I must be slipping
-
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?
-
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
Zac Howland wrote:
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.
Welcome to the liberal ideal.
-
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.
I recommend that you read the first chapter of "Atheism - A Case Against God" by George H. Smith (by all means, read the entire book, it's well written). In short terms - atheism isn't belief. It's the absence of belief. The book puts it far more eloquently than I could ever hope to achieve.
-- When you see the robot, drink!
-
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:
Where did the Catholic Church come into all of this?
Replace Catholic church with any religion you wish. The point is that no one is demanding that any religion recognize any union, ever.
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.
It appears you are saying that we should be not passing laws that ban gay marriage or define marriage as between one man and one woman. But it appears you are going further. You seem to be saying that state should not recognize marriage at all. It should only recognize the contracts created between individuals that will define their relationship. I doesn't sound like a very good solution to me. What it boils down to is "Let the lawyers define marriage." Besides the state will still get involved, estates, children, SS benefits, whatever. Individual custom contracts will always end up leaving out important questions that will have to be answered, and odds are the state will be involved.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
So you're saying atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry?
Despite what some claim, atheism is a religion ;P Ironically, many of them derive their concept of marriage from the Judeo-Christian concept of it.
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:
Despite what some claim, atheism is a religion
No, it isn't. Atheism is the absence of religion. You don't go to a special building once a week in special clothes to become an atheist. There's no membership fees, or secret handshake or special beliefs.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Zac Howland wrote:
In all honesty, the government shouldn't be regulating marriage to begin with.
I agree - marriage is the territory of the church. I don't think the government has the right to decide for the church what does and does not constitute marriage. Once you redefine marriage like that, what's to stop a government from defining more aspects of a religion?
Prime your row 'cause you'll get no pay for standin' there pickin' at your nose all day.
Governments should reject religions as mumbo jumbo, and make no special considerations for them.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
I don't think the government has the right to decide for the church what does and does not constitute marriage.
Why not? It's not like the christian church has exclusive rights to the concept of marriage. What legally constitutes marriage is up to the government to decide. The christian marriage ritual is the church's business. And they can put whatever silly restrictions they want on their ritual. Gay people can marry somewhere else. Gay or not - the marrying couple becomes legally married. I don't think gay people have a problem with that, only religious people with unjustified beliefs do.
-- Larva-Tested, Pupa-Approved
-
Governments should reject religions as mumbo jumbo, and make no special considerations for them.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
I don't think the government has the right to decide for the church what does and does not constitute marriage.
Why not? It's not like the christian church has exclusive rights to the concept of marriage. What legally constitutes marriage is up to the government to decide. The christian marriage ritual is the church's business. And they can put whatever silly restrictions they want on their ritual. Gay people can marry somewhere else. Gay or not - the marrying couple becomes legally married. I don't think gay people have a problem with that, only religious people with unjustified beliefs do.
-- Larva-Tested, Pupa-Approved
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Why not? It's not like the christian church has exclusive rights to the concept of marriage. What legally constitutes marriage is up to the government to decide. The christian marriage ritual is the church's business. And they can put whatever silly restrictions they want on their ritual. Gay people can marry somewhere else. Gay or not - the marrying couple becomes legally married. I don't think gay people have a problem with that, only religious people with unjustified beliefs do.
I kind of look at it this way: if you get married in a church, it's the church's business and thus religious. Marriage is defined by the government as a civil contract between two people, in that sense it's the business of the state as there are legal ramifications that come along with getting married. Now, if gay people want to get married at city hall, that's all fine and dandy, but if the government starts telling the Catholic Church that they should start marrying gays, etc... I have a problem with the state intervening on the policy of the church. It's not that I particularly support the Catholic church or anything, but I believe that religion and the government should be very, very separate. In that sense, I think it's good to distinguish between civil union and the religious version of marriage. Anyways, I think I misunderstood the article. :doh:
Prime your row 'cause you'll get no pay for standin' there pickin' at your nose all day.
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Why not? It's not like the christian church has exclusive rights to the concept of marriage. What legally constitutes marriage is up to the government to decide. The christian marriage ritual is the church's business. And they can put whatever silly restrictions they want on their ritual. Gay people can marry somewhere else. Gay or not - the marrying couple becomes legally married. I don't think gay people have a problem with that, only religious people with unjustified beliefs do.
I kind of look at it this way: if you get married in a church, it's the church's business and thus religious. Marriage is defined by the government as a civil contract between two people, in that sense it's the business of the state as there are legal ramifications that come along with getting married. Now, if gay people want to get married at city hall, that's all fine and dandy, but if the government starts telling the Catholic Church that they should start marrying gays, etc... I have a problem with the state intervening on the policy of the church. It's not that I particularly support the Catholic church or anything, but I believe that religion and the government should be very, very separate. In that sense, I think it's good to distinguish between civil union and the religious version of marriage. Anyways, I think I misunderstood the article. :doh:
Prime your row 'cause you'll get no pay for standin' there pickin' at your nose all day.
Looks like we are in agreement. :) I'd just like to state that even though I'm not gay, I don't want to marry in a religious establishment (especially not in a draconian catholic church). :)
-- For proper viewing, take red pill now
-
Zac Howland wrote:
In all honesty, the government shouldn't be regulating marriage to begin with.
I agree - marriage is the territory of the church. I don't think the government has the right to decide for the church what does and does not constitute marriage. Once you redefine marriage like that, what's to stop a government from defining more aspects of a religion?
Prime your row 'cause you'll get no pay for standin' there pickin' at your nose all day.
Well in that case, there should be no tax rammifications of marriage and no shared jobs benefits, etc.
Matt Gerrans
-
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.
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. I have dealt with people like you all my life and you are a racist in my eyes. The people that share your views tend to spew religious comments on how homosexuality is forbidden. I don't know why you think it is so deviant but I am sure it relates to religion. sure homosexuals are a minority but that doesn't count for deviant behaviour. Mostly I think that the people that have issues with homosexuality have underlying issues about themself. IMO.
-
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.
I recommend that you read the first chapter of "Atheism - A Case Against God" by George H. Smith (by all means, read the entire book, it's well written). In short terms - atheism isn't belief. It's the absence of belief. The book puts it far more eloquently than I could ever hope to achieve.
-- When you see the robot, drink!
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I recommend that you read the first chapter of "Atheism - A Case Against God" by George H. Smith (by all means, read the entire book, it's well written). In short terms - atheism isn't belief. It's the absence of belief. The book puts it far more eloquently than I could ever hope to achieve.
I've skimmed the book, though I disagree with him on that. Agnosticism is absense of belief. Atheism is a disbelief (which is essentially a belief in the inverse). A coworker (who calls himself an atheist mind you) explained it well this way:
bool isGod = true; Boolean Religious = isGod; Boolean Atheist = !isGod; Boolean Agnostic = null;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