Discussion on Same-Sex Marriage: State, Federal, Community

Um, why can't gay marriage serve that purpose? Gays can adopt or have children in vitro.

 

Um, why can't gay marriage serve that purpose? Gays can adopt or have children in vitro.

Because they can't have their own children.

 

J-Rod, now were back to the fact that seniors shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have children.

However, we make exceptions for them. Why?

And why won't those same reasons apply to gays?

 

...and infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry or should have their marriage annulled?

 

However, we make exceptions for them. Why?

Because they are man and woman.

And why won't those same reasons apply to gays?

For obvious reasons.

 

But you said the reason why marriage was important was because of kids. If a married couple can't have kids, doesn't that cheapen marriage?

 

But you said the reason why marriage was important was because of kids. If a married couple can't have kids, doesn't that cheapen marriage?

Yes, to a point.

But to exclude them would run into actual Constitutional issues.

 

So you are saying that you support infertile couples marrying only because of legal reasons?

Man.

 

But, the intent of marriage is to carry on a tradition of family and to start your own legacy for future generations to carry on.

No, I think it would be more proper to say that's your idea and intent for marriage.

Plenty of people get married without ever intending to have children.

Yes, to a point.

I find that ridiculous in the extreme. Marriage is not cheapened by not having children, and I'm thankful that anakin_girl hasn't been around lately. The resulting eruption upon reading this stuff might be enough to bury the Senate in layers of ash.

 

So you are saying that you support infertile couples marrying only because of legal reasons?

Man.

No, I would hope they would marry for love.

If gays get the priviledge to marry, I would hope that they, too, would marry for love.

But love is only one, albiet neccesary, component for marriage. It is meant to have a generational impact of the future of the family.

Keep in mind, my own marriage in an infertile marriage. But my wife had an 8 year old daughter. I love my wife, I love my daughter. I had a duty to either marry my wife and give "our" daughter a stable home or get out of the way to make room for a man that was up to the task.

 

But love is only one, albiet neccesary, component for marriage. It is meant to have a generational impact of the future of the family.

According to who?

 

I'm thankful that anakin_girl hasn't been around lately. The resulting eruption upon reading this stuff might be enough to bury the Senate in layers of ash.


I was thinking along the same lines.

And like that...he's gone.

 

No, I think it would be more proper to say that's your idea and intent for marriage.

No, as the acknowedged building block for our society, it is, indeed, the intent for marriage.

I find that ridiculous in the extreme. Marriage is not cheapened by not having children, and I'm thankful that anakin_girl hasn't been around lately. The resulting eruption upon reading this stuff might be enough to bury the Senate in layers of ash.

LOL...bring 'er on!

 

No, as the acknowedged building block for our society, it is, indeed, the intent for marriage.

Again, acknowledged by who?

 

But, the intent of marriage is to carry on a tradition of family and to start your own legacy for future generations to carry on. These are big, important ideals, and the ones that form the building blocks of our society.

But that's not the only intent of marriage, J-Rod, and I daresay it's actually not the primary intent. After all, one can start a family, procreate, raise children and 'start a legacy' (as you say) without getting married.

Surely the purpose of marriage is the public declaration of two persons' love for each other and their intent to bond together for the rest of their lives, as well as codify - through the enactment of a legal marriage - their new legal rights as a married couple.

Most marriage vows I've heard, read or witnessed - traditional and modern, secular and religious - make NO mention of children. At all.


And finally, J-Rod... how dare you. HOW DARE YOU. Arguing against homosexual marriage rights is one thing, but slandering caviar... brother, you've overstepped the line.

I demand you retract every and all vicious, libelious statement you've made against such a tasty, noble and luscious delicacy. Caviar is the king of culinary sophistication, and together with a exquisite drop of sour creme and gentle sprinkling of finely-chopped chives, enters the pantheon of elegant finesse.

You have been warned. Failure to apologise humbly and immediately will force me to run for President under a 'Caviar for All' banner, whereupon the successful election will result in my first executive action being a complete USAF carpet-bombing of all McDonald restaurants in your home town, and the Secret Service filling your Harley gas-tank with fish roe.

Comprende, my good biker-buddy?

 

Again, acknowledged by who?

I remember it being taught in my civics books in school. But that was in the 80's, before "revisionism" came into vouge.

Also, 11 out of 11 states as well as the President of the United States.

 

I remember it being taught in my civics books in school.

That's not any kind of authoritative source. That book was written by a committee and/or a single person.

Also, 11 out of 11 states as well as the President of the United States.

Could you give some documentation/evidence for this?

 

Could you give some documentation/evidence for this?

The state's election results give the evidence for the 11 out of 11 states.

The president has used those exact words in many of his speaches for the Constitutional ammendment, I'll try to find them.

As for the civics book, it was 7th grade curriculum in West Concord High School (small town...7th-12th was called high school) in Minnesota.

COLDLIGHT said... But that's not the only intent of marriage, J-Rod, and I daresay it's actually not the primary intent. After all, one can start a family, procreate, raise children and 'start a legacy' (as you say) without getting married.

The success rate is worse without marriage.

And finally, J-Rod... how dare you. HOW DARE YOU. Arguing against homosexual marriage rights is one thing, but slandering caviar... brother, you've overstepped the line.

I demand you retract every and all vicious, libelious statement you've made against such a tasty, noble and luscious delicacy. Caviar is the king of culinary sophistication, and together with a exquisite drop of sour creme and gentle sprinkling of finely-chopped chives, enters the pantheon of elegant finesse.

You have been warned. Failure to apologise humbly and immediately will force me to run for President under a 'Caviar for All' banner, whereupon the successful election will result in my first executive action being a complete USAF carpet-bombing of all McDonald restaurants in your home town,



and the Secret Service filling your Harley gas-tank with fish roe.



DUDE!!!!! I just got a new Harley friday!!!!

I'm soooooooooooo sorry dude!

I retract! I retract!

Comprende, my good biker-buddy?

OMG! You know me soooo well! I laughed so hard everyone here at work was looking at me like I'm an alien!

 

I aim to please, my friend!

 

Simply as a contrasting viewpoint, I've long felt that the individual is fundamental building block of our society. Individuals typically form family units, an arrangement that our government recognizes and grants rights to people within these units.
Not all of these units are the same arrangement wether the government recognizes them or not. They are social and biological constructs, not political. I haven't been given a reason I find acceptable for the government to recognize some but not others.

I don't particularly follow the exclusivity / value argument considering before society entertained the concept of homosexual marriage there was no perceived exclusivity in who you marry as you outlined. Yet the institution remained popular.
I suppose considering the legal costs incurred by this issue, if it does pass the homosexuals will have 'paid' more for their marriages than the heterosexuals. Does that make their marriages have higher value

I suppose the problem is your repeated use of the caviar analogy suggests value in the economic sense rather than the 'relative worth, utility, or importance' (as Webster says). However I don't see how this will change either, as our biological imperative moves us to form family units irregardless of government. The form of these units have changed through history, and evidence points to things continuing to change.

Just because the understanding of marriage has changed from when you married, why does that suggest future generation's value will be less than yours?

 

I suppose the problem is your repeated use of the caviar analogy suggests value in the economic sense rather than the 'relative worth, utility, or importance' (as Webster says).

You would be wrong. I used "value" as a term for importance. Would caviar be important enough for Russian smugglers to kill each other if it was common?

So, who's opinion of marriage carries more worth? Yours or mine? Go ahead, it's OK to make these kinds of judgements.

 

Russian smugglers kill each other over caviar because of it's economic worth due to scarcity I belive (as opposed to utility or human worth which is inherent).
I am still unclear how this applies to the institution of marriage.

As we do not seem to have the same values rubric on this issue I imagine that the comparisons are widely meaningless. More to the point, the comparison would tell me more about my values than yours and really would not help me to understand you or you me.

 

As we do not seem to have the same values rubric on this issue I imagine that the comparisons are widely meaningless. More to the point, the comparison would tell me more about my values than yours and really would not help me to understand you or you me.

No, but it would help me prove my point.

I think that is why you dodged the question.

 

hmm

So go ahead and drop the other shoe: what is your point?

 

Studies have shown that children should be reared by a mother and a father for emotional and mental developmental reasons. To have 2 members of one sex raise a child, there is an imbalance. A need is not met. A child who never had a father, or never had a mother, has missed out on a very important part of being brought up.

Some in society are being led to disagree with this essential fact, because of the influence/proliferation of lesbians and homosexuals.

Any arguments against the fact that children need a mother and a father, prove the damage that has already been done to society.