I must be slipping
-
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.
-
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.
Red Stateler wrote:
Like the lower cost of per capita expenses due to shared finances?
That's part of it. But also the division of labour, too. My wife takes care of a lot of things for me, that I would be clueless to even attempt to do. And it would cost a whole lot more for me to go and hire someone to do them for me. There are similar things that I do for her, too. If you go far enough back in time, this may have been more of a reason for marriage than the continuation of the human race thing.
Red Stateler wrote:
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.
This lot of unmarried people doesn't happen to contain divorced people? And their rejection of marriage has nothing to do with the benefits of sharing finances or the division of labour. :doh:
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
yes and no. Me think that civil union between two person should be state (local, regional or national ) regulated ( i.e. tax returns, insurances, property issues, ... ) and be allowed to everyone of legal age. After that, if the same two persons want to officialize it WITHIN their own religion ( which should have no legal bindings IMO ) then go for it; if the religion refuses same sex marriage, then those persons should check their belief in that religion. Freedom of religion goes two ways, one can participate in the religion of his choice, and the Religion can refuse members if they do not follow the religion guidelines. As I understand it, most religious marriage documents also have a civil documents registering their civil union with the local authorities.
Maximilien Lincourt Your Head A Splode - Strong Bad
-
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.
What about infertile couples? Seeing as good Catholics can't have sex before marriage, should their marriages be dissolved as soon as a low sperm count comes back from the doctor? If they need help to have a child then they have comitted adultery and as well as burning in hell for eternity (which is no place to raise a child!) their marriage will be void anyway.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music to programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
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).
Red Stateler wrote:
Adoption seeks to help victims (i.e. the children) of non-married reproduction.
Good grief man, do you honestly believe this? :wtf:
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music to programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
What about infertile couples? Seeing as good Catholics can't have sex before marriage, should their marriages be dissolved as soon as a low sperm count comes back from the doctor? If they need help to have a child then they have comitted adultery and as well as burning in hell for eternity (which is no place to raise a child!) their marriage will be void anyway.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music to programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
What about infertile couples?
If they get fertilized by a third person (which is required of same-sex couples), of course that constitutes adultery. Infertile couples can always adopt the children of irresponsible leftists hippies and infertility doesn't affect the core purpose of marriage since it's the exception and not the norm.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Like the lower cost of per capita expenses due to shared finances?
That's part of it. But also the division of labour, too. My wife takes care of a lot of things for me, that I would be clueless to even attempt to do. And it would cost a whole lot more for me to go and hire someone to do them for me. There are similar things that I do for her, too. If you go far enough back in time, this may have been more of a reason for marriage than the continuation of the human race thing.
Red Stateler wrote:
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.
This lot of unmarried people doesn't happen to contain divorced people? And their rejection of marriage has nothing to do with the benefits of sharing finances or the division of labour. :doh:
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:
That's part of it. But also the division of labour, too. My wife takes care of a lot of things for me, that I would be clueless to even attempt to do. And it would cost a whole lot more for me to go and hire someone to do them for me. There are similar things that I do for her, too. If you go far enough back in time, this may have been more of a reason for marriage than the continuation of the human race thing.
Those are practical side effects of marriage...not the purpose behind it.
Chris Meech wrote:
This lot of unmarried people doesn't happen to contain divorced people? And their rejection of marriage has nothing to do with the benefits of sharing finances or the division of labour.
I was referring to the divorce rate, cohabitating/non-married couples and the perpetually single. The virtues of marriage have been eroded by the left in favor of the individual-state bond. The left in general has nothing but contempt for the concept of marriage.
-
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.
Red Stateler wrote:
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.
Actually, I have a large problem with fertility treatments and in-vitro fertilization. I fail to find justification for such activities given the cultural breakdown of the traditional family unit on a large scale and excessive over-population. Furthermore, there are large amounts of children who have no stable or coherent family unit who should be preferentially adopted before any couple can justify receiving a fertility treatment. It's absurd to encourage population growth through artificial means when the population of the planet is out-pacing the natural resource replacement. Furthermore, I don't believe that for a non-traditional married couple having children via fertility treatments in an inherent right, or entitlement. Even though I do not accept religion, I believe such treatments are also a violation of the marriage contract and reject them on fundamental grounds as well.
Prime your row 'cause you'll get no pay for standin' there pickin' at your nose all day.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Adoption seeks to help victims (i.e. the children) of non-married reproduction.
Good grief man, do you honestly believe this? :wtf:
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music to programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
Good grief man, do you honestly believe this?
Of course. Promiscuity has been blessed as a virtue by the left, which results in millions of unintended pregnancies a year. These children (those that survive past abortion, anyway) were unwanted and born to indifferent parents who have made no effort to secure the well-being of their children. Do you actually believe that ignoring the well-being of children is some sort of virtue? That it is completely harmless?
-
Red Stateler wrote:
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.
Actually, I have a large problem with fertility treatments and in-vitro fertilization. I fail to find justification for such activities given the cultural breakdown of the traditional family unit on a large scale and excessive over-population. Furthermore, there are large amounts of children who have no stable or coherent family unit who should be preferentially adopted before any couple can justify receiving a fertility treatment. It's absurd to encourage population growth through artificial means when the population of the planet is out-pacing the natural resource replacement. Furthermore, I don't believe that for a non-traditional married couple having children via fertility treatments in an inherent right, or entitlement. Even though I do not accept religion, I believe such treatments are also a violation of the marriage contract and reject them on fundamental grounds as well.
Prime your row 'cause you'll get no pay for standin' there pickin' at your nose all day.
I agree. I think fertility treatment is, in general, not a good thing at all. If my wife and I were incapable of having children, I'd want to adopt a child who was irresponsibly born into an unloving environment. I just find it objectionable to unnaturally have children when there are plenty kids who need decent homes. It's especially objectionable to be conceived by a third party when you're supposedly "married".
-
David Wulff wrote:
Good grief man, do you honestly believe this?
Of course. Promiscuity has been blessed as a virtue by the left, which results in millions of unintended pregnancies a year. These children (those that survive past abortion, anyway) were unwanted and born to indifferent parents who have made no effort to secure the well-being of their children. Do you actually believe that ignoring the well-being of children is some sort of virtue? That it is completely harmless?
Red Stateler wrote:
Of course. Promiscuity has been blessed as a virtue by the left, which results in millions of unintended pregnancies a year. These children (those that survive past abortion, anyway) were unwanted and born to indifferent parents who have made no effort to secure the well-being of their children. Do you actually believe that ignoring the well-being of children is some sort of virtue? That it is completely harmless?
I have to agree strongly with you here. Such children are generally raised in the absence of a structured environment and learn cultural norms and behaviour from their peers rather than responsible and mature adults. I feel this leads in turn to a lack of respect for authority and socially deviant behaviour and is the main factor for the increase in youth crime rates and youth social problems.
Prime your row 'cause you'll get no pay for standin' there pickin' at your nose all day.
-
I agree. I think fertility treatment is, in general, not a good thing at all. If my wife and I were incapable of having children, I'd want to adopt a child who was irresponsibly born into an unloving environment. I just find it objectionable to unnaturally have children when there are plenty kids who need decent homes. It's especially objectionable to be conceived by a third party when you're supposedly "married".
Red Stateler wrote:
I agree. I think fertility treatment is, in general, not a good thing at all. If my wife and I were incapable of having children, I'd want to adopt a child who was irresponsibly born into an unloving environment. I just find it objectionable to unnaturally have children when there are plenty kids who need decent homes. It's especially objectionable to be conceived by a third party when you're supposedly "married".
Yes, I am in 1000% absolute agreement with you for once. It is truly a shame that marriage has become a commodity - able to be "discarded" and "replaced". In actuality, marriage is not easy and requires effort. This reinforces a bond between two individuals who are then able to responsibly raise a socially adapted child to become a productive and moral individual. Why some children should be allowed to be socially marginalized while couples are granted undeserved priveleges of fertilization is, for me, completely unacceptable. I take great offense to this.
Prime your row 'cause you'll get no pay for standin' there pickin' at your nose all day.
-
As long as they have the right to strike, that's OK then.:-D
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before. -
David Wulff wrote:
What about infertile couples?
If they get fertilized by a third person (which is required of same-sex couples), of course that constitutes adultery. Infertile couples can always adopt the children of irresponsible leftists hippies and infertility doesn't affect the core purpose of marriage since it's the exception and not the norm.
What about the kids left over when two parents die? Should they just be gassed immediately, or can we put them into work camps with the gays and adulterers?
Red Stateler wrote:
infertility doesn't affect the core purpose of marriage since it's the exception and not the norm.
Not for long. 10% of couples are unable to conceive naturally, and with sperm counts dropping quicker than a leftist's pants that number is increasing.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music to programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
What about the kids left over when two parents die? Should they just be gassed immediately, or can we put them into work camps with the gays and adulterers?
Red Stateler wrote:
infertility doesn't affect the core purpose of marriage since it's the exception and not the norm.
Not for long. 10% of couples are unable to conceive naturally, and with sperm counts dropping quicker than a leftist's pants that number is increasing.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music to programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
What about the kids left over when two parents die? Should they just be gassed immediately, or can we put them into work camps with the gays and adulterers?
That's what adoption is for, dork.
David Wulff wrote:
Not for long. 10% of couples are unable to conceive naturally, and with sperm counts dropping quicker than a leftist's pants that number is increasing.
So naturally we should encourage the natural selection of those unable to conceive. :rolleyes:
-
David Wulff wrote:
What about the kids left over when two parents die? Should they just be gassed immediately, or can we put them into work camps with the gays and adulterers?
That's what adoption is for, dork.
David Wulff wrote:
Not for long. 10% of couples are unable to conceive naturally, and with sperm counts dropping quicker than a leftist's pants that number is increasing.
So naturally we should encourage the natural selection of those unable to conceive. :rolleyes:
Red Stateler wrote:
That's what adoption is for
But I thought you could only adopt the victims of non-married reproduction[^]? :confused:
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music to programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
Red Stateler wrote:
That's what adoption is for
But I thought you could only adopt the victims of non-married reproduction[^]? :confused:
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music to programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkI didn't say "only". The vast majority of orphans these days, however, are simply the product of irresponible and selfish behavior.
-
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.
oilFactotum wrote:
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?
Where did the Catholic Church come into all of this?
oilFactotum wrote:
Yet, you seem to have a problem with gay marriage.
No, I have a problem with the state regulating marriage period.
oilFactotum wrote:
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.
That is fine. Having a contract that binds the assets of 2 people (which is essentially what a marriage license does in effect) is all well and good. Don't have a dedicated section of law that describes who can and cannot enter such a contract ... and don't give it special status over any other contract. You assume that I mean we should just do away with "marriage" and leave everything else the same. When laws change, business's and other laws are affected and have to adjust accordingly.
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
-
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.
liona wrote:
I think the problem with marriage is the Britney Spears of the world.
No argument there ...
liona wrote:
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.
There is a large minority of people helping to push the gay/lesbian desire for marriage rights. That group wants to be able to marry multiple people. Now, if you can be a polygamist, and marry both sexes ... it wouldn't take too much before everyone is married to everyone else ... which would cause some very interesting problems and essentially make it so no one is married to anyone.
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
-
oilFactotum wrote:
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?
Where did the Catholic Church come into all of this?
oilFactotum wrote:
Yet, you seem to have a problem with gay marriage.
No, I have a problem with the state regulating marriage period.
oilFactotum wrote:
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.
That is fine. Having a contract that binds the assets of 2 people (which is essentially what a marriage license does in effect) is all well and good. Don't have a dedicated section of law that describes who can and cannot enter such a contract ... and don't give it special status over any other contract. You assume that I mean we should just do away with "marriage" and leave everything else the same. When laws change, business's and other laws are affected and have to adjust accordingly.
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:
That is fine. Having a contract that binds the assets of 2 people (which is essentially what a marriage license does in effect) is all well and good. Don't have a dedicated section of law that describes who can and cannot enter such a contract ... and don't give it special status over any other contract.
So then the blind should be entitled to driver's licenses and ex-cons should be permitted concealed weapons permits?