What Should Marriage Be?

[numinus]

And so you must have noticed that animals are not married and are getting along just fine. So the premise is "marriage" is totally unnecessary to a relationship. I agree. But if it is to be recognized for some legal purpose than any two adults should be treated fairly and equally. "Natural Law" is no more than whatever someone wants to believe it is or in other words... mumbo jumbo.

And exactly what is fair in recognizing a right to motherhood in homosexual men, eh? The law doesn't suffer your nonsense.

No one is saying that anyone and obviously not everyone is going to go into a gay relationship hence not be able to bear children.

Then gay relationships are not FAMILIES, nor are homosexual couples the fundamental group unit of society, within the meaning of the udhr. Hence, there is NO REASON for marrying gays.

For your argument to have any validity at all we would have to also agree that any sterile man or woman could not be in a marriage because they too do not reach your breeding philosophy. It's silly...

Why do you insist on arguing what is already debunked?

The fact is, sterility is a GROUND FOR NULLIFYING A MARRIAGE.

And yet I bring you back kicking & screaming to the fact that a mere word "marriage" does not change or alter any behavior in anyway. So if people all wanted to be gay and kill off society not giving the people a piece of paper changes nothing. Hence... it's mumbo jumbo yet again.

And yet, you get your drawers in a knot trying to argue the impossible.

Gay relationships are NOT families, NOR are they the fundamental group unit of society, NOR are they an inalienable human right.

Hence, the state is not obligated to legislate changing the marital institution to accomodate it.

Gay marriage hurts no one. It actually promotes monogamy and theoretically lessen the chance of the spread of various STD's.

Nonsense.

Your entire argument is based on defining a particular inclination as a right. If you cannot even comply with the basic requirement of gender, how much more can one expect you to comply with the requirement of fidelity, eh?

This is much like the abortion argument. Don't want a abortion... don't have one. Don't want to be gay & get married... don't be gay & get married. The rub is when someone demands to impose their values or opinions onto others not of a like mind.

But the thing is, the law are not values nor opinions. If you cannot impose values and opinions onto others, what makes you think you can impose it on the law that governs everyone, eh?

Allowing people to find their own way is what America is all about.

I am not interested in discerning the logical value in your rhetorics. Obviously, that particular rhetoric will not stand up against rigorous scrutiny.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Eh?

You comment about me being american and when I say I am not, you fault me for it? When you describe a 'dumbing down' of america, you are succintly describing yourself. You can fault no one for it but yourself.

I never said you were an American, I merely commented that your obvious lack of familiarity with literature is indicative of "the dumbing down of America". There is some comfort in the fact that that "dumbing down" isn't limited to America.

And if you cannot be bothered to educate yourself about your own government, then chances are, someone will do it for you.

It certainly won't be YOU.

The us constitution is entirely consistent with john locke's treatise. One could have lifted the treatise in its entirety and come up with a government exactly like yours.

DUMMY, Locke was a hypocritical imbecile who was largely responsible for many of the problems we've had in the country. Lest we forget, it was HE who wrote the original treatise on guaranteeing a Masters absolute power over his slaves, which oddly enough tied in very nicely with his own self serving heavy investment and participation in the slave trade here in America! Of course, he tried to obfuscate his involvement in that "peculiar institution" in some of his writings, mainly so that he wouldn't be run out of town "on a rail", but that doesn't detract from the facts of what he DID. A primary example of liberalism where you say one thing and do another.

In fact it was people like Locke that Thomas Jefferson was referencing in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence when he wrote;

"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemispere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither. this piratical warfare, the opprobium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. [determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold,] he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold]: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he had deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

Locke was also very instrumental in the horrific treatment of Native Americans by the British Crown, and was highly instrumental in the outright theft of their lands, especially in New England, which led to the French and Indian War. If you're going to try to hold someone up as an paragon of virtue, you really should try to do better that Locke.

It is a simple enough exercise to demonstrate how your interpretation of your constitution departs from the principles stated in locke's treatise -- hence WRONG.

I should pray to GOD ALMIGHTY that my understanding of the Constitution IS AS FAR from Locke as is humanly possible! I prefer to derive my understanding of the Constitution from men such a James Madison, Thomas Jefferson (who, while not a participant in the Convention, was represented there nonetheless through his correspondence with Madison), George Mason, George Washington, Elbridge Gerry, and the many, many Anti-Federalists, whose objections resulted in the Bill of Rights.

Frankly, the absolute LAST person who needs to be even attempting to council me on the Constitution is someone who is still a DISARMED SUBJECT, and not a CITIZEN!

Reading doesn't mean comprehending, now, does it?

As is obviously your problem.

The commonwealth and sovereignty were amply discussed in ALL the social contract theories. How come you are ignorant of them, hmmm?

Perhaps you can direct me to that part of the Debates in the Federal Convention where these were discussed, or played any part in the drafting of OUR Constitution that supports any of your specious assertions? As they are not contained therein, at least not in the context you are trying so vainly to argue, they have NO BEARING on the substance of the discussion.

 

[Federal Farmer]

The fact is, sterility is a GROUND FOR NULLIFYING A MARRIAGE.

Again, ONLY if the condition was known PRIOR to the marriage, and INTENTIONALLY concealed. If sterility WAS known about, discussed, and both parties were still agreeable, IT IS NOT! Furthermore, in order for there to BE an annulment, there must first be a marriage.

BTW, given that until recently, full medical evaluations were required prior to marriage, any undiscovered sterility has not been sufficient grounds for divorce in any State I've lived in, and from what little time I've dedicated to researching it, it has NOT been sufficient grounds for divorce or annulment in America since the mid 18th Century. I therefore challenge you to produce any existing law, in America, that allows for annulment based on anything other than intentionally concealed sterility.

 

[top gun]

numinus;51347]And exactly what is fair in recognizing a right to motherhood in homosexual men, eh? The law doesn't suffer your nonsense.

I can't respond to gibberish.

Then gay relationships are not FAMILIES, nor are homosexual couples the fundamental group unit of society, within the meaning of the udhr. Hence, there is NO REASON for marrying gays.

A couple living together monogamously possibly raising children... yep that's a family.

Why do you insist on arguing what is already debunked?

The fact is, sterility is a GROUND FOR NULLIFYING A MARRIAGE.

Probably for the same reason you're just making stuff up. Sterility can be grounds for nullifying a marriage NOT DISALLOWING ONE. Just open mouth insert foot.

But the thing is, the law are not values nor opinions. If you cannot impose values and opinions onto others, what makes you think you can impose it on the law that governs everyone, eh?

In America your rights end when they imposes on someone else in a harmfully way. Two adult people (straight or gay) married in a monogamous loving relationship hurts absolutely no one. You're just making yourself look so darn hompophobic...

 

[Dr.Who]

In America your rights end when they imposes on someone else in a harmfully way. Two adult people (straight or gay) married in a monogamous loving relationship hurts absolutely no one. You're just making yourself look so darn hompophobic...

Except that marriage is not about granting rights. It is about restricting the rights of straight people who might create children and then not take care of them leaving a burden for the state to take care of. Marriage creates a situation in which people must ask for permission from the state to get a divorce or remain married. Marriage creates a situation in which it is clear who is responsible to take care of the kids and who will inherit the cash when daddy croaks.

When two gay people adopt a child the state has no interest in making sure that they are married because the adoption papers already establish who is responsible for taking care of the kids.

When two gay people want to get married without adopting the chance that they will create kids is so unlikely that the state has no compelling interest in making sure that they are married.

 

[top gun]

In America your rights end when they imposes on someone else in a harmfully way. Two adult people (straight or gay) married in a monogamous loving relationship hurts absolutely no one. You're just making yourself look so darn hompophobic...

Except that marriage is not about granting rights. It is about restricting the rights of straight people who might create children and then not take care of them leaving a burden for the state to take care of. Marriage creates a situation in which people must ask for permission from the state to get a divorce or remain married. Marriage creates a situation in which it is clear who is responsible to take care of the kids and who will inherit the cash when daddy croaks.

I'm seriously looking for even a sintilla of any realavance here at all and there just is none. Gay marriage does not in any way whatsoever restrict the rights of straight people. Allowing gay marriage actually only puts more of a burden on responsible behavior on gay couples then there is without. And as far as children go that's a total red herring because with millions of children up for adoption by unable or "unfit" heterosexual couples gays would have identical children's welfare issues as any straight couple. That include your daddy croaks" analogy.

Come on... stop this religious Holy Rolling for one second and think about it. Two people in love who want to live in a legally recognised monogomous relationship only hurts the pride of religious selots that want to try in some bazar way to dominate a single word.

All you can really ever get out of this in the long run is the government calling gay marriage by another name with full marriage rights and a rose by any other name is still a rose.

When two gay people adopt a child the state has no interest in making sure that they are married because the adoption papers already establish who is responsible for taking care of the kids.

And that's exactly the same for straight people so there's absolutely no difference there at all. However for either a straight or gay family income is looked at and often a couple can provide more income. A legal recognized marriage implies stability and as such not allowing gay people equal rights for a monogamous two person relationship is unfair on its face.

When two gay people want to get married without adopting the chance that they will create kids is so unlikely that the state has no compelling interest in making sure that they are married.

But you have no way in the world of knowing that. Over the years millions of heterosexual couples started out saying they weren't going to have children and later did... were found to be sterile... or adopted children.

Your "It's all about breeding train of thought" just isn't the case. People get married for love & security as well. My grandmother was married 4 times and I can assure you children were not in the equation in any of the last 3.

Let's let it be about fairness across the board and then let the children go to the best most loving homes. That's what matters.

I'll finish up on the next post...

 

[top gun]

Parenting & Family: responses to the most frequent objections

Does lesbian and gay parenting harm children?

No. There is absolutely no empirical evidence to support the claim that LGBT parenting harms children. Psychologist Charlotte Patterson reports that "not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. To the contrary, social science research indicates that LGBT individuals and same-sex couples can parent as well as their heterosexual counterparts and, in fact, may be better at managing disagreements than heterosexual parents. Children of gay and lesbian parents are as happy, healthy and emotionally well-adjusted as other children, have good relationships with their peers (although sometimes they are subject to anti-gay harassment), and are less inclined to hold stereotypical understandings of gender roles and more likely to be tolerant of differences in others. Research on transgender parents has made similar findings.

Are married heterosexual parents better than lesbian and gay parents?

No. Studies show that lesbians and gay men make just as good parents as their heterosexual counterparts, and that the presence of a married father and mother is not a prerequisite to good outcomes for children.

Are lesbian and gay individuals more likely to sexually abuse children?

No. The link between pedophilia and homosexuality is completely unfounded. A 1998 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association notes one study that determined that 90 percent of pedophiles are men, and that 98 percent of these individuals are heterosexual. Michael Stevenson, Ph.D., a psychologist at Ball State University, explains this statistic by noting that "gay men desire consensual sexual relations with other adult men. Pedophiles are usually adult men who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. They are rarely sexually attracted to other adults." Stevenson observes that cases of pedophilia by adult lesbians are "almost non-existent." Two other major studies that examined the sexual orientation of convicted child molesters found that less than 1 percent in one study and 0 percent in the other were lesbian or gay. These studies were published in Pediatrics and Archives of Sexual Behavior, respectively, two peer-reviewed, widely respected academic journals. Preventing gay men and lesbians from becoming adoptive parents or foster parents does not protect children from sexual abuse. It simply perpetuates anti-gay prejudice.

Don't children need a mother and a father to have proper male and female role models?

No. Children get their role models from many places besides their parents. These include grandparents, aunts and uncles, teachers, friends and neighbors. In a case-by-case evaluation, trained professionals can, and should be free to, ensure that the child being adopted or placed in foster care is transitioning into an environment with adequate role models.

Won't we actually be protecting children if we pass anti-gay legislation?

No. Categorically excluding gay men and lesbians from consideration as adoptive and/or foster parents denies children access to potential loving and safe families, and it prevents some children from being placed with the family that can best meet their needs. For example, a blanket ban would dictate that a child be placed with a stranger over a lesbian aunt with whom child has a close relationship, or that a medically needy child could not be placed with gay nurse even if the nurse is the only person available with the necessary skills to care properly for the child. In addition, anti-gay parenting policies stigmatize the thousands of gay and lesbian-led families already raising children.

 

[honeybunny]

Hi! This is my first post....I believe in marriage, and I believe it is a "Partnership" which I believe should be legally binding for sooooo many reasons, such as...If two people commit to each other, and decide to be "partners" and combine their wealth, debt, and off-spring, If in fact they do want to end it...it should be favorable, and fair for both parties...otherwise, there would be a bunch of people running off and leaving the other one s.o.l.
Although, I personally don't think their should be soooo many divorces, but hey, I had one, sometimes our best intentions are not enough, people change and people grow, and sometimes, it's just better to let it go...
I also believe that every person has the right to the "perks" of being married...such as insurance benefits, tax breaks, etc. and all men are created equal, gay people deserve everything straight people do, and church and state should be separate, even though I myself am a straight christian, it is not my job to tell anyone what is best for them....and I don't expect anyone to live like me, or be like me, except of course my husband, as we need to strive to be compatible. I do not think that any "group" of people are any "better" than any other people, except the "unkind" I do look down on people that are "unkind" and I guess I am predudice against that one particular trait.
But, instead of going too far off subject, I will just say that I believe in marriage and think it is necessary for couples(or they should at least have some type of contract, or keep everything separate) and I believe gay people should be allowed to be married as well.

 

[honeybunny]

And so you must have noticed that animals are not married and are getting along just fine. So the premise is "marriage" is totally unnecessary to a relationship. I agree. But if it is to be recognized for some legal purpose than any two adults should be treated fairly and equally. "Natural Law" is no more than whatever someone wants to believe it is or in other words... mumbo jumbo.

No one is saying that anyone and obviously not everyone is going to go into a gay relationship hence not be able to bear children. For your argument to have any validity at all we would have to also agree that any sterile man or woman could not be in a marriage because they too do not reach your breeding philosophy. It's silly...



And yet I bring you back kicking & screaming to the fact that a mere word "marriage" does not change or alter any behavior in anyway. So if people all wanted to be gay and kill off society not giving the people a piece of paper changes nothing. Hence... it's mumbo jumbo yet again.

Gay marriage hurts no one. It actually promotes monogamy and theoretically lessen the chance of the spread of various STD's.

This is much like the abortion argument. Don't want a abortion... don't have one. Don't want to be gay & get married... don't be gay & get married. The rub is when someone demands to impose their values or opinions onto others not of a like mind.

Allowing people to find their own way is what America is all about.

Wow, I disagree with the final paragraph comparing gay marriage to abortion.....hmmmm, see, if someone is killed, even if they don't have family, or any loved ones, someone still gets prosecuted, the reason so many people are against abortion, is because the small and meek need defenders...why, if your mother had chose to have an abortion, you would not be here today, now would that be fair? Oh, I see...if a stranger ended your life today, it would be wrong, but if your mommy did it to you, before you could even defend yourself, it would be okay, LOL...people crack me up! I am not even allowed to kill MYSELF!! If I had terminal cancer and was suffering, I could not even have a doctor let me go the dignified way....but I'm allowed to kill someone else because it's my body?? But is it my body when I'm dying? Do I have power over life and death then?
There are laws against killing animals as well, somebody has to speak up for all the little lives, that can't speak up for themselves...I just know that I am glad that I wasn't aborted, and I got to live life, and have children, and be awarded all the liberties that all men, women, and children, basically, all "souls" deserve. You were who you were, from the moment you were conceived, (in my opinion) I don't believe that you woke up one day, and your soul entered your body, it was there all along...and until that is proven otherwise...I will believe it is so.

 

[honeybunny]

actually the sate I live in is a "no fault" state...you can get a divorce for any reason you want....just because you feel like it.

 

[honeybunny]

And so you must have noticed that animals are not married and are getting along just fine. So the premise is "marriage" is totally unnecessary to a relationship. I agree. But if it is to be recognized for some legal purpose than any two adults should be treated fairly and equally. "Natural Law" is no more than whatever someone wants to believe it is or in other words... mumbo jumbo.

No one is saying that anyone and obviously not everyone is going to go into a gay relationship hence not be able to bear children. For your argument to have any validity at all we would have to also agree that any sterile man or woman could not be in a marriage because they too do not reach your breeding philosophy. It's silly...



And yet I bring you back kicking & screaming to the fact that a mere word "marriage" does not change or alter any behavior in anyway. So if people all wanted to be gay and kill off society not giving the people a piece of paper changes nothing. Hence... it's mumbo jumbo yet again.

Gay marriage hurts no one. It actually promotes monogamy and theoretically lessen the chance of the spread of various STD's.

This is much like the abortion argument. Don't want a abortion... don't have one. Don't want to be gay & get married... don't be gay & get married. The rub is when someone demands to impose their values or opinions onto others not of a like mind.

Allowing people to find their own way is what America is all about.

In America your rights end when they imposes on someone else in a harmfully way. Two adult people (straight or gay) married in a monogamous loving relationship hurts absolutely no one. You're just making yourself look so darn hompophobic...

Except that marriage is not about granting rights. It is about restricting the rights of straight people who might create children and then not take care of them leaving a burden for the state to take care of. Marriage creates a situation in which people must ask for permission from the state to get a divorce or remain married. Marriage creates a situation in which it is clear who is responsible to take care of the kids and who will inherit the cash when daddy croaks.

Actually married people do have more rights than non-married "gay" couples...they can file "jointly" on tax returns, get to claim a dependent, collect social security after their spouse dies, and they also get lower insurance premiums, plus they can get "family" medical insurance.

When two gay people adopt a child the state has no interest in making sure that they are married because the adoption papers already establish who is responsible for taking care of the kids.

When two gay people want to get married without adopting the chance that they will create kids is so unlikely that the state has no compelling interest in making sure that they are married.

I think all people are created equal, and our country was founded on that...and everyone should have the same rights...."LIFE, LIBERTY, AND the pursuit of HAPINESS!!"

 

[top gun]

Wow, I disagree with the final paragraph comparing gay marriage to abortion.....hmmmm, see, if someone is killed, even if they don't have family, or any loved ones, someone still gets prosecuted, the reason so many people are against abortion, is because the small and meek need defenders...why, if your mother had chose to have an abortion, you would not be here today, now would that be fair? Oh, I see...if a stranger ended your life today, it would be wrong, but if your mommy did it to you, before you could even defend yourself, it would be okay, LOL...people crack me up! I am not even allowed to kill MYSELF!! If I had terminal cancer and was suffering, I could not even have a doctor let me go the dignified way....but I'm allowed to kill someone else because it's my body?? But is it my body when I'm dying? Do I have power over life and death then?
There are laws against killing animals as well, somebody has to speak up for all the little lives, that can't speak up for themselves...I just know that I am glad that I wasn't aborted, and I got to live life, and have children, and be awarded all the liberties that all men, women, and children, basically, all "souls" deserve. You were who you were, from the moment you were conceived, (in my opinion) I don't believe that you woke up one day, and your soul entered your body, it was there all along...and until that is proven otherwise...I will believe it is so.

You understand I'm not really debating abortion here and that I'm Pro-Choice... and I understand your looking at it from a different perspective.

My point was only that gay marriage is an individual choice and should not for someones personal religious reasons be restricted.

Quickly on abortion there are widely varying beliefs & long held opinions on when life begins (i.e. In the Jewish religion for instance it's at crowning in child birth).

I'm not necessarily taking that position as in my case I'm more in line with the train of thought that women must be allowed to have control over their own body and anything contained therein. Plus observing the reality that abortion is something that has always been done be it legal or illegal... and as a father of two daughters... I would be scared & saddened if safe sterile medical procedures were not protected for them and all women if for some reason it was needed.

Add to that, that taken to it's lowest common denominator even today's current safe & effective birth control pill creates an abortion because the egg is fertilized but the womb is contaminated by the pill so the egg can't implant... and is flushed out (also called chemically aborted).

I respect your statements and I think we both agree that the gay marriage issue is much more clean cut as obviously hurting no one creating no reason at all why it should be illegal.

 

[honeybunny]

well, instead of getting abortions maybe people should get birth control, and not all birth control is as you say...plus just because something is safe, doesn't make it right...and like I said before...what if your mother had gotten an abortion?? Then you would have no daughter's to worry about because you wouldn't be here, so where did YOUR rights go?? when your mother aborted you?? LOL If every woman has RIGHTS over their body, why did you not have rights over your body when you were defenseless, but living, with a heartbeat? I think that people who condone murdering their own children are the most hypocritical thinkers I have ever seen...talking about "rights" baby's don't have rights? they are less human than you?

 

[top gun]

well, instead of getting abortions maybe people should get birth control, and not all birth control is as you say...plus just because something is safe, doesn't make it right...and like I said before...what if your mother had gotten an abortion?? Then you would have no daughter's to worry about because you wouldn't be here, so where did YOUR rights go?? when your mother aborted you?? LOL If every woman has RIGHTS over their body, why did you not have rights over your body when you were defenseless, but living, with a heartbeat? I think that people who condone murdering their own children are the most hypocritical thinkers I have ever seen...talking about "rights" baby's don't have rights? they are less human than you?

Well again this isn't an abortion thread and I do respect your feelings on the matter. My suggestion remains though that "you" should then never have an abortion... and others should be allowed to make up their own mind.

On the what if your mother had done this or that argument. That could just as easily be turned around to say wouldn't it have been great if Charles Mason, Jeffery Dahmer or Osama Bin Laden's mother had, had an abortion. It's one of those issues that no one really knows how things will turn out and the decision must be left in the hands of the individual woman involved.

And I agree and am all for more & better birth control, education and even abstinence. However there still would be a need for legal and medically safe abortion. Since this isn't a thread on abortion let's just agree to disagree on this one issue.

 

[Saussage Merguez]

Let's marry like Nicolas and Carla!