DOJ: Children Do Not Need OR Have Rights To Mothers

[dogtowner]

So your fine with the Rapist having to marry the guy who raped her is true marriage...but 2 guys...thats just to far? Its a nice line you guys have. I guess your fine with any marriage so long as its a guy and a girl..if its a guy and 9 girls, a slave, some Military guy, some concubines, And there brother in law....Well thats fine.

im sorry your graphic fel flat on its irrelevant tangent.

ok im not sorry at all.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

im sorry your graphic fel flat on its irrelevant tangent.

ok im not sorry at all.

I am sorry your to slow to follow simple concepts...like that Marriage has always changed.
But I am not shocked...

 

[dogtowner]

I am sorry your to slow to follow simple concepts...like that Marriage has always changed.
But I am not shocked...

changed ? nope. always opposite sex the world around even before man made guidelines were thought of.

thats the simple truth no matter how badly you want to deny it.

 

[Dr.Who]

Your example proved that some details of unions between man and woman have changed. It has failed to prove that the basics of marriage have changed. Some of the examples in your illustration are not accepted as best today and what that proves is that some of the forms of marriage even though they are still between man and woman are NOT good. How much worse are changes to the more basic foundation of marriage?

That being said I think that we can always find something good in any imagined form of marriage and there are always examples of odd forms that seem to work fine. That does not mean that society at large should endorse these forms. As a more libertarian leaning person I don't think society needs to endorse any form of marraige anyway. We need to protect children. So allow any form of marriage that any people want without state interference. If a group of people want to get married and their church is going to endorse it then I just dont care. If they need a license then the state can define what is best. I could see how a group of people might need a license because it would be near impossible to tell which of the five men and five woman were the parents of which children for determining paternity and inheritance. when it comes to two men getting married the state need not get involved because they will not be creating any children - no license needed.

 

[dogtowner]

Your example proved that some details of unions between man and woman have changed. It has failed to prove that the basics of marriage have changed. Some of the examples in your illustration are not accepted as best today and what that proves is that some of the forms of marriage even though they are still between man and woman are NOT good. How much worse are changes to the more basic foundation of marriage?

That being said I think that we can always find something good in any imagined form of marriage and there are always examples of odd forms that seem to work fine. That does not mean that society at large should endorse these forms. As a more libertarian leaning person I don't think society needs to endorse any form of marraige anyway. We need to protect children. So allow any form of marriage that any people want without state interference. If a group of people want to get married and their church is going to endorse it then I just dont care. If they need a license then the state can define what is best. I could see how a group of people might need a license because it would be near impossible to tell which of the five men and five woman were the parents of which children for determining paternity and inheritance. when it comes to two men getting married the state need not get involved because they will not be creating any children - no license needed.

Poc was belittling arranged marriages as is so popular to do. I usedto as well until a wonderfull young Indian bride to be schooled me on her coming arranged marriage. All goes to show what you assume to be trueaint necessarily so.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Poc was belittling arranged marriages as is so popular to do. I usedto as well until a wonderfull young Indian bride to be schooled me on her coming arranged marriage. All goes to show what you assume to be trueaint necessarily so.

If she is happy so be it, the point is the definition of mattiage has often changed, and means different things to different religions and cultures....But you pretend only yours matters and only your narrow definition is true.

 

[dogtowner]

If she is happy so be it, the point is the definition of mattiage has often changed, and means different things to different religions and cultures....But you pretend only yours matters and only your narrow definition is true.

man, woman. no change. across ages, across cultures its always the same and for obvious reasons.

despite what you might want to think.

 

[Cruella]

We need to protect children. So allow any form of marriage that any people want without state interference. If a group of people want to get married and their church is going to endorse it then I just dont care. .

Protect children, let any group get married without interference and it's okay if the church endorses it?

I see comparing apples to oranges there. What does protect the children mean to you? If anyone really cared about protecting children, maybe they are the ones who should decide what they want to have in a family.

I suspect most children would want a mother and a father together in a secure and loving home. Not these crazy match-ups and mis-matches that produce messed up kids.

 

[Dr.Who]

Poc was belittling arranged marriages as is so popular to do. I usedto as well until a wonderfull young Indian bride to be schooled me on her coming arranged marriage. All goes to show what you assume to be trueaint necessarily so.

I only tbought pocket was telling us that the meaning of marriage had changed - an argument that failed.

I too used to know an (East) Indian couple that had an arranged marriage and I learned a lot from them about some valuable perspectives on marriage. I also had a class in community college on marriage which said that 20% of American marriages are only for the sake of the money. The idea that everyone marries only out of love and only because they choose it is false. IMO the origin of the marriage is less important than what the couple makes of it. That being said I choose my bride based on love and am grateful to have had that opportunity. We still had struggles and needed to make our marriage what it is today.

 

[Dr.Who]

Protect children, let any group get married without interference and it's okay if the church endorses it?

I see comparing apples to oranges there. What does protect the children mean to you? If anyone really cared about protecting children, maybe they are the ones who should decide what they want to have in a family.

I suspect most children would want a mother and a father together in a secure and loving home. Not these crazy match-ups and mis-matches that produce messed up kids.

Solomon was a very wise man and yet had marriages that were quite different from our own. His were also endorsed by God. He was rich and provided for his children very well. Solomon was the father, each child had a mother and the bond between parents was secure. As far as the state was concerned paternity was known so inheritance and deciding who should care for the kids was well defined. Love may not ALWAYS have been a part of his marriages but it was in at least some of them.

 

[Cruella]

While playing around with genealogy, I have read hundreds of census records going back to the 1800's. One thing I noticed was the frequency of missing parents. You can find a family ten years later with a different mother (usually) or father.

It seemed necessary for men and women with young children to remarry for obvious reasons. I found my own ggg-grandfather who was one of 7 kids with his mom and a step-father when he was 8. The step father had two children from a different marriage and they had one child together.