being dismissed. In debates, the procreation aspect of marriage seems to be dismissed as often as it is brought up.

[Mobulis]

The foundation is being dismissed. In debates, the procreation aspect of marriage seems to be dismissed as often as it is brought up.


Thats because marriage is not necessary for procreation.

[Trip]

How so?

By claiming that marriage is only "any two people who want to be happy together".

This has nothing to do with why marriage was recognized and valued by society to begin with.

[Mobulis]

By claiming that marriage is only "any two people who want to be happy together".

This has nothing to do with why marriage was recognized and valued by society to begin with.

That's part of what marriage is but not the whole thing.

[Trip]

Thats because marriage is not necessary for procreation.

"Necessary" is not any part of the recognition of marriage. You're putting the cart before the horse.

THE FACTS:

► Heterosexual Unions are recognized because they are the means by which procreation occurs.

► Those heterosexual unions that indicate an enduring commitment are called marriage because these are how society is promoted and advanced in a healthy fashion.

► No homosexual unions have ever advanced and promoted any society ever in providing offspring. Some heterosexual unions provide offspring. Every member of society is the product of a heterosexual union.

► Since every member of society is the product of a heterosexual union, society has an interest in these unions being enduring commitments, which serve to stabilize and promote that society.

► Homosexual unions are inherently unequal to heterosexual unions and this is unlikely to change in our lifetimes.



The only way proponents of "gay marriage" can push forward this agenda is by a false equivalence of "gay unions" with "heterosexual marriage".

[Trip]

That's part of what marriage is but not the whole thing.

It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what marriage *IS*.

I have a partner in my business. We are happy together. We're not married.

[IndyBec]

Thats because marriage is not necessary for procreation.

As Trip said, "cart before the horse." Marriage is about managing procreation. Without marriage or any legal structure, procreation happens. With marriage, procreation can occur in a manner better for all parties and society.

[Mobulis]

"Necessary" is not any part of the recognition of marriage. You're putting the cart before the horse.

THE FACTS:

► Heterosexual Unions are recognized because they are the means by which procreation occurs.

Not the only current means.

► Those heterosexual unions that indicate an enduring commitment are called marriage because these are how society is promoted and advanced in a healthy fashion.

And homosexual unions can provide the same enduring commitment promoting society
in a healthy fashion.
► No homosexual unions have ever advanced and promoted any society ever in providing offspring. Some heterosexual unions provide offspring. Every member of society is the product of a heterosexual union.

Yes they have.

► Since every member of society is the product of a heterosexual union, society has an interest in these unions being enduring commitments, which serve to stabilize and promote that society.

And heterosexual unions are in no way harmed by the inclusion of homosexual unions.

► Homosexual unions are inherently unequal to heterosexual unions and this is unlikely to change in our lifetimes.


Not true of course.


The only way proponents of "gay marriage" can push forward this agenda is by a false equivalence of "gay unions" with "heterosexual marriage".

Unfortunately for you the equivalence of gay unions with heterosexual marriage is not false.

[Trip]

Unfortunately for you the equivalence of gay unions with heterosexual marriage is not false.

From your comments interjected into my quote (not the way you should do it):

1) Heterosexual union is the only means by which the population of society is advanced. Even in the case of "in vitro", this involves male and female zygote.

2) Homosexual unions having an "enduring commitment" do not promote society in the same fashion because they are not providing any offspring (which they do not create) any stable environment and this serving society.

3) Homosexual unions have not provided offspring. Two sperms or two ovums do not make offspring. Even if they were able to make a viable embryo from two sperms or two ovums, and then bring this to term, this would still not be the Rule of how society is populated but rather the exception.

Marriage is recognized because it is the overwhelming rule of how society is populated, and not because of individual cases.

4) Heterosexual Marriage would be harmed by forcing Homosexual Unions to be equivalent to Marriage by diminishing and grossly distorting what marriage is itself, even as shown by my preceding discussion.

5) As shown by the unaviodable FACTS in my previous points, hemosexual unions are indeed "inherently unequal" to heterosexual marriage.

The equivalence of Heterosexual Marriage and gay unions is inherently and entirely false and is a fraud being perpetrated on society based on a dishonest equivalence.

[Mobulis]

From your comments interjected into my quote (not the way you should do it):

1) Heterosexual union is the only means by which the population of society is advanced. Even in the case of "in vitro", this involves male and female zygote.

2) Homosexual unions having an "enduring commitment" do not promote society in the same fashion because they are not providing any offspring (which they do not create) any stable environment and this serving society.

3) Homosexual unions have not provided offspring. Two sperms or two ovums do not make offspring. Even if they were able to make a viable embryo from two sperms or two ovums, and then bring this to term, this would still not be the Rule of how society is populated but rather the exception.

Marriage is recognized because it is the overwhelming rule of how society is populated, and not because of individual cases.



4) Heterosexual Marriage would be harmed by forcing Homosexual Unions to be equivalent to Marriage by diminishing and grossly distorting what marriage is itself, even as shown by my preceding discussion.

5) As shown by the unaviodable FACTS in my previous points, hemosexual unions are indeed "inherently unequal" to heterosexual marriage.

The equivalence of Heterosexual Marriage and gay unions is inherently and entirely false and is a fraud being perpetrated on society based on a dishonest equivalence.

I apologize for the placement of comments.

2.Even if homosexual unions have not technically created offspring they nonetheless can provide a stable environment for the raising of them thus serving society.

3.This is a insufficient reason for not allowing homosexual unions.

4.No credible proof has yet been posted showing harm to heterosexual unions especially since they have been occurring in several states for several years.

5.Your "FACTS" have never amounted to anything more than "because I said so", you have never presented any form of scientific evidence.

[Trip]

I apologize for the placement of comments.

Not a problem. My third day on this forum I did something similar to you where I inserted comments. I thought i was being honest and setting aside my comments, but I bought a 3 day timeout. Evidently they've become more lax in the sanctity within the quote, but I still think they frown on commentary within it.


2.Even if homosexual unions have not technically created offspring they nonetheless can provide a stable environment for the raising of them thus serving society.

Not technically? They have not factually created offspring - at all. They only stable environment they might provide is when they are given offspring, and this too is artificial and done with the intent of social engineering, to validate the homosexual union, when the adoption agency's sole responsibility should be to the child and nothing else. The child is then forced by that social engineering into a relathship from which it could not possibly have come, merely to validate the gay lifestyle. This again is putting the cart before the horse and is no way approaching hetersexual unions in their value to society.


3.This is a insufficient reason for not allowing homosexual unions.
We don't dis-allow homosexual unions. They are welcome to "civil unions". However if they are incapable of producing offspring and since marriage is defined by that biological process, they are denied it. Definition of marriage by that process was good enough for marriage, so it should be good enough for "homosexual marriage", but they fail to meet this definition, even slightly.


4.No credible proof has yet been posted showing harm to heterosexual unions especially since they have been occurring in several states for several years.

The harm to marriage is done seen by the very fact that some think it reasonable that marriage be the same thing as two homosexuals together. The harm has already occured and is ongoing to the degradation of sociaty overall. By society at large being forced to recognized "two gays" as marriage then it no longer recognizes the importance and significance of marriage and will continue to become more unstable, with more broken marriages, more maladapted children out of wedlock, more crime, more drugs and less society.


5.Your "FACTS" have never amounted to anything more than "because I said so", you have never presented any form of scientific evidence.

My FACTS have always amounted to far more than "because I said so". Your UNDERSTANDING of those facts has only reached the level of "because I said so" and that's not my doing but rather the result of your own superficial analysis.

[Mobulis]

Not a problem. My third day on this forum I did something similar to you where I inserted comments. I thought i was being honest and setting aside my comments, but I bought a 3 day timeout. Evidently they've become more lax in the sanctity within the quote, but I still think they frown on commentary within it.



Not technically? They have not factually created offspring - at all. They only stable environment they might provide is when they are given offspring, and this too is artificial and done with the intent of social engineering, to validate the homosexual union, when the adoption agency's sole responsibility should be to the child and nothing else. The child is then forced by that social engineering into a relathship from which it could not possibly have come, merely to validate the gay lifestyle. This again is putting the cart before the horse and is no way approaching hetersexual unions in their value to society.


We don't dis-allow homosexual unions. They are welcome to "civil unions". However if they are incapable of producing offspring and since marriage is defined by that biological process, they are denied it. Definition of marriage by that process was good enough for marriage, so it should be good enough for "homosexual marriage", but they fail to meet this definition, even slightly.



The harm to marriage is done seen by the very fact that some think it reasonable that marriage be the same thing as two homosexuals together. The harm has already occured and is ongoing to the degradation of sociaty overall. By society at large being forced to recognized "two gays" as marriage then it no longer recognizes the importance and significance of marriage and will continue to become more unstable, with more broken marriages, more maladapted children out of wedlock, more crime, more drugs and less society.

My FACTS have always amounted to far more than "because I said so". Your UNDERSTANDING of those facts has only reached the level of "because I said so" and that's not my doing but rather the result of your own superficial analysis.

Given that Vermont legalized same-sex marriage in 2000 if these things were happing I think we would have heard about them.

[Drawz]

Wow. I was going to get married and help promote a stable society. But now the gays can get married and that just ruins the whole thing... oh well.

[opsyscw]

snip ...

My FACTS have always amounted to far more than "because I said so". Your UNDERSTANDING of those facts has only reached the level of "because I said so" and that's not my doing but rather the result of your own superficial analysis.
I'm gay.

So let me discuss hetrosexuality, since I know absolutely nothing about it.

[Trip]

Given that Vermont legalized same-sex marriage in 2000 if these things were happing I think we would have heard about them.

You've not heard about the decline of marriage? nor the problem of single mothers? This problem being prevalent among the black community? How about the problem with natal mortality in this country.

I never said that it started with legalization of the falsehood of gay marriage; that is your jejune antic, and really I'm bored your deliberate distortions of discussion.

[Trip]

I'm gay.

So let me discuss hetrosexuality, since I know absolutely nothing about it.

It doesn't take being gay to know they are incapable of producing offspring. That's a dumb attempt at making a thoroughly irrelevant point.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

This is borderline Washington Policy, but, as a part of the national momentum on this topic, I post:

The vote in Maine on gay marriage must be rejected by the people because it promotes homosexuality to homosexuals. Heterosexuals have no understanding of what this means. They should not be involved in such an evil because they feel “it’s only fair.” Heterosexuals have no idea what they are doing.

Just as almost 100 years ago smoking was embraced as good for serious athletes, a new sickness is, on our generation, being promoted. Just as nearly 75 years ago, quitting cigarettes was deemed by the “elite” as harder to quit than heroin—today an AVOIDBLE plague is being foiced on homosexuals as an inevitable, life ending state.

Perhaps the only decent thing Liberals have done in the last sixty years is to tax smoking into near oblivion. It is not a gene… It is simply stupid.

Maine don’t be the stool pigeons of this modern barbarism. People can be what they want. If they want marriage and a family, they can have it. This IS America. You don’t have to LIE to people to make them "feel" better. All the lies will not make a gay couple a family. It just makes them gay folks who were lied to --Nice… real nice. Be honest Maine. If folks in this country do not get honest quickly, no, this will no longer be the United States of America.
Me and this post are going to be legally married in Vermont next week.

[toreyj01]

Yes, those states have created a rift in the Union with other states having to not only protect their rights and opinons, but what they know to be the FACT of marraige's singular value to society.

Tyranny of a few or of many is still tyranny. Gay marriage is just one cause for this rift in the union. When blood is finally shed ,which it likely will be, will you still say "nothing has happened"?

Interesting which side you imply is tyrannical.

[Bluesgtr44]

Interesting which side you imply is tyrannical.



Where you sit, is where you stand.......simple really.

[toreyj01]

What about it?

We did this already in this same thread.

Children produced out of wedlock produce an unstable society and even a higher infant mortality. This is WHY marriage is recognized, not any sort of valid argument showing that recognition of marriage to be between man and woman is false.

Economic data suggests that whether a child comes from a single parent household or a married one matters very little, the dominant factor in whether a child contributes to an unstable society is the socioeconomic class and education level of the respective parents.

SO the myth of marriage is nonsense in regards to value to stabiity.

Its just money that matters.

[Drawz]

Me and this post are going to be legally married in Vermont next week.

Watch out, it's a slippery slope man. Next thing you know you'll be getting married to "stool pigeons". And then our whole society will collapse!!!

[toreyj01]

"Necessary" is not any part of the recognition of marriage. You're putting the cart before the horse.

THE FACTS:

► Heterosexual Unions are recognized because they are the means by which procreation occurs.

► Those heterosexual unions that indicate an enduring commitment are called marriage because these are how society is promoted and advanced in a healthy fashion.

► No homosexual unions have ever advanced and promoted any society ever in providing offspring. Some heterosexual unions provide offspring. Every member of society is the product of a heterosexual union.
► Since every member of society is the product of a heterosexual union, society has an interest in these unions being enduring commitments, which serve to stabilize and promote that society.

► Homosexual unions are inherently unequal to heterosexual unions and this is unlikely to change in our lifetimes.



The only way proponents of "gay marriage" can push forward this agenda is by a false equivalence of "gay unions" with "heterosexual marriage".I would rephrase this as a heterosexual act, not union.

Since rape can cause pregnancy, and I don't consider rape to be a union. Nor a one night stand or incest.

[Drawz]

Where you sit, is where you stand.......simple really.

You stand on chairs? Weird.

[toreyj01]

Me and this post are going to be legally married in Vermont next week.

In two weeks this thread is going to bankrupt you in a shoe buying spree and then sleep with your best friend.

Just saying....

[toreyj01]

You've not heard about the decline of marriage? nor the problem of single mothers? This problem being prevalent among the black community? How about the problem with natal mortality in this country.

I never said that it started with legalization of the falsehood of gay marriage; that is your jejune antic, and really I'm bored your deliberate distortions of discussion.

That's jejune? You have the temerity to say that Mobilus is talking to you out of jejunosity? He is one of the most june people in all of the Russias!"

[Bluesgtr44]

You stand on chairs? Weird.

Real deep thinker there, huh Einstein?

[Drawz]

Real deep thinker there, huh Einstein?

Yup, I even understand how to properly use a metaphor, Newton.

[Bluesgtr44]

Yup, I even understand how to properly use a metaphor, Newton.

Yeah, run with that, Einstein.......:rolleyes:

I'm sure that's what it was all about. You got the gist.....you just didn't like your place in it!

[Trip]

Interesting which side you imply is tyrannical.


To have some tyranny you have to have someone forcing an agenda on you. Given as how marriage has been defined for centuries, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone being tyrannical there.

[Trip]

Economic data suggests that whether a child comes from a single parent household or a married one matters very little, the dominant factor in whether a child contributes to an unstable society is the socioeconomic class and education level of the respective parents.

SO the myth of marriage is nonsense in regards to value to stabiity.

Its just money that matters.

Your contentions indicate how ridiculous your claim is. You're saying that a single household can equally bring up a child and earn income and provide as well as a dual household. That's patently false.

[Bluesgtr44]

To have some tyranny you have to have someone forcing an agenda on you. Given as how marriage has been defined for centuries, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone being tyrannical there.

I see this agenda anymore as being about forcing us to see homosexual/heterosexual relations as being the same thing. This is on the level with someone holding up four fingers and demanding you see that as five.......for "the cause, man....the cause."

[Trip]

I would rephrase this as a heterosexual act, not union.

Since rape can cause pregnancy, and I don't consider rape to be a union. Nor a one night stand or incest.

They are union of two beings. Rape is the union of two beings. It's not a willing union. Marriage is an enduring union by agreement of two hetersexual beings. Your hypothetics are still irrelevant and have no bearing on the discussion.

[Bluesgtr44]

Originally Posted by toreyj01
Economic data suggests that whether a child comes from a single parent household or a married one matters very little, the dominant factor in whether a child contributes to an unstable society is the socioeconomic class and education level of the respective parents.

SO the myth of marriage is nonsense in regards to value to stabiity.

Its just money that matters.

What a total crock, taken way out of context for the damned "agenda". The instability of the single parent as compared to the mother/father situation is documented within....within....that which you put up. So, the factors you cited are usually dictated or relieved by the latter.....a standard and traditional two parent family.....mom and dad.

There is more than enough evidence out there that proves the point that fatherless homes are much more conducive to instability than those with a father. So, down play the established roles all you want for "the cause, man....the cause." It won't make us a better country much less society.

[Greyclouds]

As Trip said, "cart before the horse." Marriage is about managing procreation. Without marriage or any legal structure, procreation happens. With marriage, procreation can occur in a manner better for all parties and society.

Hmm... this is an interesting supposition, but sadly it is a circular defense of your prior posts.


The social foundation of marriage is based on procreation.

Procreation is better for society if conducted under strict marital guidelines.


While I agree that two or more people are required for proper logistical raising of children, I do not think that procreation should be used as a metric for marriage. Why? Because the whole "sterility" issue comes up.

The circle is destroyed by heterosexual couples who cannot legitimately conceive their own children because of chromosomal incompatibility, low sperm counts or a depletion of oocytes.

So, should all marriages be dissolved after the woman goes through menopause and all the children are legal adults? No possibility for procreation after that point. It may seem alien for us to dissolve a marriage of such longevity, but clearly the managed procreation duty of the couple has ceased, and fertility treatments to induce pregnancy in the woman at that late stage may result in one or more of the parents dying of old age before their child reaches legal adult status.

What about two people who love each other and want to live with each other together for a long period of time? Can they procreate? If not, then they're attacking the foundation of marriage:

Procreation.

See why such a metric is inadequate to quantify human pair-bonding?

[Trip]

While I agree that two or more people are required for proper logistical raising of children, I do not think that procreation should be used as a metric for marriage. Why? Because the whole "sterility" issue comes up.

The circle is destroyed by heterosexual couples who cannot legitimately conceive their own children because of chromosomal incompatibility, low sperm counts or a depletion of oocytes.

So, should all marriages be dissolved after the woman goes through menopause and all the children are legal adults? No possibility for procreation after that point. It may seem alien for us to dissolve a marriage of such longevity, but clearly the managed procreation duty of the couple has ceased, and fertility treatments to induce pregnancy in the woman at that late stage may result in one or more of the parents dying of old age before their child reaches legal adult status.

What about two people who love each other and want to live with each other together for a long period of time? Can they procreate? If not, then they're attacking the foundation of marriage:

Procreation.

See why such a metric is inadequate to quantify human pair-bonding?

We discussed this in this thread numerous times. Individual cases do not make the rule. Marriage is not a command to procreate. Marriage is a recognition of the ongoing means that society has been advanced and promoted through heterosexual unions over time. It is the recognition that the stability of these unions is a benefit to society.

Marriage has nothing to do with an individual case basis but rather the enduring benefit to society. This is why all the hypothetics are irrelevant.

Marriage is no more the desire of two people to be happy than it is the command they must procreate. It is a recognition, by society itself that the hetersexual pair intend a committed relationship. The pair make this statment to society and have their relationship recognized. Societies over time have all but universally recognized the benefit of this commited pair bond to the stability of society and the upbringing of any potention offspring.

Hetersexual marriage is the recognition of what benefits have come from the enduring hetero pair bonding and not any compulsion to provide offspring.

Marriage isnt about individual desire. I realize so many Hallmark Romantics believe it is, but this has nothing to do with why marriage was recognized and institutionalized by society.

Last I looked homosexuals have never produced any offspring. They've had to be given someone else's offspring to falsely validate their relationship, like the two male penguins that were trying to hatch a rock and stealing eggs.

[toreyj01]

Your contentions indicate how ridiculous your claim is. You're saying that a single household can equally bring up a child and earn income and provide as well as a dual household. That's patently false.

You are dealing with rather old data, I am afraid.

Economists have looked at this from a more impassive stance, and when you factor out money and education there is very little difference.

In your romantic schema, this runs rather contrary and I quite frankly found it suprising, but that does not make it false.

It was covered in a book called Freakonomics if you are interested, its a good read.

[toreyj01]

To have some tyranny you have to have someone forcing an agenda on you. Given as how marriage has been defined for centuries, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone being tyrannical there.
I suppose it depends on your definition of force.

I imply force to be one exerted by a greater power and/or majority.

And since no one is taking away a straight person's right to marry, tyranny seems to be quite unidirectional here.

[toreyj01]

I see this agenda anymore as being about forcing us to see homosexual/heterosexual relations as being the same thing. This is on the level with someone holding up four fingers and demanding you see that as five.......for "the cause, man....the cause."

I know this is tyrannical, but I want you to look at this:

equality [ɪˈkwɒlɪtɪ]
n pl -ties
1. the state of being equal
2. (Mathematics) Maths a statement, usually an equation, indicating that quantities or expressions on either side of an equal sign are equal in value

[toreyj01]

They are union of two beings. Rape is the union of two beings. It's not a willing union. Marriage is an enduring union by agreement of two hetersexual beings. Your hypothetics are still irrelevant and have no bearing on the discussion.

I would rather think that a rape victim would not consider her pregnancy caused by a brutal rape to be one of a "union" with the rapist.

[Greyclouds]

We discussed this in this thread numerous times. Individual cases do not make the rule. Marriage is not a command to procreate. Marriage is a recognition of the ongoing means that society has been advanced and promoted through heterosexual unions over time. It is the recognition that the stability of these unions is a benefit to society.

OK, but then you go on to emphasize procreation further down in your post:


Marriage has nothing to do with an individual case basis but rather the enduring benefit to society. This is why all the hypothetics are irrelevant.

Marriage is no more the desire of two people to be happy than it is the command they must procreate. It is a recognition, by society itself that the hetersexual pair intend a committed relationship. The pair make this statment to society and have their relationship recognized. Societies over time have all but universally recognized the benefit of this commited pair bond to the stability of society and the upbringing of any potention offspring.

Hetersexual marriage is the recognition of what benefits have come from the enduring hetero pair bonding and not any compulsion to provide offspring.

Marriage isnt about individual desire. I realize so many Hallmark Romantics believe it is, but this has nothing to do with why marriage was recognized and institutionalized by society.

Last I looked homosexuals have never produced any offspring. They've had to be given someone else's offspring to falsely validate their relationship, like the two male penguins that were trying to hatch a rock and stealing eggs.

Bolded portion is mine.

See, I think that your argument would be more stable if you were able to divorce the need for procreative legitimacy from BINARY heterosexual marriage (as polygamy and bigamy are actually better procreative alternatives, with polygamy being the best means of procreating for the man involved in the union).

Procreative ability is shaky grounds and the use of the "impossibility" of it to prohibit homosexual pair-bonding ignores several heterosexual instances of it being "impossible" as well.


If you were to somehow provide evidence that heterosexual pair-bonding in a solitary union of two people, with a complete prohibition of other forms of pair-bonding, gives better benefits to society, then I am seriously all-ears. Procreative ability is poor evidence though, as there are more efficient models for procreation, as well as a chance that heterosexual coupling can also be infertile.

What does hetero-sexual pair-bonding offer society that is better than all other intimate groupings of people?

I'd argue that society is far better served in grouping people into units by choice than to force them into specifically selected units. In much the same way, I feel that society should not offer benefits nor discouragement of pair-bonding choices. Call that the slight twinge of libertarianism in me.

[toreyj01]

What a total crock, taken way out of context for the damned "agenda". The instability of the single parent as compared to the mother/father situation is documented within....within....that which you put up. So, the factors you cited are usually dictated or relieved by the latter.....a standard and traditional two parent family.....mom and dad.

There is more than enough evidence out there that proves the point that fatherless homes are much more conducive to instability than those with a father. So, down play the established roles all you want for "the cause, man....the cause." It won't make us a better country much less society.

Facts are so inconvenient, aren't they?

[Trip]

You are dealing with rather old data, I am afraid.

Economists have looked at this from a more impassive stance, and when you factor out money and education there is very little difference.

In your romantic schema, this runs rather contrary and I quite frankly found it suprising, but that does not make it false.

It was covered in a book called Freakonomics if you are interested, its a good read.

Factor out money... and what, this factors out the mother spending no time with the child on its upbringing because she's working? And momma gets sick, what then? No "you must pay the rent; but i cant pay the rent" because we "factored out money"?

CITE your sources, text and location! This claim is so stunning and contrary to what is KNOWN that there must be some online references to it. This claim is as bogus as a 3 dollar bill.

[Trip]

OK, but then you go on to emphasize procreation further down in your post:



Bolded portion is mine.

See, I think that your argument would be more stable if you were able to divorce the need for procreative legitimacy from BINARY heterosexual marriage (as polygamy and bigamy are actually better procreative alternatives, with polygamy being the best means of procreating for the man involved in the union).

Procreative ability is shaky grounds and the use of the "impossibility" of it to prohibit homosexual pair-bonding ignores several heterosexual instances of it being "impossible" as well.


If you were to somehow provide evidence that heterosexual pair-bonding in a solitary union of two people, with a complete prohibition of other forms of pair-bonding, gives better benefits to society, then I am seriously all-ears. Procreative ability is poor evidence though, as there are more efficient models for procreation, as well as a chance that heterosexual coupling can also be infertile.

What does hetero-sexual pair-bonding offer society that is better than all other intimate groupings of people?

I'd argue that society is far better served in grouping people into units by choice than to force them into specifically selected units. In much the same way, I feel that society should not offer benefits nor discouragement of pair-bonding choices. Call that the slight twinge of libertarianism in me.

1) review my previous post.

2) heterosexual pair bonding is about what created the offspring; they created it and would more likely be responsible for it.

3) it has nothing to do with individual cases, but rather the historic contribution to society.

4) all your remonstrances on this are made null and void by the mere fact that you, yourself are the byproduct of just that heterosexual reproduction, as is everyone on these forums.

[Czhorat]

The most amusing thing about these threads is watching social conservatives like Trip tie themselves in knots trying to convince us that marriage is about procreation when same-sex couples want to marry, but not about procreation for non-fertile intersex couples.

[Trip]

I would rather think that a rape victim would not consider her pregnancy caused by a brutal rape to be one of a "union" with the rapist.

Naaa.. the rape victim got pregnant by immaculate conception.

Indication of a "union" isnt an indication of quality of the union.

Facts are so inconvenient, aren't they?


And isn't it convenient that you haven't actually provided any facts.

[IndyBec]

Hmm... this is an interesting supposition, but sadly it is a circular defense of your prior posts.


The social foundation of marriage is based on procreation.

Procreation is better for society if conducted under strict marital guidelines.


While I agree that two or more people are required for proper logistical raising of children, I do not think that procreation should be used as a metric for marriage. Why? Because the whole "sterility" issue comes up.

The circle is destroyed by heterosexual couples who cannot legitimately conceive their own children because of chromosomal incompatibility, low sperm counts or a depletion of oocytes.

So, should all marriages be dissolved after the woman goes through menopause and all the children are legal adults? No possibility for procreation after that point. It may seem alien for us to dissolve a marriage of such longevity, but clearly the managed procreation duty of the couple has ceased, and fertility treatments to induce pregnancy in the woman at that late stage may result in one or more of the parents dying of old age before their child reaches legal adult status.

What about two people who love each other and want to live with each other together for a long period of time? Can they procreate? If not, then they're attacking the foundation of marriage:

Procreation.

See why such a metric is inadequate to quantify human pair-bonding?
It's not perfect but it's better than no marriage at all.
(http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1703761)

[toreyj01]

Factor out money... and what, this factors out the mother spending no time with the child on its upbringing because she's working? And momma gets sick, what then? No "you must pay the rent; but i cant pay the rent" because we "factored out money"?

CITE your sources, text and location! This claim is so stunning and contrary to what is KNOWN that there must be some online references to it. This claim is as bogus as a 3 dollar bill.

http://books.google.com/books?id=LkQPOSXMUscC&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=freakonomics+single+parent&source=bl&ots=4oQmA7krKU&sig=fLg2tx0JihPI4DQufMb1uIPixM8&hl=en&ei=XO7uSojsFIPelAfLoYyABQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CBgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Start on page 161.

The ECLS is here....

http://nces.ed.gov/ECLS/

You're welcome.

[Trip]

The most amusing thing about these threads is watching social conservatives like Trip tie themselves in knots trying to convince us that marriage is about procreation when same-sex couples want to marry, but not about procreation for non-fertile intersex couples.

The most amusing thing about this thread is seeing your periodic interjections, followed shortly thereafter by retreats to lick your wounds. The brevity of this period only marginally exceeds your grasp of this simple issue.

Marriage didn't come about from individual choice, nor individual mandate for any sort of performance (its not a contract to produce offspring). Societies (plural) as a whole have invariably recognized heterosexual unions and institutionalized them because of the benefit these unions give to promoting and advancing society itself. They can produce offspring and then provide the most beneficial environment for the upbringing of that offspring.

Gay unions never produce offspring and as a result they never rear that offspring to promote and advance society.

This is still not about individual cases and never has been. Try as you may to make it about individual performance, it's not. That's why the whim of gay couples to be given marriage is insufficient for even consideration.

[Trip]

http://books.google.com/books?id=LkQPOSXMUscC&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=freakonomics+single+parent&source=bl&ots=4oQmA7krKU&sig=fLg2tx0JihPI4DQufMb1uIPixM8&hl=en&ei=XO7uSojsFIPelAfLoYyABQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CBgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Start on page 161.

The ECLS is here....

http://nces.ed.gov/ECLS/

You're welcome.


I'm supposed to go to that source and find your argument? I don't think so. The way it works is you present a portion of the argument that supports your case and then you provide the most accurate citation of that text so that others can validate it.

Page 161 didn't even come up with the preview! And it's quite clear that there's no abundant sourcing for any "scientific study" anywhere evident here. Lots of vague statements but no actual indication anywhere how they came up with the numbers or conclusions.

[Greyclouds]

1) review my previous post.

I did, and #2 was not insinuated. I'll address it here.


2) heterosexual pair bonding is about what created the offspring; they created it and would more likely be responsible for it.

So adoption should be abolished? Also fertility clinics? Also orphanages? Foster families?

True, you can argue that the above are all cases of adjusting to inefficient procreation, but do not these necessities support my stance that procreation is a poor metric to quantify a marriage? Should we immediately dissolve an abusive heterosexual marriage when their children are forced into foster homes? Should the state/government be involved in marriage at all?


3) it has nothing to do with individual cases, but rather the historic contribution to society.

Polygamy has had a significant contribution to society. Would you be opposed to such unions?


4) all your remonstrances on this are made null and void by the mere fact that you, yourself are the byproduct of just that heterosexual reproduction, as is everyone on these forums.

Again, you bring up the procreative aspect of heterosexual pair-bonding. Is that the only thing about binary heterosexual marriage that you feel is best served by only recognizing binary heterosexual marriages? Again, why not polygamy?

[WorldWatcher]

The most amusing thing about these threads is watching social conservatives like Trip tie themselves in knots trying to convince us that marriage is about procreation when same-sex couples want to marry, but not about procreation for non-fertile intersex couples.


That and the idea that individuals matter not in our country dispite the fact that the Constitution itself says that "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,..." and "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".

Even the Maine Constitution says that it is the "Person" who shall not be discriminated against "Section 6-A. Discrimination against persons prohibited. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person's civil rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof."


But some want to dismiss individual liberties and freedom as irrelevant and grant all power to the government. Well at least while they are winning in referendums. A 2% shift in the polls in Prop 8 would have seen defeat, Maine is a dead heat right now. What happens in a few more years when it is the popular vote going against discrimination.



>>>>

[Greyclouds]

The most amusing thing about this thread is seeing your periodic interjections, followed shortly thereafter by retreats to lick your wounds. This brevity of this period is only marginally exceeds your grasp of this simple issue.

Marriage didn't come about from individual choice, nor individual mandate for any sort of performance (its not a contract to produce offspring). Societies (plural) as a whole have invariably recognized heterosexual unions and institutionalized them because of the benefit these unions give to promoting and advancing society itself. They can produce offspring and then provide the most beneficial environment for the upbringing of that offspring.

Gay unions never produce offspring and as a result they never rear that offspring to promote and advance society.

This is still not about individual cases and never has been. Try as you may to make it about individual performance, it's not. That's why the whim of gay couples to be given marriage is insufficient for even consideration.

Again, you talk about societies recognizing the benefits of such arrangements, but isn't this a very authoritarian position? Do you really want the government/state dictating behavior to such minutia?

For example, the outlawing of fellatio. Provides no benefit to society, therefore it must be abolished.

If we existed in some societies, such behavior WOULD be banned! Is that really in line with American concepts of the right of the private individual?

[Czhorat]

This is still not about individual cases and never has been.

How very... communitarian of you.

[Trip]

Again, you talk about societies recognizing the benefits of such arrangements, but isn't this a very authoritarian position? Do you really want the government/state dictating behavior to such minutia?

For example, the outlawing of fellatio. Provides no benefit to society, therefore it must be abolished.

If we existed in some societies, such behavior WOULD be banned! Is that really in line with American concepts of the right of the private individual?

Government isnt dictating any of this. It comes about from enduring recognition of the fact of the benefits to society by societies themselves! No government created marriage; no government is dictating marriage.

Are you going to claim that you're oblivious to the discussions about the "decline of marriage" or the problem of "single motherhood" or references to these problems particularly in the black community?

Who is talking about banning or abolishing gay unions? I'm not. So why the hell are you talking about banning fellatio?

C'mon try to show a little bit of sense in your reasoning here. This is about what marriage is, why it has been recognized and institutionalized by varied societies the world over, and why the decision of gay couples to form a union does not equate with marriage. Creating irrelevant examples that don't even vaguely relate to the facts does not make for any sort of valid argument.

[Trip]

That and the idea that individuals matter not in our country dispite the fact that the Constitution itself says that "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,..." and "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".

Even the Maine Constitution says that it is the "Person" who shall not be discriminated against "Section 6-A. Discrimination against persons prohibited. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person's civil rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof."


But some want to dismiss individual liberties and freedom as irrelevant and grant all power to the government. Well at least while they are winning in referendums. A 2% shift in the polls in Prop 8 would have seen defeat, Maine is a dead heat right now. What happens in a few more years when it is the popular vote going against discrimination.



>>>>

Tell them next that I'm a homophobe and I've hated gays all my life. That's about par for your interjection level.

You have liberty to do what you want generally, so long as it does not harm others. That does not mean you are entitled to get whatever you want. The reality of life is that not all choices result on the same outcome. Our founders were not believers in the State ensuring any sort of false equality, so why would they legislate it? These founders only said that all men are created equal, not that they are entitled to equal reward and recognition for different choices.

[toreyj01]

I'm supposed to go to that source and find your argument? I don't think so. The way it works is you present a portion of the argument that supports your case and then you provide the most accurate citation of that text so that others can validate it.

Page 161 didn't even come up with the preview! And it's quite clear that there's no abundant sourcing for any "scientific study" anywhere evident here. Lots of vague statements but no actual indication anywhere how they came up with the numbers or conclusions.

You certainly are intellectually lazy, must be a Palin supporter.

Lemme find you neat and simple snippets....

Here is one from ABC news

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Story?id=1633286&page=1

Here are some more factors that are strongly correlated with higher test scores:

The parents are highly educated.
The parents speak English in the home.
The parents are involved in the PTA at school.

Here are some other factors that aren't:

The child's family is intact (no divorces, the parents were married when they conceived).
The child is regularly spanked.
The child frequently watches television.
The family need not to be intact for the child to thrive, marriage does not have a direct impact on the success of the child. Merely who the parents are.

I still suggest going through the ECLS data, if you actually want to learn something.

[Trip]

You certainly are intellectually lazy, must be a Palin supporter.

Lemme find you neat and simple snippets....

Here is one from ABC news

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Story?id=1633286&page=1

The family need not to be intact for the child to thrive, marriage does not have a direct impact on the success of the child. Merely who the parents are.

I still suggest going through the ECLS data, if you actually want to learn something.

They are not speakign abuot single family homes! They are even referencing "parentS" (plural) throughout the study. That's two, whether one is a biological parent or not. They are probably not even comparing the single home versus the two parent (even step parent) homes.

And "speaks English" in the home? C'mon that's just silly. I dont think even the most biased conservative would indicate that a lack of speaking english makes for a bad home, so why would any sort of equivalent study of the importance of marriage cite such a thing? The answer is its not referencing single vs dual households!

Just as I thought, your study (without citations) is neither relevant nor scientific.

And by the way, the litmus is "higher test scores". Ted Bundy supposedly had a very high IQ and probably had very high test scores, but he was not very well adapted to society. "Test scores" is not any sort of measure of anything applicable to this discussion.

[Trip]

Torey,

Here from your ABC reference on the same thing:

What were some of the results? Take a look, and try to guess which factors correlate to higher test scores.

The mother was 30 or older when she gave birth to her first child.
The mother left work to be with her child between birth and kindergarten.

Ready? Being a mother over 30 strongly correlated to stronger test scores in her child, but taking time off to raise her child did not.


The mother left work to raise the child? And they are discussing dual-parent households.

These statements all UNDERSCORE the importance of marriage and a committed relationship, not undermine it! None of this is dealing with what your claim was "Economic data suggests that whether a child comes from a single parent household or a married one matters very little" I swear, it's like you liberals have reading deficiencies. Okay, maybe more like "understanding deficiencies."

[toreyj01]

Torey,

Here from your ABC reference on the same thing:

What were some of the results? Take a look, and try to guess which factors correlate to higher test scores.

The mother was 30 or older when she gave birth to her first child.
The mother left work to be with her child between birth and kindergarten.

Ready? Being a mother over 30 strongly correlated to stronger test scores in her child, but taking time off to raise her child did not.


The mother left work to raise the child? And they are discussing dual-parent households.

These statements all UNDERSCORE the importance of marriage and a committed relationship, not undermine it! None of this is dealing with what your claim was "Economic data suggests that whether a child comes from a single parent household or a married one matters very little" I swear, it's like you liberals have reading deficiencies.I you read the last part of my last post it is explicit that whether the parents are in fact still married has little to do with the success of the child, nor if the child watches a lot of TV or is spanked.

In fact, reading to the child has little to do with their success.

The predominate factors that influence the success of a child is how smart the parents are (you don't need to be married to be a parent, btw) and what socioeconomic class they come from.

Not whether they are married, that has no impact.

[Trip]

I you read the last part of my last post it is explicit that whether the parents are in fact still married has little to do with the success of the child, nor if the child watches a lot of TV or is spanked.

In fact, reading to the child has little to do with their success.

The predominate factors that influence the success of a child is how smart the parents are (you don't need to be married to be a parent, btw) and what socioeconomic class they come from.

Not whether they are married, that has no impact.

They werent talking about the child growing up in a single family home vs a twin parent home though. They were talking abuot the child being in a dual parent home, albeit not biological parent.

Marriage represents a commitment. There have been numerous other studies of single mothers trying to find later mates and the problems these result in for the children. There are also psychological problems resulting from children having to balance two housholds between separated parents. Your "study" did not deal with any of that. In fact your study is A) not scientific, B) not even considering the relative importance to overall balanced development. That "study" only considers the effect on test scores.

This couldn't possibly be more irrelevant to this discussion and what you've shown does not match up with your claim that it showed that a stable family didn't matter - that was nowhere even a consideration of theirs.

[WorldWatcher]

Tell them next that I'm a homophobe and I've hated gays all my life. That's about par for your interjection level.


Feel free to post where I said you hated gays or were a homophone.

Project as you will though.


You have liberty to do what you want generally, so long as it does not harm others.

I agree, which is why I support Same-sex Civil Marriage.


That does not mean you are entitled to get whatever you want.


I agree. Never said you are entitled to whatever you want.


The reality of life is that not all choices result on the same outcome. Our founders were not believers in the State ensuring any sort of false equality, so why would they legislate it? These founders only said that all men are created equal, not that they are entitled to equal reward and recognition for different choices.


And the Constitution (both Federal and Maine's) says that persons are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Courts have shown repeatedly that persons are to be treated equally under the law except where there is a compelling government interest not to.


So I agree, not all choices produce the same outcome. No really relevant to the discussion though since the discussion is how is the government treating law abiding, consenting, adult, tax paying citizens. You (it appears) seem to support discrimination for like situated couples based on gender, I do not.


How Maine feels about it we will find out tomorrow.



>>>>

[Trip]

Feel free to post where I said you hated gays or were a homophone.

Project as you will though.

I didn't say you said that. I was suggesting a parallel with your other comments, but then I'm reasonably certain you know that.




I agree, which is why I support Same-sex Civil Marriage.

Well that's spectacular, but the re-definition of a social institution isn't up to your vote nor other's whims.




And the Constitution (both Federal and Maine's) says that persons are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Courts have shown repeatedly that persons are to be treated equally under the law except where there is a compelling government interest not to.


So I agree, not all choices produce the same outcome. No really relevant to the discussion though since the discussion is how is the government treating law abiding, consenting, adult, tax paying citizens.

How Maine feels about it we will find out tomorrow.
>>>>

Equal treatment under the law is not special treatment. Each person is able to choose marriage, in which case they are choosing to enter into a socially recognized institution of marriage between a man and woman.

The government isn't involved in any of this. The government, whether state or federal, did not create the institution of marriage. The governments only recognized and document those who enter into marriage; that is different.

Marriage is an established social institution outside of governments control and not subject to any authority's re-creation because it is not a product of its creation. Government, whether state or federal, is not entitled to "make things right" in all areas. You cannot complain about government out of one side of your face, and then in the next breath out of the other side express your desire that the government, or some populist vote can remedy the "problem".

Marriage is what it is. It involves one of each gender. It is what it is because it is how society is advanced and promoted and this led to societies (plural) recognizing and institutionalizing marriage. Gay relationships do not ever advance society because they do not ever produce offspring. Gay relationships are inherently discrimanatory because they do exclude one gender, so that rules out a discrimination suit. Wanting to be validated for whatever choice one makes demonstrates a decided lack of discrimination and failing to be validated is not thereby discrimination.



You (it appears) seem to support discrimination for like situated couples based on gender, I do not.

Okay, I was going to let your reprehensible comment drop and not further my own response, but you've pressed the issue with this even more reprehensible personal assertion. Your first post involved the indirect assertion that, "some want to dismiss individual liberties and freedom as irrelevant and grant all power to the government. " This is a dishonest assertion because upholding marriage does not in any way involve dismissing or disregarding individual liberties and certainly does not involve promoting government tyranny, which I've shown isn't even a relevant consideration here. Your underlying belief that Marriage is merely "two persons choosing to be together" is fallacious and a gross distortion of what marriage is.

However my comment to you was based on your long previous assertion upon inserting yourself into my ongoing discussion with two military persons and stating that I did not respect the military and, in fact, did denigrate them. This habit of yours to assert thoroughly untrue personal slights in otherwise reasonable discussions truly evinces problem of character on your part.

What is lacking is sufficient discrimination, both in your argument substance and in recognizing the difference between ad hominem slurs and reasonable discussion. So yes, I do support you exhibiting greater discrimination.

And again, for your further discrimination and enlightenment, the marriage of two opposite genders could not possibly involve any sort of gender discrimination. What you mean is you are indiscriminate as to gender and you want to advocate marriage unions of like-gendered persons, one gender excluded, with you then actually being the advocate of gender discrimination.

[WorldWatcher]

Well that's spectacular, but the re-definition of a social institution isn't up to your vote nor other's whims.


Sure it's up to a vote, haven't you heard something like 30 States have voted on it. Another votes tomorrow.

You should keep up with the news.


Equal treatment under the law is not special treatment. Each person is able to choose marriage, in which case they are choosing to enter into a socially recognized institution of marriage between a man and woman.


I totally agree, same-sex couples should get exactly the same treatment under the law as different-sex couples, nothing special. As it stands different-sex couples are the one getting special treatment.


The government isn't involved in any of this. The government, whether state or federal, did not create the institution of marriage. The governments only recognized and document those who enter into marriage; that is different.


Currently the government is involved with it up to it's neck. At last count there were 1138 federal statutes that involved marriage and there are no real estimates on State Statutes but you can guess that it is thousands and thousands more.

So ya, the government is involved.


Marriage is an established social institution outside of governments control...


Tell that to all the States that license Civil Marriage.


Marriage is what it is. It involves one if each gender. It is what it is because it is how society is advanced and promoted. Gay relationships do not even advance society because they do not ever produce offspring.


Then using that logic the marriage of infertile different-sex couples that do not produce offspring also do not advance society.

You want to use "procreation" as the measurement, then apply it equally.



Okay, I was going to let your reprehensible comment drop and not further my own response, but you've pressed the issue with this even more reprehensible personal assertion. Your first post involved the indirect assertion that, "some want to dismiss individual liberties and freedom as irrelevant and grant all power to the government. " This is a dishonest assertion because upholding marriage does not in any way involve dismissing or disregarding individual liberties.


Sure it does, the precept is that homosexuals should not be treated the same under the law.



Marriage is not merely "two persons choosing to be together".


Never said it was.


What is lacking is sufficient discrimination, both in your argument substance and in recognizing the difference between ad hominem slurs and reasonable discussion.


I don't remember addressing any ad hominem slurs at you. Yet you call my comments "reprehensible".


You should really learn to address issues and try not to make posts about the poster.



>>>>

[Guvnah]

Except that marriage and having children are completely independent from each other, so this means nothing.

Another example that shows how marriage is diminished in this culture. (And a statistically horrible disadvantage for all those kids born out of wedlock.)

[Guvnah]

Originally Posted by Trip
No, i said "do not EVER".

You yourself are the product of a heterosexual union, so your argument is profoundly silly, since you, yourself stand as proof it is false.


So what about children produced out of wedlock?

Probably already answered in the remaining 10 pages I haven't gotten to, but ...

It's still a heterosexual union.

Ditto in vitro fertilization.

It requires a man and a women to complete it. That's heterosexual union.

[Bluesgtr44]

I would rather think that a rape victim would not consider her pregnancy caused by a brutal rape to be one of a "union" with the rapist.

Because words mean nothing to you if it doesn't fall in line with your agenda.....that's a fact!

[Trip]

Sure it's up to a vote, haven't you heard something like 30 States have voted on it. Another votes tomorrow.

You should keep up with the news.





I totally agree, same-sex couples should get exactly the same treatment under the law as different-sex couples, nothing special. As it stands different-sex couples are the one getting special treatment.





Currently the government is involved with it up to it's neck. At last count there were 1138 federal statutes that involved marriage and there are no real estimates on State Statutes but you can guess that it is thousands and thousands more.

So ya, the government is involved.





Tell that to all the States that license Civil Marriage.





Then using that logic the marriage of infertile different-sex couples that do not produce offspring also do not advance society.

You want to use "procreation" as the measurement, then apply it equally.






Sure it does, the precept is that homosexuals should not be treated the same under the law.






Never said it was.





I don't remember addressing any ad hominem slurs at you. Yet you call my comments "reprehensible".


You should really learn to address issues and try not to make posts about the poster.



>>>>

The government is only involved in dealing with marriage after it occurs, ya know, those bennies that gays are fighting for.


We don't have "group rights" in this country; we have individual rights. Gays are entitled to the same choices as heterosexuals. Gays want their union to be called marriage when it is not marriage (by definition) and cannot ever produce offspring and cannot ever advance and promote society, which is why society at large has recognized heterosexual unions and institutionalized them under the name "marriage". Gay unions will be forever unequal to marriage and putting the two under the same label is a travesty, a dishonesty and a disservice to society. You want to force it to be the same yet, at this point, some 2/3 of Americans are able to discriminate the relevant issues and do not support two unlike things being falsely equated.

You imagine your ad hominems are cute and that you're smart playing the game of accusing me of being the one engaging in them when I'm not at all. The readers of these posts are able to recognize what's gong on, regardless of where they stand on the issue of marriage.

Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us.
Thomas Jefferson

[Bluesgtr44]

Originally Posted by Mobulis
Except that marriage and having children are completely independent from each other, so this means nothing.

To you! And never will you define this for me.......I will, however continue to correct you in this idiotic way of thinking.....:rolleyes:

[Guvnah]

Originally Posted by Trip
... and will continue to become more unstable, with more broken marriages, more maladapted children out of wedlock, more crime, more drugs and less society.



Given that Vermont legalized same-sex marriage in 2000 if these things were happing I think we would have heard about them.

We have been devaluing marriage for GENERATIONS. The results aren't immediate.

We have tinkered with the notion that kids should be raised by married couples. We've been doing that with fervor since the 60s. "We don't need to be married to make a family, man..."

We've been tinkering with the lifelong bond of marriage through relaxed divorce laws, so relaxed at this point that one partner can dissolve the bond by unilateral assertion. (And now we have a 50% divorce rate.)

The ills Trip mentioned didn't start immediately. But we certainly have them at alarming rates now. And the problem is still growing. (As is the occurrence of traditional, lifelong marriage in this culture. Mere coincidence?)

And now we want to add more complication to the institution. Relying on apparently localized lack of short-term evidence is shortsighted.

[Bluesgtr44]

We have been devaluing marriage for GENERATIONS. The results aren't immediate.

We have tinkered with the notion that kids should be raised by married couples. We've been doing that with fervor since the 60s. "We don't need to be married to make a family, man..."

We've been tinkering with the lifelong bond of marriage through relaxed divorce laws, so relaxed at this point that one partner can dissolve the bond by unilateral assertion. (And now we have a 50% divorce rate.)

The ills Trip mentioned didn't start immediately. But we certainly have them at alarming rates now. And the problem is still growing. (As is the occurrence of traditional, lifelong marriage in this culture. Mere coincidence?)

And now we want to add more complication to the institution. Relying on apparently localized lack of short-term evidence is shortsighted.

I just can't see why they won't come up with another word for a homosexual union......marriage is already historically and traditionally defined as being between a man and a woman. So, with this in mind.....I have no problem with two women getting "googly mooglied"....or whatever they come up with. My question.....why do they have to bastardize the meaning of marriage.....

[Trip]

I just can't see why they won't come up with another word for a homosexual union......marriage is already historically and traditionally defined as being between a man and a woman. So, with this in mind.....I have no problem with two women getting "googly mooglied"....or whatever they come up with. My question.....why do they have to bastardize the meaning of marriage.....

Ive heard gay representatives interviewed and they reject "civil unions" even of their own design.

Obviously there is more at play here than just gays feeling they are denied the same rights as heterosexuals. There is an evident yet under-riding motivation to engage in social engineering. For the life of me I do not understand why these people denigrate so much that others value and make a point of diminishing this. It's true of our dominant religions, it's true of marriage, and seems to extend to anything held in value or esteem. It seems to be a compulsion to turn everything into the murky grayness of false equality and shared misery.

I find it very disturbing.

[toreyj01]

Another example that shows how marriage is diminished in this culture. (And a statistically horrible disadvantage for all those kids born out of wedlock.)

Children of wealthy and educated parents who are not married do better than children of poor and uneducated married parents.

So you are wrong but a romantic.

I like that.

[toreyj01]

I just can't see why they won't come up with another word for a homosexual union......marriage is already historically and traditionally defined as being between a man and a woman. So, with this in mind.....I have no problem with two women getting "googly mooglied"....or whatever they come up with. My question.....why do they have to bastardize the meaning of marriage.....

There are hundreds of federal benefits ascribed only to married couples, not civil unions.

So thats one reason.

Another is quite simple, why make up a name when one exists and is adequate for the job? Married seems like an appropriate and recognizable name.

[Trip]

Children of wealthy and educated parents who are not married do better than children of poor and uneducated married parents.

So you are wrong but a romantic.

I like that.

We already went over this. Your "study" doesn't say anything of the sort. In fact it doesnt consider single person families versus dual parent families at all. Beyond that, its every assumption and assertion involve the stability of a dual parent household.

[Trip]

There are hundreds of federal benefits ascribed only to married couples, not civil unions.

So thats one reason.

Another is quite simple, why make up a name when one exists and is adequate for the job? Married seems like an appropriate and recognizable name.

That's funny, because two same sex partners don't meet the definiton of the term "marriage" and it's previously occupied so not available.

Have you tried "snorkel" or maybe "zither" or "concoidal"? They're not in too much use and I'm reasonably sure none will get offended at them being hijacked.

[toreyj01]

We already went over this. Your "study" doesn't say anything of the sort. In fact it doesnt consider single person families versus dual parent families at all. Beyond that, its every assumption and assertion involve the stability of a dual parent household.

According to the data and analysis I gave you, whether the parents are together has no impact, nor if the mother works or the kids go to preschool or special developmental classes. Nor does having books in the house.

All that matters is who the parents are, not if they are together.

Tap dance at your leisure, paradigms are difficult to drop so I understand your struggling here.

[toreyj01]

That's funny, because two same sex partners don't meet the definiton of the term "marriage" and it's previously occupied so not available.

Have you tried "snorkel" or maybe "zither" or "concoidal"? They're not in too much use and I'm reasonably sure none will get offended at them being hijacked.

Since gays want to be married why not have the straights take on the term "zithered"? Then they can work on getting benefits for zithered couples, if one spouse is sick they can make sure zithered couples can visit each other in the hospital or recieve health benefits or their social security.

Seems fair. If straights are the ones with the problem, maybe straights should change their label.

[Trip]

According to the data and analysis I gave you, whether the parents are together has no impact, nor if the mother works or the kids go to preschool or special developmental classes. Nor does having books in the house.

All that matters is who the parents are, not if they are together.

Tap dance at your leisure, paradigms are difficult to drop so I understand your struggling here.

Sorry no, you are asserting not only something nowhere indicated, but you're asserting something CONTRARY to what is indicated!

From your CBS article, they quote the two authors of that study:

"If you are smart, hard-working, well educated, well paid and married to someone equally fortunate, then your children are more likely to succeed," write Levitt and Dubner. "(Nor does it hurt, in all likelihood, to be honest, thoughtful, loving, and curious about the world.) But it isn't a matter of what you do as a parent; it's who you are."

In saying "it doesnt matter what you do as a parent" they don't say that parenthood doesnt matter! In fact they clearly indicate that it DOES MATTER, and part of that involves the stability of the household, the union!


What you are asserting is FALSE and undermined by the study you cite! (A study which appears to have no scientific basis to it and to only correlate with 'doing well on a test')

[Trip]

Since gays want to be married why not have the straights take on the term "zithered"? Then they can work on getting benefits for zithered couples, if one spouse is sick they can make sure zithered couples can visit each other in the hospital or recieve health benefits or their social security.

Seems fair. If straights are the ones with the problem, maybe straights should change their label.

Thanks, but no. Heteros have centuries invested in the term marriage and earned it.

Gays, have not so much invested in anything but themselves and desire to be validated and rewarded, and an evident intent to undermine marriage and society itself. I'm pretty sure that most of Americans will continue to tell gays to **** off.

[toreyj01]

Sorry no, you are asserting not only something nowhere indicated, but you're asserting something CONTRARY to what is indicated!

From your CBS article, they quote the two authors of that study:

"If you are smart, hard-working, well educated, well paid and married to someone equally fortunate, then your children are more likely to succeed," write Levitt and Dubner. "(Nor does it hurt, in all likelihood, to be honest, thoughtful, loving, and curious about the world.) But it isn't a matter of what you do as a parent; it's who you are."

In saying "it doesnt matter what you do as a parent" they don't say that parenthood doesnt matter! In fact they clearly indicate that it DOES MATTER, and part of that involves the stability of the household, the union!


What you are asserting is FALSE and undermined by the study you cite! (A study which appears to have no scientific basis to it and to only correlate with 'doing well on a test')

You are really having reading trouble here, let me help you.

Here are some more factors that are strongly correlated with higher test scores:

The parents are highly educated.
The parents speak English in the home.
The parents are involved in the PTA at school.

Here are some other factors that aren't:

The child's family is intact (no divorces, the parents were married when they conceived).
The child is regularly spanked.
The child frequently watches television.

[toreyj01]

Thanks, but no. Heteros have centuries invested in the term marriage and earned it.

Gays, have not so much invested in anything but themselves and desire to be validated and rewarded, and an evident intent to undermine marriage and society itself. I'm pretty sure that most of Americans will continue to tell gays to **** off.

That sounded much more akin to what I feel your true feelings are on the matter.

"Because I said so".

Well done.

[Bluesgtr44]

There are hundreds of federal benefits ascribed only to married couples, not civil unions.

So thats one reason.

Another is quite simple, why make up a name when one exists and is adequate for the job? Married seems like an appropriate and recognizable name.

It's already defined....once again.....why bastardize it? Not so simple...but, you knew that and continue to carry the water for "the cause, man....the cause".

If you can't be honest about this, what makes anyone think you're honest about anything else as to this agenda? Why can't you come up with another name that identifies a homosexual union.....marriage is already defined....already defined....as being between a man and a woman.

So, that makes this a bit of a fib.

Another is quite simple, why make up a name when one exists and is adequate for the job? Married seems like an appropriate and recognizable name

Take another shot....

[Trip]

You are really having reading trouble here, let me help you.

Now let me help you with YOUR reading.

Here are some other factors that aren't:

The child's family is intact (no divorces, the parents were married when they conceived).

Notice it says "Child's family". By that it obviously means "BIOLOGICAL PARENTS". It doesnt mean the child is in a single mother household, In fact the study NOWHERE considers single parent households in all of its consideratons. IN FACT I myself have seen the child overcompensating in life when the parents split up and it is in a new two-parent family unit.

NOTICE also it says nothign in the parentheses about "single family" or "seperated". Every comment directly implies or indicates that there is, at the time of the "study", a dual parent household.

And this doesn't conflict with the reason marriage was recognized and institutionalized. Know why?

BECAUSE MARRIAGE IS TO PROMOTE THOSE TWO PERSONS HOUSEHOLDS!

[toreyj01]

It's already defined....once again.....why bastardize it? Not so simple...but, you knew that and continue to carry the water for "the cause, man....the cause".

If you can't be honest about this, what makes anyone think you're honest about anything else as to this agenda? Why can't you come up with another name that identifies a homosexual union.....marriage is already defined....already defined....as being between a man and a woman.

So, that makes this a bit of a fib.



Take another shot....Seems like a perfectly good name for want they want. Why should they or I care if some folks hold onto the word and grab it while screaming 'MINE!!!!'

Thats the act of a petulant child.

[toreyj01]

Now let me help you with YOUR reading.

Here are some other factors that aren't:

The child's family is intact (no divorces, the parents were married when they conceived).

Notice it says "Child's family". By that it obviously means "BIOLOGICAL PARENTS". It doesnt mean the child is in a single mother household, In fact the study NOWHERE considers single parent households in all of its consideratons. IN FACT I myself have seen the child overcompensating in life when the parents split up and it is in a new two-parent family unit.

NOTICE also it says nothign in the parentheses about "single family" or "seperated". Every comment directly implies or indicates that there is, at the time of the "study", a dual parent household.

And this doesn't conflict with the reason marriage was recognized and institutionalized. Know why?

BECAUSE MARRIAGE IS TO PROMOTE THOSE TWO PERSONS HOUSEHOLDS!In the study, whether or not the parents are together to rear the child in the same household has no bearing on the success of the child.

Keep tap dancing.

[Trip]

That sounded much more akin to what I feel your true feelings are on the matter.

"Because I said so".

Well done.

You missed the part wehre gays dont contribute anything to society overall, as heterpsexual unions do. You missed the part that it was over centuries that herosexual unions were recognized out of a desire (and need) to stabilize these.

That is hardly amounting to "because i said so" and your assertion it does is objectionable and, quite frankly, childish on your part.

Quite obviously you need further help with reading than I gave in my previous post, but I'm not available. Perhaps try your parents - either one?

[Bluesgtr44]

Seems like a perfectly good name for want they want. Why should they or I care if some folks hold onto the word and grab it while screaming 'MINE!!!!'

Thats the act of a petulant child.

Really? I think the acts of the petulant children are on full display with your ranting. It's simple....words mean things. The honest thing to do instead of your insistence on being the petulant child, would be to explain why you want to change the meaning of something when it's pretty well understood.....instead of just coming up with the new word for the obviously different type of relationship. But, that's just me trying to be the adult here.....carry on child! But, could you be more obvious the petulant one. There is history and tradition behind the meaning.....and it's obvious you don't respect it. Like the petulant child......

[Guvnah]

While I agree that two or more people are required for proper logistical raising of children, I do not think that procreation should be used as a metric for marriage. Why? Because the whole "sterility" issue comes up.


It shouldn't be a metric for marriage in general. It could be a metric for which types of marriages society will directly encourage through government benefits.

Sterility is the exception, not the rule, in heterosexual marriages. And it's usually not discovered until some time into the marriage at the individual level. I submit that society encourages hererosexual marriage (in general) as an institution is because our next generation (and the next, etc.) is a usual product of that institution. Short of some heavy-handed government invasion at the individual level, we can only address it as a general institution.

Sterility (or at least the inability to procreate) is the rule, not the exception, in homosexual marriages. It simply does not fit the traditional reasons why we started giving marriage benefits in the first place.

We've discussed this elsewhere. Until society actually states what it is trying to encourage (or discourage) with government bennefits to married couples, we can only speculate among ourselves why we allocate these resources in the first place.

[toreyj01]

You missed the part wehre gays dont contribute anything to society overall, as heterpsexual unions do. You missed the part that it was over centuries that herosexual unions were recognized out of a desire (and need) to stabilize these.

That is hardly amounting to "because i said so" and your assertion it does is objectionable and, quite frankly, childish on your part.

Quite obviously you need further help with reading than I gave in my previous post, but I'm not available. Perhaps try your parents - either one?

We are broaching ever closer and closer to "Your Momma" jokes, I can sense it.

[toreyj01]

Really? I think the acts of the petulant children are on full display with your ranting. It's simple....words mean things. The honest thing to do instead of your insistence on being the petulant child, would be to explain why you want to change the meaning of something when it's pretty well understood.....instead of just coming up with the new word for the obviously different type of relationship. But, that's just me trying to be the adult here.....carry on child! But, could you be more obvious the petulant one. There is history and tradition behind the meaning.....and it's obvious you don't respect it. Like the petulant child......

Oh you poor thing, you're upset.....

[toreyj01]

It shouldn't be a metric for marriage in general. It could be a metric for which types of marriages society will directly encourage through government benefits.

Sterility is the exception, not the rule, in heterosexual marriages. And it's usually not discovered until some time into the marriage at the individual level. I submit that society encourages hererosexual marriage (in general) as an institution is because our next generation (and the next, etc.) is a usual product of that institution. Short of some heavy-handed government invasion at the individual level, we can only address it as a general institution.

Sterility (or at least the inability to procreate) is the rule, not the exception, in homosexual marriages. It simply does not fit the traditional reasons why we started giving marriage benefits in the first place.

We've discussed this elsewhere. Until society actually states what it is trying to encourage (or discourage) with government bennefits to married couples, we can only speculate among ourselves why we allocate these resources in the first place.
When we went from a system where there was arranged marriages, which has lasted for eons, to a romantic based system that we have today, one thing that has to be deemphasized is the procreative aspect of the union.

Simply put, you marry someone you love, not someone you want to breed with.

It used to be the reverse.

[Trip]

In the study, whether or not the parents are together to rear the child in the same household has no bearing on the success of the child.

Keep tap dancing.

Yeah, the CHILD's parents has no bearing on the rearing of the child is what it says, and by that it means the biological parents.

But look at even what you yourself cited, in the parentheses:

(no divorces, the parents were married when they conceived)

Above, those are the things that don't matter (to the test results). It only says it doesnt matter that the parents were married "WHEN CONCEIVED". It only says that the lack of divorces doesnt matter (to the test results). It doesnt say that the child is not with two parent figures in the household and this is deliberate because it is considering two-parent households!

It doesnt say that the absence of two parent figures doesn't matter. In fact it only goes so far as to say that "marriage doesn't matter, WHEN CONCEIVED". Well, duh, obviously marriage doesn't matter at the time of conception. The child isn't undergoing socialization until after birth!

The entire "study" (which shows no scientific methodology) involves consideration of two parent households (not necessarily biological and not necessarily being married now or at the time of conception).

THere have even been numerous studies showing that single women are more apt to give birth to underweight and malnourished children and that these children have a much higher rante of natal death.

Again, your claims abuot the book and "study" are nowhere supported by the study itself and are, in fact, undermined by that study. And beyond that the only thing this study evaluates is performance on "the test" ie IQ - and does not consider how well the child is adjusted to and fits in society.

[Trip]

When we went from a system where there was arranged marriages, which has lasted for eons, to a romantic based system that we have today, one thing that has to be deemphasized is the procreative aspect of the union.

Simply put, you marry someone you love, not someone you want to breed with.

It used to be the reverse.


No, if we de-emphasized the procreative aspect with "romance" then you'd not be here or many would not be here.

What was de-emphaized with the emphasis on 'romance" in marriage was the commitment, and appropriately divorces have risen and the number of people being in numerous marriages have also increased.

Romance is nothing but an excuse for selfishness. If the romance is gone, then the marriage is over. It's like finding a partner for "good sex" and only later realizing that good sex becomes bad sex really quickly and the marriage based on superficial self indulgence becomes a cloying prison. Both "sex" and "romance" are very superficial, even shallow, reasons to marry.

[Guvnah]

Again, you talk about societies recognizing the benefits of such arrangements, but isn't this a very authoritarian position? Do you really want the government/state dictating behavior to such minutia?

For example, the outlawing of fellatio. Provides no benefit to society, therefore it must be abolished.

If we existed in some societies, such behavior WOULD be banned! Is that really in line with American concepts of the right of the private individual?

But no laws are seeking to ban gays from wedding each other. No individual choice, not action is getting abolished.

The limitation is on government (in recognizing and granting benefits to certain choices.)

The government is dictating no behavior whatsoever.

Gays can do what they want.

The complaint is that gays aren't GETTING what they want. And I hope you agree that it's not the government's responsibility to give something to someone just because they want it.

[Trip]

We are broaching ever closer and closer to "Your Momma" jokes, I can sense it.

I actually have depth; I write my own material. And I've been withholding that in the interest of maintaining an adult discussion. You should try withholding other's material too.

[toreyj01]

Yeah, the CHILD's parents has no bearing on the rearing of the child is what it says, and by that it means the biological parents.

But look at even what you yourself cited, in the parentheses:

(no divorces, the parents were married when they conceived)

Above, those are the things that don't matter (to the test results). It only says it doesnt matter that the parents were married "WHEN CONCEIVED". It only says that the lack of divorces doesnt matter (to the test results). It doesnt say that the child is not with two parent figures in the household and this is deliberate because it is considering two-parent households!

It doesnt say that the absence of two parent figures doesn't matter. In fact it only goes so far as to say that "marriage doesn't matter, WHEN CONCEIVED". Well, duh, obviously marriage doesn't matter at the time of conception. The child isn't undergoing socialization until after birth!

The entire "study" (which shows no scientific methodology) involves consideration of two parent households (not necessarily biological and not necessarily being married now or at the time of conception).

THere have even been numerous studies showing that single women are more apt to give birth to underweight and malnourished children and that these children have a much higher rante of natal death.

Again, your claims abuot the book and "study" are nowhere supported by the study itself and are, in fact, undermined by that study. And beyond that the only thing this study evaluates is performance on "the test" ie IQ - and does not consider how well the child is adjusted to and fits in society.
Well, in fact the study that it was derived from did look at all factors, including the current marital status of both parents and whether the child was being raised by a single parent. And the reason that so many studies find that single mothers have low birth weight children is not because they are single, but because they are poor and uneducated.

Its a simple chicken or the egg thing, but since it doesn't support your argument, you dismiss it. Understood.

But the Economist we are talking about is one of the worlds leading economic theorists, he is not some intellectual lightweight. And he carries no presuppositions, he uses pure regressive analysis and weighs each factor without prejudice.

He certainly has more gravitas than either of us by a wide margin.

[Guvnah]

Sure it's up to a vote, haven't you heard something like 30 States have voted on it. Another votes tomorrow.

You should keep up with the news.


>>>>

29, actually. And ALL 29 that put it up to popular vote have rejected the gay marriage initiatives.

The few that recognize gay marriage all did it by judicial or legislative force, not by popular vote.

[toreyj01]

I actually have depth; I write my own material. And I've been withholding that in the interest of maintaining an adult discussion. You should try withholding other's material too.

Well, you out and out asked me to back up my claims that marriage has little impact on the rearing of a child or their eventual outcome.

Several times.

Then I cite studies performed by a renowned Economist that used regressive analytic models and even cited the study he worked from.

Now you are saying that I should not have cited others works?

You are all over the place here.

[Guvnah]

I just can't see why they won't come up with another word for a homosexual union......marriage is already historically and traditionally defined as being between a man and a woman. So, with this in mind.....I have no problem with two women getting "googly mooglied"....or whatever they come up with. My question.....why do they have to bastardize the meaning of marriage.....

This isn't the beginning of that attempt.

In a lot of places, two people who shack up together for long enough are considered to have a common-law marriage. Don't even need a commitment from the participants any more...

They want to bastardize marriage for the social impact to a movement, and to get government bennies.

[Guvnah]

Children of wealthy and educated parents who are not married do better than children of poor and uneducated married parents.

.

You keep making that assertion, but I assert otherwise.

Now you can go post 10 studies to support your assertion, and I'll post 20 to support mine.

Yawn.

I'm not interested in playing hyperlink poker.

[toreyj01]

You keep making that assertion, but I assert otherwise.

Now you can go post 10 studies to support your assertion, and I'll post 20 to support mine.

Yawn.

I'm not interested in playing hyperlink poker.
You have to admit, its fairly interesting findings though. And from a reputable source with excellent references and rock solid methods.

[Trip]

Well, in fact the study that it was derived from did look at all factors, including the current marital status of both parents and whether the child was being raised by a single parent. And the reason that so many studies find that single mothers have low birth weight children is not because they are single, but because they are poor and uneducated.

Thus far that is your claim and thus far every reference YOU have provided has undermined that claim.

In fact if the study actually indicated that being brought up in a single parent household was immaterial to the child's performance (on the test) then THAT ONE CLAIM would be trumpeted across the internet in every reference, because it is by far the most extraordinary claim.

But it is present ------------ nowhere.

And the reason they found these children did well in "the test" was not because they were wealthy or because they were educated -- in fact children educated by reading them books and indulging them didnt do any better --- but because the parents made the right choices in providing a stable environment --- and this includes in all the things they reference, having another partner!


Its a simple chicken or the egg thing, but since it doesn't support your argument, you dismiss it. Understood.
Naa, it's more of a "road thing" as indicated by the authors themselves and by the "road" i mean environmental.

The entire writing supports the importance of a stable environment, which is what marriage itself supports.



But the Economist we are talking about is one of the worlds leading economic theorists, he is not some intellectual lightweight. And he carries no presuppositions, he uses pure regressive analysis and weighs each factor without prejudice.

He certainly has more gravitas than either of us by a wide margin.


I'm sorry, you don't have any sort of science background, do you? Weighting any factor is a judgment call, whether you're discussing "Global climate" or a correlation with performance on tests. And often times there is a conflict over determining irrelevant correlations and cause and effect. And really, an "economic theorist" doesnt have a lot of business judging sociologic environments and how well the children are balanced as a product of these. In fact I would suspect that any economist engaging in such a study would have a pre-existing bias.

"Gravitas" is fine, if you're buying into an image (like obama) but science is founded on "veritas", Truth.

But again, regardless of the study's validity, it nowhere indicates anything about single mothers as compared to two-parent households, and if it did, then that would certainly be highlighted all over the internet as it would be a startling claim, but ... it's not.

[Guvnah]

In the study, whether or not the parents are together to rear the child in the same household has no bearing on the success of the child.

Keep tap dancing.

In the study...

In THE study ...

In THE study ...

There are pages and pages of studies on google that show results contrary to yours. In fact, it is your study that is the contrary one.

[Guvnah]

When we went from a system where there was arranged marriages, which has lasted for eons, to a romantic based system that we have today, one thing that has to be deemphasized is the procreative aspect of the union.

Simply put, you marry someone you love, not someone you want to breed with.

It used to be the reverse.

Love, not "arranged marriage" was the model in this society when it started granting benefits to marriages. "Arranged marriage" is a red herring.

Nobody was deemphasizing the procreative aspect of marriage when we added spousal benefits to the Social Security program, for example.

Try again.

[Guvnah]

You have to admit, its fairly interesting findings though. And from a reputable source with excellent references and rock solid methods.

It's one contrarian study, and Trip has already shown you ways you are misusing the report.

[Trip]

Well, you out and out asked me to back up my claims that marriage has little impact on the rearing of a child or their eventual outcome.

Several times.

Then I cite studies performed by a renowned Economist that used regressive analytic models and even cited the study he worked from.

Now you are saying that I should not have cited others works?

You are all over the place here.

My comment was addressing your "mother joke" reference and not the "study".

Try and follow along here. Focus grasshopper.

And you did not "cite the study". You reference a book that itself nowhere covers any actual study, from what I've seen. I havent seen any evidence of the application of any sociologic science, just a bunch of vague assertions suitable for a coffee table conversation.

And among those vague assertions, the authors nowhere state that being raised in a single parent houshold is as good as a dual-parent household.