Marriage Debate

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
It destroys the culture and values of others, who also happen to be the majority.

Proof? Please cite journals, studies, etc. There has been enough anecdote for and against on this thread.

I offer the same kind of "proof" that advocates of SSM offer;

pure opinion.

And unless your opinion is like thaiboxerken's (see sig lines below............), it's just as worthless as mine.

 

[Huntster]

Why’d you ask if you already know?

To see if anyone else was willing to admit it.

 

[Huntster]

what get me is who on earth thinks they ahve the right to stick their noses into somoenelses life and happiness?

I suppose the same folks who think they have the right to stick their noses into my life and happiness.

 

[Huntster]

If someone has to work hard at "loving" another, then it seems to me that it's an artificial love and not worth working towards at all....

Marriage is about more than love.

Fidelity and sacrifice are integral to marriage.

All love is worth working for, within or without marriage.

 

[Huntster]

I've always wanted marriage and I"m still not sure if I want kids or not.

Marriage is not about kids.

Perhaps not for you.

But, then, the world is supposed to revolve around you and your opinions, right?

Just like a kid yourself. You haven't gotten past childhood selfishness.

(See sig lines below..................)

 

[Huntster]

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

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

Unbelievable.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

I offer the same kind of "proof" that advocates of SSM offer;

pure opinion.

And unless your opinion is like thaiboxerken's (see sig lines below............), it's just as worthless as mine.

Huntster, you know that’s not true. Much data has been posted. If you want to take issue with it, how it was gathered, interpreted, the sources, that’s great, but to say it’s not there is dishonest. Either that or you and Skeptic happen to be skipping the same posts.

 

[thaiboxerken]

but because they become more valuable to many more people if kids come into the picture.

It can also become less valuable when kids enter the picture.

Maybe kids never do happen, but wouldn’t you expect the stakes and dynamics of your marriage would change with kids involved?

Yes, the stakes and dyamics of a marriage changes with illness, death and the acquisition of new housing as well.

Anyway, in my experience, for many people out there, it does take conscious effort to love and be loved.

I don't know, I don't have to try hard to love my wife, I just do.

If they waited for it to be 100% effortless on their part, they'd wait alone till death.

So?

They have to debate their choices, to do something loving or selfish, like go to the nudey bar or go home, or drink another beer or lay off the stuff. Have you not seen this in some of your family or friends?

Seen people act like humans? Yes.

It may not seem like effort or work to you; it doesn’t seem like that to me either. Nevertheless, most my day is spent working, happily as it may be, one way or another for those I love, and if I stopped working for them and spent my days fulfilling my needs only, they’d not be loved.

I guess that's why it's tricky. Love is both precious and comfortable. It’s like breathing; you can do it with ease and take it for granted for years but, once you have to work for it, it’s a whole different animal.

Is this supposed to be an argument against gay marriage or what?! WTF are you trying to preach to me here?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Marriage is about more than love.

Fidelity and sacrifice are integral to marriage.

As with any relationship between honest people.

Still, I have yet to see a harmful attitude towards marriage being proposed by SSM advocates.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Perhaps not for you.

But, then, the world is supposed to revolve around you and your opinions, right?

Wrong, marriage isn't about children. It is not a requirement of marriage. If people want kids and want to make their marriage about children, that's fine. However, since the requirement of children is a subjective option to marriage, it renders the arguments against SSM based on children irrelevant.

 

[Upchurch]

Unbelievable.

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?

 

[Upchurch]

Oh, and I noticed that you never did answer my question: What about homosexual behavior is destructive to themselves and/or others?

You did reply, but

It destroys the culture and values of others, who also happen to be the majority.

does not explain how the behavior is destructive. If you find that you are unable to articulate a reason, that should indicate something to you.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

It can also become less valuable when kids enter the picture.

Can you give an example?

Maybe, when the kids are not with your spouse?

Yes, the stakes and dyamics of a marriage changes with illness, death and the acquisition of new housing as well.

Sure. I should have said increased, I guess.

Do you think your personal stakes would increase if you had kids? Also, would you think keeping your marriage intact would become more important to their grandparents, and other extended family?

I don't know, I don't have to try hard to love my wife, I just do.
...
So?

If you agree, so nothing, then. For some people it takes considerable effort, and, if they want love, they need to work hard.

Seen people act like humans? Yes.

That's the work and sacrifice I'm referring to. I don't see where we're disagreeing, then.

Is this supposed to be an argument against gay marriage or what?! WTF are you trying to preach to me here?

How are you construing that to be a possible argument against gay marriage?

I assumed, if I were preaching, it was to the choir here. As you've said, you are comfortable in your love, you don't have to try hard to love your wife, you just do. But not everyone is like you in this way; it can be a struggle. Like breathing, for some it’s unforced, for others it can be a panic of effort, and still others go between the two.

[I bet Dave’s now doubled over with laughter, that clever adversary]

 

[thaiboxerken]

Can you give an example?

Sure, when the parents are bad at parenting and they take the stress out on each other.

Do you think your personal stakes would increase if you had kids?

As far as financial stakes? Yes.

Also, would you think keeping your marriage intact would become more important to their grandparents, and other extended family?

Maybe to them, but marriage isn't about what other people want. I believe that if two people don't love or even like each other anymore, having kids should not stop them from divorcing. I think it could very well be harmful for a child to be brought up in a household where the parents don't get along at all.

If you agree, so nothing, then. For some people it takes considerable effort, and, if they want love, they need to work hard.

Then they probably don't really love each other. Love is an easy emotion to have, just like having a favorite flavor of icecream is. I find that it takes no effort to love my wife, nor does it take any effort to love "death by chocolate" desserts. If I had to work at loving either, then I probably really don't love those things.

I assumed, if I were preaching, it was to the choir here. As you've said, you are comfortable in your love, you don't have to try hard to love your wife, you just do. But not everyone is like you in this way; it can be a struggle. Like breathing, for some it’s unforced, for others it can be a panic of effort, and still others go between the two.

If you want to start a philosphical thread on what love is, feel free. I'd rather stay on the topic of SSM.

 

[Meadmaker]

[I bet Dave’s now doubled over with laughter, that clever adversary]

Moi?

Je ne comprends pas.

 

[Meadmaker]

[Falling deeper into MeadMaker’s devious hands…]

If you think you've fallen into a trap, have you seen what Upchurch is writing?

You are at least aware of the trap.

 

[Huntster]

Oh, and I noticed that you never did answer my question: What about homosexual behavior is destructive to themselves and/or others?

You did reply, but

Originally Posted by Huntster :
It destroys the culture and values of others, who also happen to be the majority.

does not explain how the behavior is destructive. If you find that you are unable to articulate a reason, that should indicate something to you.

The guy who writes this wants me to "articulate" how certain behaviors are destructive to themselves or others?:

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

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

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?

Clearly, you wouldn't understand "destructive behavior" if it ran over you.

 

[Huntster]

If you think you've fallen into a trap, have you seen what Upchurch is writing?....

That's a "trap"?

I thank you for the clue. I couldn't understand what that was.

I simply had a difficult time believing somebody even wrote it.

 

[Meadmaker]

I didn't actually intend it as one, but I was surprised at the results.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

If you think you've fallen into a trap, have you seen what Upchurch is writing?

You are at least aware of the trap.

Upchurch can clarify if he wants but I didn’t assume what Huntster did about those posts.

It simply is legal to make children with people, even strangers, even if you’re married to another; not that it’s decent, recommended, or that your spouse won’t take you to court, or worse, for breaking the promises of fidelity you made. But your wife may not do anything, and the kid’s mother may not, and there may be no legal consequences.

I think most people frown of governmental control of procreation; it strikes me as very dangerous territory. What the law cares about is that you are responsible for the lives you create or take responsibility for in another way, such as adoption, and I think most are happy for that.

But, all that is separate from marriage law. With or without marriage to their other parent, you are legally responsible, and you can get legally married with or without children, or with or without them being the children of your spouse. Upchurch just asked what you’d want to alter with current law; very few of the elected officials seem to see a problem they want to address with legislation here.

Sure, marriage law is very useful when you have children, and some parts of it may become far less relevant if you don’t, and/or if one of you isn’t a homemaker. But it's also been designed to do a job separate from the obligations of parenthood. I think you may be looking at a Swiss army knife and obsessing on the knife. Think of the scissors, Dave, think of the scissors; they’re very useful too .

[This reminds me of a This American Life interview I head a couple weeks ago regarding marriage and procreation issues with interracial relationships; I’d recommend it, if you have a spare half hour:

http://www.thislife.org/ (episode 313 from 5/19/06, act one)]