Marriage Debate

[Meadmaker]

In order to show the absurdity of the position that marriage and kids aren't related, I made a reference to the fact that it is highly unusual to have children with anyone other than your spouse. Once you pick a wife, you've picked the mother of your children, if any. (Pardon the sexist reference, but I think it sounds better. More accurate would be "Once you pick a spouse, you have picked the coparent of your children, if any.")

Of course, it doesn't have to be that way. No laws of physics are violated if it isn't that way. In fact, we know throughout history that it isn't always that way.

But Upchurch basically said, "Hey. There's no law about that." In doing so, he managed to convince Huntster that the situation was even worse than he thought. That's no easy feat.

Not only that, but he managed to feed Huntster a very easy, and accurate, line about recognizing destructive behavior.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I would agree with Huntster that creating offspring with miscellaneous combinations of parents is indeed destructive behavior.

Ken and Upchurch can stick to their ideas that marriage and offspring aren't related. ImaginalDisc can stick to his idea that there's nothing wrong with a marriage between a mother and daughter. However, the voters recognize that if they are right, then marriage is meaningless. I'll give credit to ImaginalDisc and Upchurch for sticking with the logical conclusions of their premises, but if you do stick with those premises, and their conclusions, you've created a hopeless position. If marriage can't keep someone from fathering children here and there with a variety of mothers, what good is it?

There's your uphill battle Scot. When going for the hearts and minds of mainstream America, you'll have to convince them that Upchurch, Ken, and ImaginalDisc are fringe folks that aren't very relevant. You'll have to convince Americans that supporters of gay marriage really want marriage, as opposed to some pale imitation of it. Unfortunately, a lot of your supporters don't actually want that. At your next meeting of supporters, remember the wise words of Pogo. "We have met the enemy, and they are us."

 

[thaiboxerken]

In order to show the absurdity of the position that marriage and kids aren't related, I made a reference to the fact that it is highly unusual to have children with anyone other than your spouse. Once you pick a wife, you've picked the mother of your children, if any.

Not necessarily. It's not unusual for people to have children otuside of the marriage. Marriage and children can be related, but marriage isn't about children. Children are not a necessary component for marriage, and neither is marriage necessary for spawning offspring. In otherwords, bringing up children in the SSM discussion is just a giant red-herring.

Spawning is optional to both married and single people.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

In order to show the absurdity of the position that marriage and kids aren't related, I made a reference to the fact that it is highly unusual to have children with anyone other than your spouse. Once you pick a wife, you've picked the mother of your children, if any. (Pardon the sexist reference, but I think it sounds better. More accurate would be "Once you pick a spouse, you have picked the coparent of your children, if any.")

Of course, it doesn't have to be that way. No laws of physics are violated if it isn't that way. In fact, we know throughout history that it isn't always that way.

But Upchurch basically said, "Hey. There's no law about that." In doing so, he managed to convince Huntster that the situation was even worse than he thought. That's no easy feat.

If Huntster assumed Upchurch meant that "there's nothing wrong with having children all willy-nilly", then sure. But that's not what I got. To me, he basically said what you just said, replacing the laws of physics with the laws of the US. No one is being fined or jailed for the act of creating a human life while married to someone other than the child’s other parent alone; cheating, sure, making children, no. I’m pretty sure Huntster knew that, but could be wrong.

Not only that, but he managed to feed Huntster a very easy, and accurate, line about recognizing destructive behavior.

Sure, it fed him a line (and he notably used it to doge another question), but, again, only if he assumed correctly is his reply near relavent.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I would agree with Huntster that creating offspring with miscellaneous combinations of parents is indeed destructive behavior.

Let’s take a pole then. I too think making children all over the place with many different people in many different homes to be destructive behavior, specifically for the kids. Does anyone else agree?

Ken and Upchurch can stick to their ideas that marriage and offspring aren't related.

I think the words are a big problem in these threads. “Related”. Marriage and where you spend your holidays are related (wouldn’t Upchurch and Ken agree?), but they aren’t part of law; marriage isn’t even legally tied together with something as important as creating children. That’s so important it has it’s own separate mechanism of enforcement.

Marriage is useful and many parts designed for people with kids. More specifically, a lot of it is most useful for couples with a homemaker and a breadwinner, because you have an unpaid worker there. In that way, I’d be using more of the traditional mechanisms of marriage than most in the US, but that doesn’t mean marriage is not used or meant for other couples. Again, I like the Swiss army knife (Though, with the rarity of it’s use, I guess we’d be the little tweezers stuffed into the side).

ImaginalDisc can stick to his idea that there's nothing wrong with a marriage between a mother and daughter.

Again, was it “nothing wrong” or “I wouldn’t stop them”.

If marriage can't keep someone from fathering children here and there with a variety of mothers, what good is it?

You tell me then. What good has it been all these years, as marriage law doesn’t stop someone from fathering children here and there with a variety of mothers?

I love irony as much as the next guy, but, with the lines you’ve drawn, I shouldn’t be defending the purposes and usefulness of marriage from you .

 

[Upchurch]

In order to show the absurdity of the position that marriage and kids aren't related, I made a reference to the fact that it is highly unusual to have children with anyone other than your spouse.

I find that stunningly naive. Did I miss your evidence that it is highly unusual to have children with anyone other than your spouce?

I'm not saying that this sort of behavior is a morally or ethically good thing. I personally find the idea repellent. However, the issue at hand pertains to whether or not we can or should legally prohibit a non-distructive behavior.

But Upchurch basically said, "Hey. There's no law about that." In doing so, he managed to convince Huntster that the situation was even worse than he thought. That's no easy feat.

Not only that, but he managed to feed Huntster a very easy, and accurate, line about recognizing destructive behavior.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I would agree with Huntster that creating offspring with miscellaneous combinations of parents is indeed destructive behavior.

Slow down, Meadmaker. You're taking what I said way out of context. When I asked about destructive behavior, I was asking what was destructive about homosexual behavior. Homosexual behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with siring children out of wedlock or committing adultery.

If you're going to argue that having children out of wedlock is destructive, you might have a coherent argument. Not a very strong argument towards making the act illegal, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you could put the argument together.

So, unless you can make an argument for why destructive heterosexual behavior is a direct result of homosexual behavior, all you have is a loosely constructed strawman argument.

I'll give credit to ImaginalDisc and Upchurch for sticking with the logical conclusions of their premises, but if you do stick with those premises, and their conclusions, you've created a hopeless position. If marriage can't keep someone from fathering children here and there with a variety of mothers, what good is it?

Is marriage the only thing that keeps you committed to one person, Meadmaker?

This reminds me of that really old argument that without God there is no reason to be moral. It says more to moral weakness of the person saying it than of the person it is directed at.

When going for the hearts and minds of mainstream America, you'll have to convince them that Upchurch, Ken, and ImaginalDisc are fringe folks that aren't very relevant.

I don't know on what you're basing your judgement of what the hearts and minds of mainstream America wants. I think you're way off, unless you're only looking at the older generations.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

There's your uphill battle Scot. When going for the hearts and minds of mainstream America, you'll have to convince them that Upchurch, Ken, and ImaginalDisc are fringe folks that aren't very relevant. You'll have to convince Americans that supporters of gay marriage really want marriage, as opposed to some pale imitation of it. Unfortunately, a lot of your supporters don't actually want that. At your next meeting of supporters, remember the wise words of Pogo. "We have met the enemy, and they are us."

We do.

Just after our brunch of puppies and pate, and the awards for the gay best at converting all you straights, we have speakers. Not too long ago I heard the head of HRC, the ex-head of Lambda Legal Defense, and Gene Robinson speak. Sadly, my first impressions of Rev. Robinson weren’t too good, but the others were talking a lot like you (though, they didn’t mention Upchurch, Ken and ID by name ).

I think the uphill battle is really in getting past the caricatures of us made by our opponents. For example, on our scale, though I could be wrong about both, I just don’t think Upchurch meant what Huntster assumed, and I think he assumed it because the image of gays and gay rights supporters that most often get highlighted are the ones that meet that image.

I know, each gay pride day in my state, the picture in the next day’s paper is always of the near nude androgynous dancers, even if such floats are a very small minority compared to the numbers of church floats, family group floats, and the floats of politicians.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

I'm not saying that this sort of behavior is a morally or ethically good thing. I personally find the idea repellent. However, the issue at hand pertains to whether or not we can or should legally prohibit a non-distructive behavior.

See Dave, SEE!

 

[Huntster]

....But Upchurch basically said, "Hey. There's no law about that." In doing so, he managed to convince Huntster that the situation was even worse than he thought. That's no easy feat.

If Huntster assumed Upchurch meant that "there's nothing wrong with having children all willy-nilly", then sure. But that's not what I got. To me, he basically said what you just said, replacing the laws of physics with the laws of the US. No one is being fined or jailed for the act of creating a human life while married to someone other than the child’s other parent alone; cheating, sure, making children, no. I’m pretty sure Huntster knew that, but could be wrong....

What Mr. Upchurch did was verify that to him this issue is a matter of law, and that culture, decency, wisdom, and the future are of no concern.

No, people aren't being cuffed and jailed for creating human life out of wedlock. But the homeless shelters are bulging with such people. The courts and the state provide assistance to single parent households, then "fine" the absent parent with "back child support", which builds as debt. Even if the absent parent simply gives up hope and resorts to homelessness, the debt to the state builds and is never forgiven.

Not only that, but he managed to feed Huntster a very easy, and accurate, line about recognizing destructive behavior.

Sure, it fed him a line (and he notably used it to doge another question), but, again, only if he assumed correctly is his reply near relavent.

Huh?

Ken and Upchurch can stick to their ideas that marriage and offspring aren't related.

I think the words are a big problem in these threads. “Related”. Marriage and where you spend your holidays are related (wouldn’t Upchurch and Ken agree?).....

I'd be surprised to see Ken agree with anyone or anything:

I'm hardly intolerant of the people of the other side, if they changed their mind I'd accept their position.

(See my sig lines and links).

...marriage isn’t even legally tied together with something as important as creating children....

Perhaps, for folks like Mr. Upchurch, it needs to be.

Some folks just need everything written down in a law book.

ImaginalDisc can stick to his idea that there's nothing wrong with a marriage between a mother and daughter.

Again, was it “nothing wrong” or “I wouldn’t stop them”.

Like Pop used to say, "There oughta be a law.............."

Obviously, and unfortunately, some folks need them.

If marriage can't keep someone from fathering children here and there with a variety of mothers, what good is it?

You tell me then. What good has it been all these years, as marriage law doesn’t stop someone from fathering children here and there with a variety of mothers?

It is the loss of cultural values that has already devalued marriage and procreation. And those who appear to need everything in black letter law are still not satisfied, as this thread so aptly shows.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker :
In order to show the absurdity of the position that marriage and kids aren't related, I made a reference to the fact that it is highly unusual to have children with anyone other than your spouse.

I find that stunningly naive. Did I miss your evidence that it is highly unusual to have children with anyone other than your spouce?

Unfortunately, you're right.

However, it used to be considered highly unusual and undesirable to have children with anyone other than your spouse.

You know..........slippery slope.................then free-fall.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker :
But Upchurch basically said, "Hey. There's no law about that." In doing so, he managed to convince Huntster that the situation was even worse than he thought. That's no easy feat.

Not only that, but he managed to feed Huntster a very easy, and accurate, line about recognizing destructive behavior.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I would agree with Huntster that creating offspring with miscellaneous combinations of parents is indeed destructive behavior.

Slow down, Meadmaker. You're taking what I said way out of context. When I asked about destructive behavior, I was asking what was destructive about homosexual behavior. Homosexual behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with siring children out of wedlock or committing adultery.

That is your claim and your opinion. It is not my opinion.

I believe that allowing same sex marriage devalues both the previous meaning of marriage as well as the cultural values that have been slipping away with each new cultural "allowance", and sets the legal stage for even wider interpretation of the meaning of marriage.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker :
I'll give credit to ImaginalDisc and Upchurch for sticking with the logical conclusions of their premises, but if you do stick with those premises, and their conclusions, you've created a hopeless position. If marriage can't keep someone from fathering children here and there with a variety of mothers, what good is it?

Is marriage the only thing that keeps you committed to one person, Meadmaker?

This reminds me of that really old argument that without God there is no reason to be moral. It says more to moral weakness of the person saying it than of the person it is directed at.

What's the difference if one behaves morally in order to please (or not piss off) God, or if one does it in order to conform to black letter law?

 

[Upchurch]

What Mr. Upchurch did was verify that to him this issue is a matter of law, and that culture, decency, wisdom, and the future are of no concern.

I did absolutely no such thing. Whther or not gays are allowed to marry should be only an issue of legality in terms of government involvement. I whole heartedly agree that this is a matter of culture, decency, wisdom, and the future. I just seem to disagree with you on what each of those are and what is best for them.

No, people aren't being cuffed and jailed for creating human life out of wedlock. But the homeless shelters are bulging with such people. The courts and the state provide assistance to single parent households, then "fine" the absent parent with "back child support", which builds as debt. Even if the absent parent simply gives up hope and resorts to homelessness, the debt to the state builds and is never forgiven.

Also know as paternity laws, which could definitely be better inforced but are definitely there to serve that purpose.

 

[Upchurch]

That is your claim and your opinion. It is not my opinion.

Well, please do explain how homosexual behavior results in the with siring children out of wedlock or committing adultery amongs heterosexual couples.

I believe that allowing same sex marriage devalues both the previous meaning of marriage as well as the cultural values that have been slipping away with each new cultural "allowance", and sets the legal stage for even wider interpretation of the meaning of marriage.

So, are you saying that SSM is a result of the "devaluation of marriage" or that the "devaluation of marriage" is the result of SSM? It seems as though you are saying the latter.

What's the difference if one behaves morally in order to please (or not piss off) God, or if one does it in order to conform to black letter law?

False dilema and a strawman. It is perfectly valid to act morally for morality's own sake, without expectation of reward or fear of punishment, be it from deity or government. In my opinion, it is a much stronger form of morality in that it is not done out of mere self-interest.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

What Mr. Upchurch did was verify that to him this issue is a matter of law, and that culture, decency, wisdom, and the future are of no concern.

The second part you assumed, incorrectly.

No, people aren't being cuffed and jailed for creating human life out of wedlock. But the homeless shelters are bulging with such people. The courts and the state provide assistance to single parent households, then "fine" the absent parent with "back child support", which builds as debt. Even if the absent parent simply gives up hope and resorts to homelessness, the debt to the state builds and is never forgiven.

Yes, it’s horrible. If you’re out for stiffer penalties for deadbeat parents, we can get those cheesy protest signs and march for it together. Let’s put them to work until they’ve paid for their kid’s material needs, it’s the very least they can do.

Two things I find ironic, though. Many gay kids end up homeless and in shelters, or unthinkably worse, like selling themselves on the street, when their parents get rid of them for their religious beliefs. I mentioned what happened to one of the first kids I dated after his parents kicked him out (they called it “tough love”), but I left out some of the more horrible stuff. Not that I’m assuming you would do that to your children, but it is aversion to homosexuality taken to an extreme and it does add to our debt, financially and morally.

Second, by trying to keep gays from the responsibilities of marriage you are giving legal license for many of them to just this, to leave their obligations with little to no legal consequence and let you pay for it. In some states a gay couple can’t adopt without legal marriage, and so there might not even be any measly child support for the abandoned parent, let alone back child support.

I'd be surprised to see Ken agree with anyone or anything:

We didn’t see eye-to-eye either, but I’d not come here if we all agreed.

Perhaps, for folks like Mr. Upchurch, it needs to be.

Some folks just need everything written down in a law book.

I’d bet Upchurch does just fine with his powers of procreation.

Anyway, this is where conservative ethic of small government and “just leave me alone” starts to break down. What kind of life does the law book say all these people need to be living? Just how much can you intrude into people’s lives? When exactly can we stop a person from creating another human life? I'd hate to, say, mimic China.

I’m with you on stopping person A from hurting person B, but that can get murky. People start giving mechanisms of harm that range from clear-cut to impossible. I mean, in some cultures, counting someone’s teeth when they smile is supposed to take time off their life, but we’d not want to count that as attempted homicide.

It is the loss of cultural values that has already devalued marriage and procreation. And those who appear to need everything in black letter law are still not satisfied, as this thread so aptly shows.

Then more power to you; fight to put value back into marriage and procreation in your sphere of influence, or move to where you can find it. I feel it strongly in my culture.

But, IMO, if you think you put value into marriage and procreation by devaluing the relationships of gays, to each other and to their kids, you’re not going to help anyone, and you’re going to do to someone else what you’re upset about in the first place. For example, if you wanted people to read more, you’d not do it by insulting and devaluing the use of brail, even though it’s not quite as nice as being able to see.

 

[ceo_esq]

Also know as paternity laws, which could definitely be better inforced but are definitely there to serve that purpose.

As I observed in another thread, paternity-based child support laws pick up some of the slack, but they do not afford the same level of protection to children as do marriage laws, and at least in their current form are not a good substitute for them. Indeed, if you wanted to create a child support regime that was as tailored to that purpose as the marital regime, you might well end up with laws that would effectively be marriage laws by another name.

 

[Meadmaker]

Slow down, Meadmaker. You're taking what I said way out of context. When I asked about destructive behavior, I was asking what was destructive about homosexual behavior. Homosexual behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with siring children out of wedlock or committing adultery.

I think you are taking your own words out of context.

Here’s the context.

Thaiboxerken
Marriage is not about kids.

Meadmaker
And that's why, after you are married, it's still ok to have children with anyone else.

Upchurch
As far as the law and the government is concerned, yes.

When Huntster called your response “unbelievable”, you responded:

Are you aware of a law that makes it illegal for consenting married adults to have children outside of wedlock?

Do you believe the government should intervene to prevent consenting married adults from having children outside of wedlock?

I think everyone understood that my comment was basically a comment noting that even if you don’t have children, your choice of marriage partner is still related to children, because it precludes you from having children with anyone else. At least, it precludes you if you think that sort of thing matters.

There are two broad categories of response. The first category would be sort of “I see your point.” The second category would be sort of “Whether or not its ok depends on your personal opinion.”

You chose the latter. I find Huntster’s response, which was to say that such a thing is “unbelievable”, totally appropriate.

His comment about “destructive behavior” was a personal comment directed to you in response. Anyone who can’t recognize the destructive nature of fathering children with people other than your spouse loses the credibility to even discuss the subject. If you called it an argument ad hominem, you would be correct. And he would still have a point.

To answer your last question, I would say yes. Absolutely. Of course, government can’t actually “prevent” it, but government could make it so darned expensive that it would make even the greatest of libertines think twice. I think if you father a child with your girlfriend, your wife should be able to throw you out on your ear and garnish your wages to make sure she and whatever preexisting children are present are taken care of, and then and only then should you, your mistress, and your love child get whatever scraps are left. If that’s not enough for the love child, then your mistress had better get a job.

Is marriage the only thing that keeps you committed to one person, Meadmaker?

It is a sufficient, but not necessary, condition.

See Scot’s mimicry of my position for a more elaborate definition. He was right on the money.

I don't know on what you're basing your judgement of what the hearts and minds of mainstream America wants. I think you're way off, unless you're only looking at the older generations.

I’m looking at the older generation, and those who will be the older generation someday.

As the young people age, they’ll have a different view of marriage than they do in their twentysomething state.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think the uphill battle is really in getting past the caricatures of us made by our opponents.

I think you underestimate how much of the opposition to gay marriage is directed, not at gays themselves, but at your supporters.

You are being judged by the company you keep.

Not that there isn't plenty of just plain anti-homosexual sentiment to go along with it, but a lot of people don't see that as a threat. I don't see you as a threat. I do see the "marriage is whatever you want it to be" crowd as a threat.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
That is your claim and your opinion. It is not my opinion.

Well, please do explain how homosexual behavior results in the with siring children out of wedlock or committing adultery amongs heterosexual couples.

It probably doesn't.

What SSM will do is:

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I believe that allowing same sex marriage devalues both the previous meaning of marriage as well as the cultural values that have been slipping away with each new cultural "allowance", and sets the legal stage for even wider interpretation of the meaning of marriage.

So, are you saying that SSM is a result of the "devaluation of marriage" or that the "devaluation of marriage" is the result of SSM? It seems as though you are saying the latter.

SSM is the result of a loosening of sexual morals that has been building for the past century, and which has also been deteriorating marriage and cultural integrity.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
What's the difference if one behaves morally in order to please (or not piss off) God, or if one does it in order to conform to black letter law?

False dilema and a strawman. It is perfectly valid to act morally for morality's own sake, without expectation of reward or fear of punishment, be it from deity or government.

That's the point of my question. The ideal is morality for morality's own sake. It makes no difference whether one behaves morally for fear of God or for fear of black-letter law.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Basically, Huntster's position is based on the assertion that homosexual behaviour is immoral. Byallowing same sex marriage, he thinks the government would be condoning what he considers "immoral behavior."

Of course, this assertion that it's immoral is a completely religious one, but who cares? We really should govern laws in the USA based on the bible, right?

 

[Huntster]

...If you’re out for stiffer penalties for deadbeat parents, we can get those cheesy protest signs and march for it together. Let’s put them to work until they’ve paid for their kid’s material needs, it’s the very least they can do....

That's not what I seek. I want to see the courts enforce marriage, not declare it dead, then hold people financially liable for it anyway.

Two things I find ironic, though. Many gay kids end up homeless and in shelters, or unthinkably worse, like selling themselves on the street, when their parents get rid of them for their religious beliefs.

What?! Where and when has that happened?

I mentioned what happened to one of the first kids I dated after his parents kicked him out (they called it “tough love”), but I left out some of the more horrible stuff. Not that I’m assuming you would do that to your children, but it is aversion to homosexuality taken to an extreme and it does add to our debt, financially and morally.

We don't "kick our children out" in my family; either my immediate or extended family.

Anyway, this is where conservative ethic of small government and “just leave me alone” starts to break down. What kind of life does the law book say all these people need to be living?

I don't know. What's more, I don't want the "law books" to even address the kind of life I need to be living. I'll determine that myself, thanks.

Just how much can you intrude into people’s lives?

Government can intrude in all aspects of people's lives. I can't, nor do I want to. I've got enough to deal with in my own life, thanks.

When exactly can we stop a person from creating another human life? I'd hate to, say, mimic China.

Me, too.

Yet government already has great power in the abortion question. Granted, that's not "creating" another human life.

It's ending it, without the consent of all those involved in creating it.

I’m with you on stopping person A from hurting person B, but that can get murky. People start giving mechanisms of harm that range from clear-cut to impossible. I mean, in some cultures, counting someone’s teeth when they smile is supposed to take time off their life, but we’d not want to count that as attempted homicide.

No doubt. There are even people who claim to be harmed when the majority refuses to redefine an ancient institution so that they can participate, even though it is a violation of the institution.

That's where law will get you. It's the ratchet effect.

It is the loss of cultural values that has already devalued marriage and procreation. And those who appear to need everything in black letter law are still not satisfied, as this thread so aptly shows.

Then more power to you; fight to put value back into marriage and procreation in your sphere of influence, or move to where you can find it. I feel it strongly in my culture.

I moved. I live in the woods, but I must admit there are lots of recent "cultural refugees" flooding in here, who then change this old frontier into the cesspool they came here to escape.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

In order to show the absurdity of the position that marriage and kids aren't related, I made a reference to the fact that it is highly unusual to have children with anyone other than your spouse. Once you pick a wife, you've picked the mother of your children, if any. (Pardon the sexist reference, but I think it sounds better. More accurate would be "Once you pick a spouse, you have picked the coparent of your children, if any.")

Of course, it doesn't have to be that way. No laws of physics are violated if it isn't that way. In fact, we know throughout history that it isn't always that way.

But Upchurch basically said, "Hey. There's no law about that." In doing so, he managed to convince Huntster that the situation was even worse than he thought. That's no easy feat.

Not only that, but he managed to feed Huntster a very easy, and accurate, line about recognizing destructive behavior.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I would agree with Huntster that creating offspring with miscellaneous combinations of parents is indeed destructive behavior.

Ken and Upchurch can stick to their ideas that marriage and offspring aren't related. ImaginalDisc can stick to his idea that there's nothing wrong with a marriage between a mother and daughter. However, the voters recognize that if they are right, then marriage is meaningless. I'll give credit to ImaginalDisc and Upchurch for sticking with the logical conclusions of their premises, but if you do stick with those premises, and their conclusions, you've created a hopeless position. If marriage can't keep someone from fathering children here and there with a variety of mothers, what good is it?

What's that? First you declare that biological parentage equates to paternal behavior, and then you falsely characterize me? If you are going to make this personal, I came quite close to marrying a women who had children by another man. Since she already had two children born only a year apart I didn't have any plans for a third, not then or in the future. I was quite comfortable with the idea of raising children who were biologically fathered by someone else. Families are not built out of gametes, they're built by the consistent and difficult choice to put the welfare of others ahead of one's own. If you are only capable of making that commitment to someone who is going to pop out babies for you, I pity your narrowness.

If my willingess to love and cherish someone I have no children by and no relation too is "fringe" and unacceptable, than it is the mainstream ethics which are amoral, not me.

There's your uphill battle Scot. When going for the hearts and minds of mainstream America, you'll have to convince them that Upchurch, Ken, and ImaginalDisc are fringe folks that aren't very relevant. You'll have to convince Americans that supporters of gay marriage really want marriage, as opposed to some pale imitation of it. Unfortunately, a lot of your supporters don't actually want that. At your next meeting of supporters, remember the wise words of Pogo. "We have met the enemy, and they are us."

Meadmaker, have you built a home on the slippery slope? The only issue under discussion is same sex marriage. Nothing else you have brought up is relevant.

 

[Upchurch]

I think everyone understood that my comment was basically a comment noting that even if you don’t have children, your choice of marriage partner is still related to children, because it precludes you from having children with anyone else. At least, it precludes you if you think that sort of thing matters.

This entire thread has been concerning what the government allows and/or should allow when it comes to marriage. I thought it was basically understood that when Ken said that "marriage is not about kids", that he was speaking legally and in terms of government involvement. When you made the sarcastic remark that it was "still okay", I replied within the context of the thread. To avoid any confusion, I even prefaced my answer with exactly what context I was speaking from. You know, the part where I said, "As far as the law and the government is concerned"?

Extrapolating from that to thinking that I believe that same answer applies to a different context is know as "out of context".

There are two broad categories of response. The first category would be sort of “I see your point.” The second category would be sort of “Whether or not its ok depends on your personal opinion.”

You chose the latter. I find Huntster’s response, which was to say that such a thing is “unbelievable”, totally appropriate.

False dilema: Either I get to agree with you ("I see your point") or I'm advocating moral relativism ("Whether or not its okay depends on your personal opinion"). There is at least a third option, namely that I was talking about the legal perspective in which you neither have a point nor does it have anything to do with moral relativism.

I took Huntster's "unbelievable" to mean that he did not believe that there was no law against heterosexual adultry or having a child out of wedlock. That is what "unbelievable" generally means, after all.

His comment about “destructive behavior” was a personal comment directed to you in response. Anyone who can’t recognize the destructive nature of fathering children with people other than your spouse loses the credibility to even discuss the subject. If you called it an argument ad hominem, you would be correct. And he would still have a point.

I would call it a non-sequitor and an attempt to avoid the question. It has nothing to do with what is destructive about homosexual behavior.

I’m looking at the older generation, and those who will be the older generation someday.

As the young people age, they’ll have a different view of marriage than they do in their twentysomething state.

uh-huh. I wonder if 40-50 years ago the older generation thought the twenty somethings would think differently about the civil rights movement when they got older?


edited because good sentence structure is my friend.

 

[Meadmaker]

What's that? First you declare that biological parentage equates to paternal behavior, and then you falsely characterize me?

You said that there should be no legal impediment to a mother marrying her adult daughter. That’s a fringe position. (I hope.)

The case of children and marriage under recent discussion did not involve a case where a man marries a woman who already has children. The case in question involved a situation in which a man, when married to one woman, fathers children with another.
(Substitute whatever genders or combinations thereof that might be applicable.)

There’s no mischaracterization. Just misunderstanding. On your part. Again.