billvon 2,435 #51 February 25, 2004 >So you want to change the definition of the word, marriage? No need to! mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj) n. 1: A. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. B. The state of being married; wedlock. C. A common-law marriage. D. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. 2: A wedding. 3: A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose). 4: Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle. ------------------------------------ The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #52 February 25, 2004 This is what I'm saying. But this isn't what the real extremists (both right and left) are saying. The extreme right is fuzzy on sanctimony of the blah blah blah.... The extreme left is looking for validation of blah blah blah. problem with any social law change is it costs us all more in the end because we never cut back when it's a mistake, only add on when it's implemented..... Good luck and I hope nothing 'horrible' happens to you both so you don't have to deal with inheritance issues or even local policies (such as hospital visitation rules, etc) that inherently suck. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #53 February 25, 2004 Egads. There are some many holes in your arguement . . . Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #54 February 25, 2004 Well, actually, marriage was originally for figuring out who got land and title, if you go way back. And with regards to the "children" thing, I'm sorry, but I call bullshit. Any fertile adult, gay or straight, can have a child. Its a matter of biology, not legality. I know several gay people personally who have biological children from. Finding a sperm donor or a surrogate ain't that hard. Plenty of single hetero folks do it too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #55 February 25, 2004 QuoteEgads. There are some many holes in your arguement . . . Would you care to point out some many of them?www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #56 February 25, 2004 >our biology makes it very clear who is fit to raise a family. A fertile > man an woman. There are all sorts of exceptions to the rule: > infertile couples, adoption, artificial insemination . . . . . . and gay parents. >I don't think those are relevant to the core of the argument. They are the very center of the argument. If you state that only fertile people can be married, then you have some very big problems. You would be saying, for example, that at least four friends of mine, now raising families, should not be allowed to get married because they had to use artificial means, from IVF to adoption, to have children. If you state that only good parents should be allowed to get married, then you have to prohibit the Britney Spears and Liz Taylors of the world from getting married. You'd have to outlaw rich workaholics who both work 80 hour a week jobs. You'd have to outlaw marriages between physically impaired people. (How can two people in wheelchairs raise active kids?) >To provide a child with two mothers or two fathers would be giving >them an incomplete set . . . But giving them no parents, just a nanny, _is_ a complete set? Having an alcoholic father who is never sober is preferable over having two sober and responsible parents who love the kid? >and in my opinion would be teaching them that something wrong is > acceptable . . . No more so than teaching them that never seeing your children is acceptable. The argument that only people who make good parents should be allowed to get married has so many holes that it's a non-starter. Either you really believe that, in which case you have to deny marriages to a lot of heterosexual couples, or you don't really believe that and just feel that all heterosexuals are good parents and all homosexuals are bad parents. Which I've seen proven wrong many times. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #57 February 25, 2004 QuoteAnd with regards to the "children" thing, I'm sorry, but I call bullshit. Any fertile adult, gay or straight, can have a child. Its a matter of biology, not legality. I know several gay people personally who have biological children from. Finding a sperm donor or a surrogate ain't that hard. Plenty of single hetero folks do it too. Actually, you've made it an issue of neither biology or legality, but technology. Biologically, the only way for a child to be produced is the same way the animals do it. It follows that the creators of the child are responsible for its welfare until it can take that responsibility upon itself.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #58 February 25, 2004 Not everybody wants to be married. Clicky QuoteA woman who was subjected to a surprise proposal at a US basketball game sprinted off the court. The woman was blindfolded, sent out on the court, and told if she could find a local bank's mascot, she would win free Wizards tickets. However, the public address announcer said there was a surprise and the mascot took off his costume, grabbed a microphone and got down on one knee. But, as he began to speak to the woman, she paused and grabbed her face in shock before turning headlong and sprinting at full speed across the basketball court, reports NBC5. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #59 February 25, 2004 >Biologically, the only way for a child to be produced is the same way > the animals do it. It follows that the creators of the child are > responsible for its welfare until it can take that responsibility upon > itself. Not true legally. You can donate sperm or eggs and not be responsible for the offspring. You can have fertilization take place in a petri dish and have all the rights of any other parent. This is a good thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #60 February 25, 2004 there ain't a lot of technology involved if one chooses to use the "porno, plastic cup, and a syringe" method. My friend Felicia's daughter was conceived like this. The donor was her best friend, who was gay with a partner of 10 years, and she was 35 and single and not wanting to get married. They decided to go halves on a kid. They share custody. The father is "Dad" and his partner is "Papa", and she's one of the happiest, well adjusted little girls I've ever met. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #61 February 25, 2004 QuoteThe argument that only people who make good parents should be allowed to get married has so many holes that it's a non-starter. I never *made* that argument. While I believe a child requires a father and a mother, that does not imply that all fathers and mothers are good. But the fact that some fathers and mothers fail does not open the door to an inferior system. QuoteBut giving them no parents, just a nanny, _is_ a complete set? Having an alcoholic father who is never sober is preferable over having two sober and responsible parents who love the kid? Again, I never said that. But just because people are failing at something that was designed by nature to be complete, does not mean something else less logical is ok. The argument that gay marriages should be accepted because so many adults today fail at heterosexual marriages is like saying, "we shouldn't limit students to low wing loadings because even then they still have accidents". The accidents are irrelevant. It's a system that should work and be safe. Just because people are screwing it up does not mean we should make it more allowing.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #62 February 25, 2004 Quote>Biologically, the only way for a child to be produced is the same way > the animals do it. It follows that the creators of the child are > responsible for its welfare until it can take that responsibility upon > itself. Not true legally. You can donate sperm or eggs and not be responsible for the offspring. You can have fertilization take place in a petri dish and have all the rights of any other parent. This is a good thing. You use the word legally in your reply to my post referencing strict biology. It is very clear how we biologically reproduce. Biologically we are animals. Only our minds separate us. Animals would not use petri dishes or legal documents.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiverRick 0 #63 February 25, 2004 Quotewhy does what others think matter? I really don't care what anyone else thinks of me. Their opinion has no effect whatsoever on how I live my life. Tell that to minorities. What others think has a lot of effect on us. It's what others think that is making this marriage thing an issue for gays. never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #64 February 25, 2004 QuoteMarriage, however, is a union for the purpose of building functional families. Say who? Marriage does not require procreation.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #65 February 25, 2004 Life would be a lot easier if the "others" would mind their own business about matters that have absolutely nothing to do with them other than offending their "delicate sensibilities" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #66 February 25, 2004 QuoteMarriage, however, is a union for the purpose of building functional families. There are plenty of heterosexual two parent families that are very dysfunctional. QuoteIn functional families, non-consenting, non-adult people (children) are brought into the picture. Non-consenting non-adults do not have a say in who their parents are. This is why the law must enter the picture. It is up to adults who have the ability to think analytically to determine who can and can't raise a child, thus creating a family. How many “oopsy” children abandoned and neglected do you need so you can see the flaw in this one? QuoteTruthfully, the answer is so obvious it's painful. Regardless of how much anyone hates the "procreation" argument, our biology makes it very clear who is fit to raise a family. A fertile man an woman. There are all sorts of exceptions to the rule: infertile couples, adoption, artificial insemination. I don't think those are relevant to the core of the argument. These are essential to the core of the point you’re trying to make, and frankly damage your arguement. I have to go so I can’t expound. I’ll try to later todayKeith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #67 February 25, 2004 QuoteQuoteMarriage, however, is a union for the purpose of building functional families. Say who? Marriage does not require procreation. Your point is taken, but one of the major concerns with gay marriages (as opposed to co-habiting gay couples) is that the issue of child raising...www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #68 February 25, 2004 QuoteYour point is taken, but one of the major concerns with gay marriages (as opposed to co-habiting gay couples) is that the issue of child raising... Thanks for spurring another thought. Building a functiononal family does not require either a "marriage", procreation or a fixed number or sex of "parents"---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jayruss 0 #69 February 25, 2004 Quote Tell that to minorities. What others think has a lot of effect on us. It's what others think that is making this marriage thing an issue for gays. I don't think the issue is about what other's think. It's equality, not all gays want to get married. It's simply a matter that if a homosexual feels inclined they should have the ability to marry their same sex partner. The gay couple I know who went to San Fran last weekend to get married could careless what others think. __________________________________________________ "Beware how you take away hope from another human being." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #70 February 25, 2004 QuoteYou use the word legally in your reply to my post referencing strict biology. It is very clear how we biologically reproduce. Biologically we are animals. Only our minds separate us. Animals would not use petri dishes or legal documents. I haven't seen the most obvious reply (I may have missed it). I know plenty of gay and lesbian couples who have children conceived the same ol' way most other folks do it. It's not unheard of at all.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,145 #71 February 25, 2004 QuoteConsenting adult siblings who want to sleep together, can. Consenting adult homosexuals who want to sleep together, can. Marriage, however, is a union for the purpose of building functional families. In functional families, non-consenting, non-adult people (children) are brought into the picture. Non-consenting non-adults do not have a say in who their parents are. This is why the law must enter the picture. It is up to adults who have the ability to think analytically to determine who can and can't raise a child, thus creating a family. Truthfully, the answer is so obvious it's painful. Regardless of how much anyone hates the "procreation" argument, our biology makes it very clear who is fit to raise a family. A fertile man an woman. There are all sorts of exceptions to the rule: infertile couples, adoption, artificial insemination. I don't think those are relevant to the core of the argument. Biological ability to produce a family is not the only reason for my belief. It is my belief based on my experience in life, that a child needs a mother and a father to develop, grow up, and mature. Children build their core values based on their parents. To provide a child with two mothers or two fathers would be giving them an incomplete set, and in my opinion would be teaching them that something wrong is acceptable (though society does a fairly good job of that today). To provide a child with sibling parents (even if they adopted the child and he was not deformed) would be again teaching the child that something wrong is acceptable (I'm thinking everyone agrees with me on this one). This is why sibling and gay marriages should not be valid. Which means, in short, that in my opinion, neither sibling couples nor gay couples should be allowed legally to raise a non-consenting non-adult (which they couldn't produce on their own anyway) and call themselves a family. Though can can fuck or co-habit all they want. That would mean that an hetrosexual couple, who either do not want children or can not have children should not be allowed to marry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #72 February 25, 2004 QuoteQuoteMarriage, however, is a union for the purpose of building functional families. There are plenty of heterosexual two parent families that are very dysfunctional. I'll explain once more why pointing towards dysfunctional heterosexual families is not a valid argument for homosexual families. I'm going to make an analogy. First let me define two things. Belief #1 - A child requires a father and a mother to develop fully. Belief #2 - A child can develop fully with two fathers, or two mothers. I believe #1. If you want to know why, ask me. The purpose of the analogy I'm going to make is not to prove #1. It's to show that if you want to prove #2, you have to explain why, you can't just point out that some "mother-father" couples fail. It's irrelevant. Soooo many people say "oh, but look at the alcoholic fathers! oh but look at the divorce rates!" It's irrelevant. Failing heterosexual families does not imply homosexual ones would work (they also don't imply that homosexual ones wouldn't). It's ridiculous logic. Here's the analogy. Your car is broken and needs repaired. There are two repairmen. Repairman #1 has every tool necessary to do the job. Repairman #2 has half of the tools of #1 (but two of each tool), but if he tries hard enough he can still get most of the job done. For the purposes of this analogy, assume that a toolset is integral to a repairman. I.e., a repairman cannot change toolsets. (In case you haven't guessed it, these tools are representing the emotional, mental, and physical qualities of men and women, which are biologically different, despite some people's attempts to deny this obvious fact). Now assuming both repairmen operate to their full potential, the outcome is as follows. #1 - Your car is fully repaired and has a long life. #2 - Your car is mostly repaired, but some components have been damaged by using incorrect tools, some tasks weren't finished completely, and it probably won't last you as long. Obviously, in the real world, both repairmen might not operate to their full potential. It is possible you could go to a "Repairman #1" who has all of the tools but is still incompetent and a dumbass. If he fucks your car up, that is not a valid argument that you should have gone to a "Repairman #2", someone with half the tools! You should have found a "Repairman #1" who knows how to do his job! In a "worst case example", someone with half the tools could probably do the job better than someone with all the tools! But that does not mean we should be encouraging Repairmen to do the best job possible with half the tools. It means we need to educate (or eradicate... sarcasm here) the dumbasses who have a full toolset but still fuck up the job. Whether or not you believe that two men (or women) have a "full toolset" for raising a child, you can't deny that their toolset is different than that of a man and a woman. Heterosexual parents and homosexual parents have different tools available to them. The fact that heterosexual parents fail often is a testament to the shitty state of the world we live in and that they are not using their tools properly, but it does not imply that homosexual parents with different tools are right for the job, even if they can do a better case than an alcoholic child abuser (a "worst case example"). If you want to purport that two men can give a child the upbringing he deserves, then explain why in rational terms. Simply pointing to the failure of heterosexual alcoholics and divorcees is not an argument for your case!!!www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #73 February 25, 2004 QuoteThat would mean that an hetrosexual couple, who either do not want children or can not have children should not be allowed to marry. No, I did not say those who have the tools to raise a child should be forced to. Just that those who don't have the tools should not be encourage to.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #74 February 25, 2004 >Would it take away your rights? If gays are marrying, then are straights less married? >Is there only a certain amount of married people rights that are allotted and you >don't want the gays taking away from your rights? Good question. I've asked myself the same thing - "why the fear?" What will a heterosexual guy lose out on if a gay friend of his is allowed to get married? I can think of a few possible answers: 1. "They're not real." There are people who simply have never met any gays, and honestly don't 'get it.' They figure that maybe they're just pretending to like guys, or they are doing it just to be a liberal nuisance, or are part of a plot to undermine morals here in the US. It's hard to keep thinking that once you know any gays, but some people have just never met one (that they know of, anyway.) Why let these pretenders get married if their lives are based on a sham? - so goes their thinking. 2. "They can't be in the club." This sounds dumb on the surface, but when you consider how hard clubs have fought to keep women and blacks out over the years, it's certainly possible. Excluding people makes some people feel more special and exclusive. 3. "I don't want to acknowledge their lifestyle." There is a feeling, I think, that if you don't give gays any rights (or don't give them certain rights) that 'potential' gays will say "Gee, being gay is hard, I think I'll remain straight." Makes no sense to me, especially when you ask people whether or not they chose to be straight or gay. (99% don't choose it; it just is.) But perhaps some think that by ostracizing them, the number of gays will be reduced and a troubling lifestyle will go away. Of course, the underlying issue is that for some reason they are really troubled by gays, which is a whole other topic. 4. "I'm afraid I will become like them." This was a common refrain for a long time, that real homophobes are terrified that they will discover latent homosexual tendencies and become what they despise. I don't think this is very common at all (because most people don't choose to be either gay or straight) but like most axioms I think there is some truth to it. Allowing gay marriage would result in more acceptance of homosexuality and a corresponding increase in chanced to be tempted by "the other side." 5. "I'm afraid my kids will turn out gay." I think this is a very strong fear in some people. Look at the terror that ensues when a scoutmaster is found out to be gay. Pedophilia! NAMBLA! and all the other bogeymen that homophobes use to scare people make their appearance. There are people who think that if a child turns out gay they are failures as parents; there are even parents who would rather see their children dead than gay. The latter are rare, fortunately. The thinking goes that if gay marriages are allowed, this will send a message to one's children that it's OK to be gay, and thus more children will "decide" to be gay. This might be valid if kids make such a decision at age 17 or something, but again, it chooses you - not the other way around. 6. "I'm afraid that children of gay couples will turn out gay." The thinking here goes that if you have two women as parents, their daughters will see that and think that that's normal, and thus will have no choice than to be gay. The theory falls apart when you look at how two attentive, loving, opposite-sex parents can still produce gay children, but I think the fear persists that a "normal" child will be led into a depraved, evil, sinful life of homosexuality. This is similar to 5) except that these are _other_ people's kids. Perhaps people think that such an action (i.e. gays raising children) rises almost to the level of child abuse, and thus must be legislated against. 7. "I'm afraid that I will be left out of a society that's full of gays." There are some that dislike the "gaying down" of society, and see things like the show queer eye as a threat to them. They will be essentially left behind, with the cool gay guys getting all the attention and the boring heteros relegated to the sidelines. Allowing gay marriage would result in big, lavish gay weddings, socially acceptable gay couples, big gay dinner parties etc that straights would be excluded from (so goes the thinking.) And they would have to see that stuff all the time, and they would simply rather not. 8. "My marriage will be weakened because of gay marriage." I know that this is a common fear; I just can't figure it out. Surely people's marriages are not so weak that their feeling of exclusivity (i.e. "we're married and you're not! So there!") is the only thing holding them together, and surely most married people do not change their lives every time another detail of marriage is changed (like a change in common-law marriage times or something.) 9. "My religion says that gays can't be married." This is certainly a valid reason to not accept gay marriages, but is also the strongest reason to not make anything like this into law. If my religion said that women had to be circumcised before marriage, it would be absurd to suggest that any other person in another religion should pay the slightest heed to what my religion says. This is also one of the better arguments for making marriage a purely church function and the civil union that accompanies the marriage a state function. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jayruss 0 #75 February 25, 2004 Quote Whether or not you believe that two men (or women) have a "full toolset" for raising a child, you can't deny that their toolset is different than that of a man and a woman. Heterosexual parents and homosexual parents have different tools available to them. You are correct in assuming that same sex couples raising children will have different tools available to them. Of course, you’re biased stance assumes different=bad. But what your analogy fails to define is what "fully repaired" means. When it comes to fixing my car, it's very easy to tell the difference between "fully repaired" and "mostly repaired". When it comes to children, as you are alluding too, define "fully repaired" or rather what you're hinting at "good" kids. __________________________________________________ "Beware how you take away hope from another human being." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
