Marriage Debate

[thaiboxerken]

Maybe if you lived for somebody else for a while, you'd grow up.

I'm not the one who believes in gods and sasquatch, which are immature beliefs. I'm a grown man, I don't have to worship imaginary beings and I don't need your god to procreate if I feel like it.

 

[Antiquehunter]

You're already paying your taxes, and helping out as needed.

Why do you need to be "married" to do that?

I don't need to be married to do that. You are the one that suggested the only reason for being married was to procreate (in so many words).

I'm pointing out that

a) One can be a valuable, contributing member of the community whether one is married or not.

b) In my prior post, I explained why (after much consideration) we were compelled to be married - and that issues around procreation never made the list.

c) Why I feel that the SSM debate is an important one for my friends who live in the US - and may again become an important debate again in Canada, if our incumbent follows through on his campaign promises.

I would be more than happy to leave the question of 'marriage' as defined by a variety of religions - to the religious. However, when I fill out my RRSP form, I'm asked 'marital status' not 'legally acknowledged civil union/coupled status' - indeed sometimes the forms distinguish between 'married' and 'living common-law / partnered'. So - for LEGAL purposes, wrapping up SSM couples into 'married' makes more sense than changing the squillions of laws & policies governing day to day life.

I assure you, when I find myself in a church (for a friend's funeral or wedding) if presented by a form, I would be quite content to tick the box 'Married - but not in the eyes of the god presiding over this institution'

-AH.

 

[Huntster]

I don't need to be married to do that. You are the one that suggested the only reason for being married was to procreate (in so many words).

No, the only reason for marrying isn't for procreation.

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

Get it yet?

I'm pointing out that

a) One can be a valuable, contributing member of the community whether one is married or not.

b) In my prior post, I explained why (after much consideration) we were compelled to be married - and that issues around procreation never made the list.

c) Why I feel that the SSM debate is an important one for my friends who live in the US - and may again become an important debate again in Canada, if our incumbent follows through on his campaign promises.

I agree with your point #1.

I disagree with your point #2.

I have no position on your point #3.

I would be more than happy to leave the question of 'marriage' as defined by a variety of religions - to the religious. However, when I fill out my RRSP form, I'm asked 'marital status' not 'legally acknowledged civil union/coupled status' - indeed sometimes the forms distinguish between 'married' and 'living common-law / partnered'. So - for LEGAL purposes, wrapping up SSM couples into 'married' makes more sense than changing the squillions of laws & policies governing day to day life.

What's another "squillion"? We've been putting up with "squillions" of previous BS laws. I'm game for more.

But I'm not game for redefining marriage.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

Where does it say that in the marriage contract and license?

 

[Antiquehunter]

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

Maybe for your marriage but not for mine.

You keep your church out of my ability to function as a member of society, I'll keep my member out of your church.

 

[morningstar2651]

Sort of like the 14th ammendment forced everyone to recognize and legitimize the rights of all races, eh?

Blasted constitution...making us treat our fellow humans like...well...humans!

How do they get away with that?

 

[Darat]

Blasted constitution...making us treat our fellow humans like...well...humans!

How do they get away with that?

Well that's liberals for you - always conniving to force equal rights on everyone!

 

[Darat]

I stand by that claim.

Can you then provide any evidence for that claim?

Yup.

And I have professed my opinion that marriage of 1st cousins isn't wise, isn't good, and I hereby state that it was a concession that the state shouldn't have allowed.

Your opinion in this matter are irrelevant (as are mine) what is being discussed is the facts and the facts have shown that your understanding of marriage as it is currently constituted is lacking (or rather I hope was lacking and you've now learnt that you were mistaken regarding what you thought marriage (as used in this thread) meant).

Struggle on. I don't expect you to understand.

Do you claim that the quotes regarding the states that only allowing marriage to happen if procreation can't happen are inaccurate or false?

The state doesn't "offer" marriage. It regulates it.

Again you show your misunderstanding.

Poorly, too, in my opinion.

Considering that you have demonstrated a lot of ignorance regarding what marriage actually is in the USA perhaps you are being too hasty in your condemnation of how good or bad the state "regulates" marriage.

I like blunt statements. I do it all the time.

See above.

That again has nothing to do with what I asked you about (please see the thread for the series of posts and comments this refers to rather then again expecting me to re-post your various statements and claims).

 

[Darat]

The reason why there is discussion on changing it is because the homosexual community has gained great power among those in the media, and that has generated talk on changing law.

The same is true about a whole spectrum of issues.

So what? Do you think that the media, and the issues they like to publish, are the issues that most Americans consider important?

Since none of this is related to anything I've been posting I'll assume you to be arguing against yourself here - I'll leave you to it!

Yeah. The old "my dictionary is more valid than yours" argument.

You think I consider that "shocking"?

I suggest that you don't want to see the kind of shock I'm used to.

It was you who introduced dictionary definitions in an attempt to support your claims (emphasis by me) i.e

"...Perhaps a definition is in order:

...snip...

At any rate, today, both the state (here in Alaska, and in the U.S.) as well as the English language define marriage as legally not including homosexual unions.

..."

I responded with evidence that showed that (again) it is you that is factually incorrect in your assertions.

As long as folks like yourself exist, that is true.

Presumably the "folks like yourself" does not refer to me being just a human being? Does it refer to people like me such as the Pope who accept societies change over time? Please clarify what you meant.

 

[CFLarsen]

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

Where did you get that from?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

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?

 

[andyandy]

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?

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.....

....

 

[roger]

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

Which is why we have to enact laws about those disgusting 60+ year olds getting married. Why this big fuss about gays, when there are thousands of filthy old people getting married each year, and millions more remaining in a marriage past their child rearing years?

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

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.....

....

LOL.

No. Meadmaker and I have gone pages just on the extent to which SSM should be endorsed.

 

[Snide]

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.....

....

Unfortunately, I think it would eventually lead to something like:

post 19

But Bush and company want to cater to Falwell etc., even though Cheney's daughter is gay.

post 20

Your boy Clinton started it with his wimpy "compromise" about not asking or telling.

post 21

BUSHITLERHALIBURTONELEVENTY!

post 22

CLINTONDIDITFIRSTINFINITYNOBACKS!

post 23 (old school)

shanek: Bigots!

 

[Meadmaker]

LOL.

No. Meadmaker and I have gone pages just on the extent to which SSM should be endorsed.

Hi, Scot.

Scot is correct, of course.

And the post to whicj=h he was responding:

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

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.

 

[rocketdodger]

I'm not sure I understand your meaning.

(I'm being careful, here, rocket....)

Are you indicating that blacks and women should have been kept "under"?

To a certain extent, I understand the sentiment.

To the macro, I think it's for the best, even though there are "growing pains".

My point is that as democratic society progresses, at least ours, all the advances made towards equality of everyone are at first opposed by a large portion of the population but turn out to be very good ideas after all the hubub has ended.

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.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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.

But why?

 

[rocketdodger]

But why?

Actually ken from a purely social benefit perspective this makes sense (in the short run). The question is just because something may offer a net social benefit, should it be done? I say no... but socialists probably think otherwise.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Actually ken from a purely social benefit perspective this makes sense (in the short run).

How so?

You are also correct on your other point, should we legislate behavior of people based only on the benefit of the society? I always liked the idea of freedom myself.