I must be slipping
-
So what's that like?
Normally, I would take a minute or two to write a reply. But today I'm too tired. You're just not worth it.
-- As Foretold by Nostradamus
-
Normally, I would take a minute or two to write a reply. But today I'm too tired. You're just not worth it.
-- As Foretold by Nostradamus
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Normally, I would take a minute or two to write a reply
Takes you that long, huh?
-
Chris Meech wrote:
I'd go one step further, and add that civil marriage is also to protect the legal rights of the two people entering into the civial marriage. Even in the absense of children, you can not walk away from your legal responsibilities that you agreed to when you entered into the civil marriage. In my mind the whole same-sex marriage issue should only be about ensuring these same legal responsibilities between the two individuals.
The practical purpose of marriage is the development of a stable and reliable home in which children can be decently raised with proper moral influence and a couple can provide mutual support to facilitate these ends. Same-sex marriage is absolutely pointless because it completely abandons the possibility of children and the necessity of the stable environment. Fiduciary responsibility is not unique to marriage, so government defined roles are not necessary to enforce financial responsibility. Marital responsibilities, however, go far beyond mere fiduciary duty.
Same-sex marriage is absolutely pointless because it completely abandons the possibility of children and the necessity of the stable environment I don't quite understand where you are going with this statement. I can assure you that same-sex marriage is not pointless whatsoever. Case in point benefits after a spouse is decease, without a "marriage" the living spouse has no rights what so ever. Also same sex marriage doesn't abandon the possibility of children if fact more same sex relationships are either having children themself via sperm bank etc. or adopting so that is also to consider in regards to a "marriage" contract. Without this contract if something would happen one person in the relationship the children could become ward of the state. This in my mind is absolutely terrible.
-
Chris Meech wrote:
I'd go one step further, and add that civil marriage is also to protect the legal rights of the two people entering into the civial marriage. Even in the absense of children, you can not walk away from your legal responsibilities that you agreed to when you entered into the civil marriage. In my mind the whole same-sex marriage issue should only be about ensuring these same legal responsibilities between the two individuals.
The practical purpose of marriage is the development of a stable and reliable home in which children can be decently raised with proper moral influence and a couple can provide mutual support to facilitate these ends. Same-sex marriage is absolutely pointless because it completely abandons the possibility of children and the necessity of the stable environment. Fiduciary responsibility is not unique to marriage, so government defined roles are not necessary to enforce financial responsibility. Marital responsibilities, however, go far beyond mere fiduciary duty.
Red Stateler wrote:
The practical purpose of marriage is the development of a stable and reliable home in which children can be decently ...
Agreed, but it is not the only one. There are utilitarian efficiencies to consider as well. :) :EDIT: While I agree with the statment, I don't agree with your implied assumption that the children produced in that marriage are to come from just the two people involved. :/EDIT:
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] I agree with you that my argument is useless. [Red Stateler] Hey, I am part of a special bread, we are called smart people [Captain See Sharp] The zen of the soapbox is hard to attain...[Jörgen Sigvardsson] I wish I could remember what it was like to only have a short term memory.[David Kentley]
-
liona wrote:
Good for them, for me living in Canada we already have the right to marry. It seems that the US is just catching on although I think it will take a lot longer to spread to other states. Sometimes I don't understand people. oh well.
In all honesty, the government shouldn't be regulating marriage to begin with. Interestingly enough, if the group that is silently supporting the gay-marriage push has their way, marriage will become rather meaningless anyway ...
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Yes, it has been meaningless to the left which basically seeks to destroy marriage such that the individual is bonded above all else to the state. They have worked hard to destroy the social institutions that bring us together on a personal level (like church and marriage) while promoting an expansive and cold state (with indisputable power) as its replacement. The concept of the "commune" is still alive and well among leftists.
Not exactly my point but it gets close, my point is that the majority of this issue revolves around money...
_alank wrote:
my point is that the majority of this issue revolves around money...
For some, I'm sure. But marriage is intended to transcend money and ensure a mutual in indissolvable bond. However, just like church, marriage is a threat to the left's intended primary bond between the individual and the state and is therefore looked down upon. That's why inner-city welfare actually subsidized dissolved relationships. Same-sex marriage is less about expanding rights (or more specifically permissiveness). It's about lessening the significance of the true role of marriage in our society and its consequences on the individual.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
The practical purpose of marriage is the development of a stable and reliable home in which children can be decently ...
Agreed, but it is not the only one. There are utilitarian efficiencies to consider as well. :) :EDIT: While I agree with the statment, I don't agree with your implied assumption that the children produced in that marriage are to come from just the two people involved. :/EDIT:
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] I agree with you that my argument is useless. [Red Stateler] Hey, I am part of a special bread, we are called smart people [Captain See Sharp] The zen of the soapbox is hard to attain...[Jörgen Sigvardsson] I wish I could remember what it was like to only have a short term memory.[David Kentley]
Chris Meech wrote:
Agreed, but it is not the only one. There are utilitarian efficiencies to consider as well.
Like the lower cost of per capita expenses due to shared finances? Marriage as a means to this end has already been rejected as a majority of households in this country are now headed by unmarried people.
Chris Meech wrote:
While I agree with the statment, I don't agree with your implied assumption that the children produced in that marriage are to come from just the two people involved.
I didn't mean to imply that. Rather that the practical societal goal of civil marriage is the assurance of stable homes within which children can be conceived and raised with a reasonable level of stability and balance. The purpose of adoption is to bring a child who otherwise does not have that stability into a stable home. I view same-sex marriage as a dilution of this purpose as it eliminates the possibility of reproduction and relegates marriage to basically a fiduciary contract rather than the intended personal and extensive human bond.
-
_alank wrote:
my point is that the majority of this issue revolves around money...
For some, I'm sure. But marriage is intended to transcend money and ensure a mutual in indissolvable bond. However, just like church, marriage is a threat to the left's intended primary bond between the individual and the state and is therefore looked down upon. That's why inner-city welfare actually subsidized dissolved relationships. Same-sex marriage is less about expanding rights (or more specifically permissiveness). It's about lessening the significance of the true role of marriage in our society and its consequences on the individual.
It's about lessening the significance of the true role of marriage in our society and its consequences on the individual. So what do you define as the true role of marriage? By the underlying comments in your responses it seems that you have a problem with gays that I can't and won't understand. Its sad.
-
Chris Meech wrote:
Agreed, but it is not the only one. There are utilitarian efficiencies to consider as well.
Like the lower cost of per capita expenses due to shared finances? Marriage as a means to this end has already been rejected as a majority of households in this country are now headed by unmarried people.
Chris Meech wrote:
While I agree with the statment, I don't agree with your implied assumption that the children produced in that marriage are to come from just the two people involved.
I didn't mean to imply that. Rather that the practical societal goal of civil marriage is the assurance of stable homes within which children can be conceived and raised with a reasonable level of stability and balance. The purpose of adoption is to bring a child who otherwise does not have that stability into a stable home. I view same-sex marriage as a dilution of this purpose as it eliminates the possibility of reproduction and relegates marriage to basically a fiduciary contract rather than the intended personal and extensive human bond.
Who is to say that it eliminates the possibility of children. I think that is a very narrow minded comment on your behalf. If you hadn't realised in my experience where I live more and more same sex couples have children, either by adoption or via vetro etc. So how can you account for these couples in your statement. Marriage is alot more than children it is also the welfare of the two spouses.
-
Same-sex marriage is absolutely pointless because it completely abandons the possibility of children and the necessity of the stable environment I don't quite understand where you are going with this statement. I can assure you that same-sex marriage is not pointless whatsoever. Case in point benefits after a spouse is decease, without a "marriage" the living spouse has no rights what so ever. Also same sex marriage doesn't abandon the possibility of children if fact more same sex relationships are either having children themself via sperm bank etc. or adopting so that is also to consider in regards to a "marriage" contract. Without this contract if something would happen one person in the relationship the children could become ward of the state. This in my mind is absolutely terrible.
liona wrote:
I don't quite understand where you are going with this statement. I can assure you that same-sex marriage is not pointless whatsoever. Case in point benefits after a spouse is decease, without a "marriage" the living spouse has no rights what so ever.
I'm going with the point that same-sex marriage (besides being largely rejected on a cultural scale...at least until MTV convinces the next generation that opposing it is immoral) dilutes the true purpose of marriage. The primary purpose you're giving is merely financial in nature, whereas the true purpose of marriage is the development of reliable, stable homes wherein children can be properly raised.
liona wrote:
Also same sex marriage doesn't abandon the possibility of children if fact more same sex relationships are either having children themself via sperm bank etc. or adopting so that is also to consider in regards to a "marriage" contract. Without this contract if something would happen one person in the relationship the children could become ward of the state. This in my mind is absolutely terrible.
Again, that is a fundamental corruption of the human bond that marriage is intended to protect. You're endorsing children through third parties as the fundamental child-rearing method. Traditional marriage ensures a father, a mother and children who know who their parents are, which encourages stability. The traditional purpose of adoption is to bring children who are not the product of a marriage (i.e. the product of those who have rejected this necessary human bond) into a stable married home such that they may develop under that stable environment. Adoption seeks to help victims (i.e. the children) of non-married reproduction. It should not pass them into homes that are specifically designed to oppose natural child-rearing (i.e. same-sex homes).
-
Who is to say that it eliminates the possibility of children. I think that is a very narrow minded comment on your behalf. If you hadn't realised in my experience where I live more and more same sex couples have children, either by adoption or via vetro etc. So how can you account for these couples in your statement. Marriage is alot more than children it is also the welfare of the two spouses.
liona wrote:
Who is to say that it eliminates the possibility of children. I think that is a very narrow minded comment on your behalf. If you hadn't realised in my experience where I live more and more same sex couples have children, either by adoption or via vetro etc. So how can you account for these couples in your statement. Marriage is alot more than children it is also the welfare of the two spouses.
It's not possible two gay people two have children without the involvement of a thrid party. In-Vitro fertilization would constitute adultery in such an environment and is therefore a defacto rejection of fundamental marital vows.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
This has nothing to do with the state telling the church what is or is not marriage. Also, it is not a goal of supporters for this to happen.
From the article: Gay rights activists said they were pleased with the progress but would continue to push for same sex unions to be recognised as marriage. "I'm glad for the progress but not very satisfied," said Stephen Goldstein of gay rights group Garden State Equality.
oilFactotum wrote:
Obviously, untrue. Child custody, insurance coverage, SS benefits are all impacted by who and who is not considered married.
:sigh: You missed the point. I'm not saying that the state shouldn't allow 2 people to be bond legally; what I'm saying is that the state should not tell people what is and is not a legal bond between 2 consenting adults. In other words, if you write a contract that states that you will share your assests with [insert other person's name here], any children will be raised jointly, insurace will be shared, etc ... as well as specify what should happen should the contract be broken by either party, you effectively have a legal bond (that actually is stronger than a marriage license) that leaves the varying religious conotations out of the equation.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
Zac Howland wrote:
From the article: Gay rights activists said they were pleased with the progress but would continue to push for same sex unions to be recognised as marriage. "I'm glad for the progress but not very satisfied," said Stephen Goldstein of gay rights group Garden State Equality.
What does that have to do with religion? Does it say anywhere that they won't be satisfied until the state forces the Catholic Church to allow a gay couple to get married by the church?
Zac Howland wrote:
I'm not saying that the state shouldn't allow 2 people to be bond legally
Yet, you seem to have a problem with gay marriage.
Zac Howland wrote:
In other words, if you write a contract that states that you will share your assests with [insert other person's name here], any children will be raised jointly, insurace will be shared, etc ... as well as specify what should happen should the contract be broken by either party
If you have a contract, the state is involved. It's the state that will enforce it if there is a dispute(the courts,for example). How about insurance? A business my not recognize your "civil union", only the state can ensure that it will be recognized. Child custody disputes can be an issue. The state has to recongize the contract because it is the state that will determine custody.
-
It's about lessening the significance of the true role of marriage in our society and its consequences on the individual. So what do you define as the true role of marriage? By the underlying comments in your responses it seems that you have a problem with gays that I can't and won't understand. Its sad.
liona wrote:
So what do you define as the true role of marriage?
I already said... It creates a indissolvable bond between man and woman such that a stable home in which children can be conceived and raised. Adoption (which you're naming as justification for same-sex marriage) isn't the rule of marriage, but rather a method to rescue victims of a marriageless relationship such that they may have the same change in life as legitimate children.
liona wrote:
By the underlying comments in your responses it seems that you have a problem with gays that I can't and won't understand. Its sad.
I have an underlying objection to homosexuality (which I consider deviant behavior), but not homosexuals (who I view as victims of temptation). I don't think gays are inherently bad, but I certainly do object to their behavior. My underlying comments are geared towards the fact that marriage is a defined institution with a defined role and that by expanding its definition, you lessen it's significance. It is something that should be protected and advocated in its traditional form. If you begin to call everything a "lion", calling a lion a lion no longer has any significance.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
So, the IEEE is a religion because they have a formalized belief/value system in electricity?
Having a standardized system to keep things organized and having a belief system are 2 very different things.
oilFactotum wrote:
If I do not believe in god because there is no evidence that god exists
You have a belief that God does not exist. That is a belief, just like the one saying that He does exist.
oilFactotum wrote:
Does that mean that if I don't believe in unicorns because there is not evidence that they exist that I belong to a religion of unicorn disbelievers?
While you are being silly here, yes. You can start it up if you like ... just like the religion of the Fonz ... ;P
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
Zac Howland wrote:
You have a belief that God does not exist. That is a belief, just like the one saying that He does exist.
That is a belief, not a belief system. Not believing in god is a belief grounded in the fact that there is no credible evidence that he does exist. Just like not believing in unicorns. Believing in god is a belief based solely on faith with no evidence to support it. Just like believing in unicorns.
Zac Howland wrote:
While you are being silly here
How am I being silly? You say that anyone who doesn't believe in god belongs to a religion you call "atheism". How is that different from not believing in unicorns?
-
Chris Meech wrote:
Agreed, but it is not the only one. There are utilitarian efficiencies to consider as well.
Like the lower cost of per capita expenses due to shared finances? Marriage as a means to this end has already been rejected as a majority of households in this country are now headed by unmarried people.
Chris Meech wrote:
While I agree with the statment, I don't agree with your implied assumption that the children produced in that marriage are to come from just the two people involved.
I didn't mean to imply that. Rather that the practical societal goal of civil marriage is the assurance of stable homes within which children can be conceived and raised with a reasonable level of stability and balance. The purpose of adoption is to bring a child who otherwise does not have that stability into a stable home. I view same-sex marriage as a dilution of this purpose as it eliminates the possibility of reproduction and relegates marriage to basically a fiduciary contract rather than the intended personal and extensive human bond.
So what about a man and woman who don't want children? They shouldn't be allowed to get married? You make it sound like if they don't have kids their marriage should be null and void.
____________________________________________________ If at first you don't succeed, skydiving might not be for you.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Do you have any particular reason support this belief?
Regulating what is primarily a religious-based institution is beyond the mandate of government (at least our governmental system).
Red Stateler wrote:
Civil marriage is important for the sake of the product of marriage...children
I have no problem with the state keeping a record of civil contracts between 2 people. They do that all the time. Marriage (legally) is really nothing more than that, and should be treated as such (from a governmental point of view).
Red Stateler wrote:
This therefore requires a legal bond between husband and wife such that if one party is irresponsible and breaks his/her vows, the marriage can be dissolved in such a manner that promises are upheld (similar to a legally-binding contract).
Which is exactly my point. It shouldn't be treated any different than a contract, and therefore should not have any special legal standing (as it does now).
Red Stateler wrote:
The abandonment of spouse and child would simply be too easy (not that it already isn't) if the bond between a husband and wife was not defined.
Which is why you would have to make sure that when you wrote your contract, you specified the penalties for breaking it (which, currently, is not part of a marriage license).
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
Zac Howland wrote:
I have no problem with the state keeping a record of civil contracts between 2 people. They do that all the time. Marriage (legally) is really nothing more than that, and should be treated as such (from a governmental point of view).
What is a government but a representative of a group of people who decided to live together and setup some means to enforce their way of life so that they can continue living together peacefully. In many respects, government and religion are the same. In many cases, government came out of religion and is just another way to enforce it so that when people of a different religion wish to live among you, you can keep whatever differences exist regulated until the law is changed to adhere to the majority's view. In the end, everybody will fight to enforce their beliefs and needs on others and will continue to do so until the end of time if need be. God help us when NAMBLA starts to become accepted. :(
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." - Sir Walter Scott Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
Zac Howland wrote:
You have a belief that God does not exist. That is a belief, just like the one saying that He does exist.
That is a belief, not a belief system. Not believing in god is a belief grounded in the fact that there is no credible evidence that he does exist. Just like not believing in unicorns. Believing in god is a belief based solely on faith with no evidence to support it. Just like believing in unicorns.
Zac Howland wrote:
While you are being silly here
How am I being silly? You say that anyone who doesn't believe in god belongs to a religion you call "atheism". How is that different from not believing in unicorns?
Anyone who has a religious label needs to label everyone else as a religion. Unfortunately, religious people are forcing you to believe that you are religious and will not hear of your non-religiousness. After all, what do you know about yourself. However, I consider myself a deist. Therefore, I am religious in a non-religious way.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." - Sir Walter Scott Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
So what's that like?
-
Anyone who has a religious label needs to label everyone else as a religion. Unfortunately, religious people are forcing you to believe that you are religious and will not hear of your non-religiousness. After all, what do you know about yourself. However, I consider myself a deist. Therefore, I am religious in a non-religious way.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." - Sir Walter Scott Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Anyone who has a religious label needs to label everyone else as a religion
That's definitely true on the soapbox!:)
-
I don't know how it would become meaningless in your eyes. If anything it would probably help lower the stats in regards to divorces and such. I think the problem with marriage is the Britney Spears of the world.