Marriage Debate

[morningstar2651]

lol

I sometimes wonder what this forum would be like without Huntster.....probably something like

"marriage debate" - should homosexuals be able to commit to their long term partners -yes or no?

post 1

yes

post 2

yes - i agree

post 3

yep me too....

post 4

and me....

post 5

god this is dull...i'm gonna watch TV instead.....

....

Fine! I guess we'll just have to agree to agree then!

 

[Meadmaker]

But why?

Because the possibility that people might become parents, whether or not that is their intention, creates unique problems for those people, and a legal institution is necessary that recognizes those problems. We call that institution "marriage". If people who cannot have children, for whatever reason, want to then enter into a relationship governed by the same rules, that's ok with me.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Because the possibility that people might become parents, whether or not that is their intention, creates unique problems for those people, and a legal institution is necessary that recognizes those problems.

A legal institution is required to recognize problems of sexual reproduction? Please explain to me how or why this is so.

 

[Upchurch]

The primary reason for the marriage committment is to fulfill the long term job of having and raising children.

Get it yet?

It's a shame we don't have an Unsupported BS Authoritative Statement Award. This would be my first nominee.

 

[rocketdodger]

How so?

It might reduce the frequency of single parents, which might be beneficial to society.

Of course that is a double "might" with each one having a low probability, so...

 

[Meadmaker]

A legal institution is required to recognize problems of sexual reproduction? Please explain to me how or why this is so.

If an explanation is necessary, it isn't likely to be understood, however, I'll attempt.


When my wife started having sex with me, there was a non-zero chance that she might end up pregnant, creating extreme financial and emotional hardship. Some framework of laws was necessary to ensure that I would not abandon her and/or her (our) child.

When a twenty year old woman enters a relationship with a 20 year old man, their situations might appear symmetrical, but they are not. When they are 40 years old, there is a fairly significant probability that the man will no longer desire that relationship, while the woman will continue to desire it. Also, if the relationship ends, there is a much higher probability that the man will begin a new, long term relationship with a new partner than that the woman will do the same. You can't legislate human nature, so you can't make 40 year old men stop desiring 20 year old women, or 20 year old women accepting their advances in some cases, but you can, and should, pass laws that let the woman keep the house and income when he runs off with the bimbo with the perky breasts.

So, write the laws to protect her, and then everyone else who wants them will get along fine, too.

 

[rocketdodger]

So, write the laws to protect her, and then everyone else who wants them will get along fine, too.

Your theorizing is entirely correct, but you don't account for the fact that any such benefits given by marriage are at a cost to everyone else, both financial and emotional.

 

[Upchurch]

{snippy}

So, write the laws to protect her, and then everyone else who wants them will get along fine, too.

So, what you're saying is that marriage laws are not there for procreation but to help protect the member(s) of the union?

eta: Just so my meaning is clear, nothing you wrote is based on reproduction. It is based on inequity between the partners. This is just as applicable to a homosexual relationship as it is to a heterosexual relationship.

 

[andyandy]

Hi, Scot.

Scot is correct, of course.

And the post to whicj=h he was responding:



has a glaring error in it. Huntster thinks homosexuals should be able to commit to long term partners. On JREF, I've never heard anyone say they shouldn't, including Huntster.

The question is whether there is anything special about a relationship between a man and a woman that should mark it for special consideration. Some of us have this bizarre notion that reproduction is significant in all this debate about marriage.

My recent position, stable for at least a year on this topic, is that the rules of marriage should be written to make sense for young, fertile, heterosexuals who are likely to have children. Those rules should require people to get together sexually, and stay together and monogamous. Failure to do so should bring significant penalties on the party that doesn't keep the bargain. Then, if people who are old, infertile by choice or condition, or not of opposite genders also want to play by the same rules, so be it.

well....it's good to know that if huntster ever goes AWOL you'll still be here to continue the argument

 

[wolfgirl]

What was provided was just a few of the states positions on the marriage of first cousins. Almost all states have such regulations/laws. That is a specific circumstance, and those states do not "only allow marriage if procreation cannot take place".

So, many states have laws that keep first cousins from bearing children, yet they do not keep them from marrying. They can only marry if they can't have children together. We know for a fact that gay people can't have children together. As far as I know, nobody prohibits first cousins from adopting children. So gay people should at least be allowed the same rights as first cousins: They can get married if they can't have children together, and then they can adopt if they want.

 

[Hardenbergh]

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve...that's all the evidence I need.

 

[Upchurch]

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve...that's all the evidence I need.

Sorry, what evidence is that?

eta: and how is it relevent, even if the above statement were any form of valid evidence?

 

[Huntster]

This thread has gone on too long. Let me summarize the two positions.

Hunster
Homosexual marriage is wrong for the following two reasons:

Some straight people have children in wedlock.

God says so.

Everyone else
Your two points are irrelevant. Say something pertinent.

Hunster
Reposts/Rephrases the above ad nauseum.

Is that it?

Nope, but you are free to interpret it however you wish,

cause that's what you're gonna do, anyway.

 

[Huntster]

...Nobody worth anything advocates that slavery should NOT have ended, or that women should NOT be allowed to vote now, yet at the time those changes happened many did. Why is this? I would like to believe that everyone simply got smarter and realized eventually that equality is good rather than bad.

My suggestion is that perhaps in 100 years this hetero/homo sexual debate will be looked upon in the same light.

Oh, no doubt about it.

And 100 years from now we will also be dealing with problems that we didn't have 50 years ago as a result of the change in defining marriage............

 

[Upchurch]

Nope

Okay, what would you say is the most concise statement of your position?

 

[thaiboxerken]

When my wife started having sex with me, there was a non-zero chance that she might end up pregnant, creating extreme financial and emotional hardship. Some framework of laws was necessary to ensure that I would not abandon her and/or her (our) child.

You actually needed that law? Wow. Have you told your wife that the law was the only reason you stayed with the family?

You can't legislate human nature, so you can't make 40 year old men stop desiring 20 year old women, or 20 year old women accepting their advances in some cases, but you can, and should, pass laws that let the woman keep the house and income when he runs off with the bimbo with the perky breasts.

Why? Why not pass laws that require people to be independantly sound before having children. We can require people to have licenses before having kids. People with individual income of over 30K can only have 1 kid, over 40K can have 2 kids and etc. If it's really about providing for children, why not do this instead of this whole marriage nonsense? Are you also insisting that people who have kids should be required to get married to each other?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
The primary reason for the marriage committment is to fulfill the long term job of having and raising children.

It might reduce the frequency of single parents, which might be beneficial to society...

That is my whole point. A man and woman committing to each other in the raising of children is what it's all about, and it has been so since the dawn of time.

Government now defines and regulates marriage (like it does everything else), primarily because of irresponsible and unsatisfiable people.

Yet we have broken marriages, homes, and single parent families at likely the greatest rate ever.

And some folks still don't get it.............or simply don't care, because they want to satisfy their own demands.

 

[thaiboxerken]

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve...that's all the evidence I need.

According to the mythology, Eve was created from Adam. Does this mean that the mother to all humans was a tranny?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Nope

Okay, what would you say is the most concise statement of your position?

"you are free to interpret it however you wish,

cause that's what you're gonna do, anyway".

 

[thaiboxerken]

That is my whole point. A man and woman committing to each other in the raising of children is what it's all about, and it has been so since the dawn of time.

That is your opinion, you've stated it several times. However, you haven't shown evidence to support your claim.

Government now defines and regulates marriage (like it does everything else), primarily because of irresponsible and unsatisfiable people.

Perhaps, but they also make laws against murder for the same reasons.

Yet we have broken marriages, homes, and single parent families at likely the greatest rate ever.

Do you know this for sure? Have evidence? What's this have to do with same-sex marriage?