That would be none, none, none and a none. Did you have a point or just stupid questions? My ex wife took birth control pills for two years we were together. Come to find out with her second husband, she was never capeable of procreation. Doesnt change the fact that she took birth control for two years because of the potential of procreation of our relations.
We're left in an awkward scenario here.... where a "marriage", which once had obvious purposes with regard to paternity, property rights, and the welfare of women, suddenly no longer has these purposes at its core. So we have to ask the question, what is the purpose of marriage in law? Why should it exist any more? Facilitating romantic unions is one such purpose, but at this point it's fair game to say this, that, or any other purpose is or is not in need of facilitation. Odds are romantic couples will manage with or without facilitation, yet given how common it is for such romances to occur, it makes sense to facilitate it in my mind. It's also difficult, if not impossible, to regulate about "what constitutes a worthy romance". Fortunately for us, marriage tends to be self-regulating... Marriage tends to only attract romantic couples, as non-romantic couples are unlikely to want to financial and legal ties marriage implies. In any event, if this "romantic" purpose is not worthy of consideration, and can't be narrowly and sufficiently applied, then I'm happy with a libertarian approach to eliminate marriage entirely from law. If "romance" is not worthy of facilitation, my fall-back is to a libertarian approach, not a make-believe and outdated approach about paternity, property rights and the welfare of women.
It's based on experience. But at least I'm open minded and willing to call it a guess I don't consider the burden of proof about what will happen 10 generations from now, or the burden of proof of refuting the currently accepted studies to be on me. You're asking for me to first build your case for you and then refute it. You're also asking me to prove a negative, that nothing will go wrong - impossible to do. The only thing I have to say to the "scare tactics" you employed, asking us to ponder about the unknown, is I think you underestimate society. We have survived the invention of fire, farming, wheels, cars, computers, medicine, and equal rights for women. Marriage itself has existed in the form of arranged unions, romantic unions, unions of politics, the transference of property, and a form of enslavement for women. Today, women have equal rights, divorce is legal and adultery is legal. Marriage has been changed and redefined many times, well before Gays got involved. I hardly consider gay marriage to be the straw that will break the camels back.
No, as a gay man wanting the rights to marriage, you have no option but to separate these purposes from marriage. To transform the instituion of marriage that has always been about men and women becoming husband and wife and fathers and mothers to their children in a nuclear family, and reduce it to a relationship about sex, or "romance" as you like to refer to it. Transforming it into a relationship that has equal applicability to any sexual couple. Arguing that encouraging heterosexual couples to provide and care for their children together cant justify the discrimination between the married and unmarried, but providing a stable home for them to engage in sexual relations does provide such justifications.
But it could change the fact that she retains her marriage now, in the knowledge that she can't reproduce. Apparently she does marry for other reasons. And society allows it.
That separation occurred well before gays got involved. It's the fact that that separation occurred is what makes gay couples similarly situated, not the other way around. Take away women's rights, make divorce, contraception, and adultery illegal again, and maybe - just maybe - the concept of the traditional nuclear family being supported in marriage can be retained. Until then, marriage has lost those purposes. Marriage today is entered, and exited, based on whatever reason and convenience the couple wishes.
The only people who ever seem to bring up brothers marrying sisters and hippos marrying boulders are people against the idea of gay marriage. I promise you there is no secret incest or inanimate object lobby waiting to lease the office space vacated once the gays take over. it's almost as if you guys are keen to settle down with bikestands or bags of pennies and you're just floating these ideas to see if we flinch.
it comes down to which pill is less bitter to swallow I think govt needs to back the heck off (I'm being kind with those words) with respect to marriage altogether But, if they won't, then ABSOLUTELY it must be any 2 consenting adults, period, end of story I do not want to see little special interest groups created gays transvestites mom/son 3rd cousins etc If they insist on going where they should not then go all in so we never have to revisit the topic. Then, it no longer becomes a gay marriage, or plumber/electrician marriage, or chef/policeman marriage or incest or any other group of 2 you can imagine it just becomes any 2 consenting adults Of course I'd like to hear their plan for fairness and SS for all the single people and while we're here, let's even discuss adoption. i do not think anyone would argue that the natural parents is the best case scenario (we're talking most of the time in all of these) after that, a male/female couple because a child should be exposed to both but beyond that, if 2 straight guys who are brothers, or friends or even 2 gay guys want to adopt, and are decent human beings, then by golly let them and God bless them for it. I'm sickened by all the talk of killing babies in the abortion section so if decent people want to raise a kid then get out of the way and give the kid a chance. I am a true conservative who does not view people by sexual acts, gender or race. I don't however agree with affirmative action and i fear that some in the gay movement want that. We're all equal and it's on our shoulders to improve our lot in life. I packed up my family and moved 1700 miles to do that once. Playing the victim card, IMHO, is a sign of defeatism and weakness. If you have a problem with me because I have sex with women, or my hair is the wrong color, then the real problem is you and reasonable people could see that. But, I do not want to be given a label or classified as a protected group
Not on any relevant experience, obviously. Of course not, because you don't give a damm what happens 10 generations from now... ...or whether any of those studies bear any resemblance to the reality experienced by children reared under such unions. No, I'm asking you to answer specific questions which, if your case had any merit, you would have no problem answering. Oh sure, because I've always maintained that nothing ever goes wrong with traditional marriages. Nobody with any brains cares whether it will be or not, hth.
How do you feel about the rights (citizenship, inheritance....all the ones that keep coming up) being removed from the idea of marriage? Because these things are an integral part of forming traditional unions now and I don't see any good reason not to continue them. And while there are plenty of gays for whom marriage represents not so much the rights gained but the legitimacy bestowed. And I do understand that, the idea that marriage is a normal thing normal people do so if those guys are married they must be normal. But I think this is motivated by the way things are now and have been forever, and it must get annoying fast being dragged from pickup trucks and excluded from proms. I could see why a little legitimacy would go a long way. But 50 years after gay marriage happens (in whatever form it takes) the level of fear and hate will have dialed down sufficiently that I don't legitimacy will be thought of as the only motivator. I'd be hard pressed to find anyone willing to admit their disgust at inter racial couples, and whatever issues remain things are much better for blacks today than they've ever been. A lot of this comes from the normalization interracial weddings and omniracial drinking fountains encouraged. At the end of the day blacks and plenty of whites wanted the right to marry each other because a bunch of them kept falling in love and suffering over what they were prohibited from doing. Maybe because we were still dealing with men marrying women nobody really wondered why on earth they would want to get married in the first place. We all undertand why people want to marry. And I think gays want to marry each other for the same reasons everybody else does: to make a commitment, take on a new responsibility, and do their best to tackle the rest of their lives together instead of alone. So if we could carve marriage out of the legal sphere altogether and just leave it up to the churches, temples, etc. then anyone for whom such a thing is important could get married in the eyes of god. All the contractual stuff that keep deadbeat dads liable regardless of how far they run as well as the nice gifts like tax breaks would have to be administered by the state because these are things understood to be bestowable by governments. Why stop? So Adam and Steve might just go for the commitment package at city hall, you might get a package as well as a betrothal, and maybe some people, hippies or something, would forego the legal stuff because being joined in the eyes of god was enough. You could even have crazy liberal churches marrying gays as well. Who cares? Once you take the word away from the feds nobody is forced to conform their marriage to some legal ideal. Would this work? I'm not particularly married to the word marriage and as long as everyone has the same rules applied to them equally I'd consider the issues dealt with and probably go out and get drunk. Regarding the special interest groups I think any collective has the right to make their case for acceptance. But as we've discussed either here or in another thread regardless of your thoughts on the morality of, say, polygamy, the logistical hurdles required to allow it are of a different and higher order than those gay marriage entails. And all the other special cases, generally offered because there are probably real reasons why allowing them isn't a great idea, should succeed or fail on their own merit. But I suspect they'll just fail due no lack of existence.
Let's go over them then. Study the kids that are raised in these scenarios. One. Too late for that kid perhaps, but we already have several generations past. If there's no problem with the first generation, there's no reason to believe it will be for the next. It's your place to challenge generally accepted studies, not mine. Well, I'm not privy to the data and methods of a doctor, but I'll take their word for my medical issues over yours. It is curious to delve into the detail, but again, this is your job to challenge, not mine. Red herring, begging the question.
pay attention to your post and questions It keeps coming down to what the govt bestows upon us. That is not how it's supposed to be. There should be ZERO benefits from the govt for being married. Now I do support exemptions for children but you need not be married to have kids. next, I do not view race and homosexuality as being even close that they can be compared. A simple test I ask is 2 women walking down the street, which one is gay 2 women walking down the street, which one is black nobody has any way of knowing if another is gay. But, since yoiu brought it up, a white and black person could have lived together, signed purchase and sale agreements, created a living will naming the other as the benfactor etc etc. But, because we thought it right to let the govt be involved we had to go to big daddy govt and ask them to bestow marriage upon different races........how nuts was that thankfully the GOP pushed forward civil rights, again showing how conservatives are the party of equality. if you are unaware that it was the GOP to fight for civil rights you need to purge yourself of talking points and learn history. You'll be shocked to find out which party supported Jim Crow laws (hint, it wasn't the GOP)
You expect the public at large to study those kids? I'm afraid that answer cannot be taken seriously before you clarify your answer above. No, as a propoent of SSM, it's your place to demonstrate that such studies are representative of reality. Who the hell cares about that? Not in the least, since you are implicitly appealing to the authority of the "scientific community", which has demonstrated no particular competence in the area of human psychology. Projection.
Who, other than you, said anything about the public at large? I'm more concerned about people who actually study the subject being convinced or not... social workers, pediatric specialists, psychologists, etc... I don't trust the public at large's opinion any more than I trust their opinion on how to do a quadruple bypass surgery on me. It might be my place to prove they are relevant to SSM, but the fact that they are generally accepted makes it your place to refute them as fact. Point being experts are generally relied on to dig into the detail. If you want to refute their position, go for it. That's your job, not mine. So... you're begging the question. Saying they're wrong because they're wrong and you just don't accept their view of humanity. Nothing I can do to prove to you otherwise, I can't suddenly make them an authority to you. But fortunately for me, it's not you I have to convince.
It was an integral part of the question you responded to. If you are claiming it is irrelevant, you are also admitting you never had any intention of addressing the question - not that that is especially remarkable in your case, but it ought to be noted all the same. And why exactly do you trust the opinions of all these "experts"? Nonsense. For one thing, I never agreed to abide by any such rule; and for another, outside a court of law there is no compelling reason to accept any "scientific study" as prima facie evidence of anything beyond the mere fact that certain people have made specific claims. No, the point is that they are only reasonably relied on when they have demonstrated that they have some idea of what the hell they're talking about. No, you are. Not for the first time, I lament the fact that the rules of this forum prohibit an appropriate response. Yes, what you have to hope for is that enough people abandon their common sense to allow society to be even further corrupted for the sake of your particular fetish. Of course if you're really lucky, you'll feel the consequences of your devilry in your lifetime rather than afterwards.
The question is who we have to convince in the first place. Things like this tend to start in the realm of academia and science, and eventually become part of general knowledge. Are you asking me to somehow, in one post, validate all of the work, studies, and strategies on the topic? You're asking a question that would require a book. The OP presented the question, which is fine if you don't want to answer it. You're turning it around and asking us to show that there's nothing wrong with the science, scientists and statistics. First of all, where do you even start in trying to answer a question like that? Secondly, it's asking us to prove a negative. If you feel you have evidence to present to the OP, then by all means, otherwise there's not much else to say on such a broad question. I highly doubt anything gays do will make a bit of difference. Even an axe murderer can marry a child molester, and you want to talk about the damage gay marriage will do? Gay-marriage is a biproduct of changes that were already made in marriage by the straight community. Heterosexual couples can marry without any regard for the willingness, ability, or suitability to raise children. Contraception is legal, divorce is legal, and women have equal standing independent of men. I question what further change you think gay marriage will make? 1% involvement from homosexual couples (or probably less than that even) won't make a caboodle of difference for society at large. You make all this claim to damage they will cause, but you never say a thing about it.
No, the question is what I said it was from the beginning; and you're running like the wind from it, as I knew you would. Hey, I'll settle for ONE study. Would it now? And do you think it would require any less to INvalidate all that, as you said I was obligated to do? By presenting evidence that the people you implicitly claim are credible have demonstrated competence in their claimed area of expertise, obviously. I haven't done any such thing, obviously. For that matter, given how few people will participate in it, what harm could legal recognition of interspecies marriage possibly do that would compare? It doesn't matter, because just as with no-fault divorce before it, the repercussions are innumerable; and no matter how easy it is to blind one's self to the connection between a decision decades ago and its negative consequences after dozens of iterations, wisdom does not require such projections when it is perfectly clear that homosexual relationships are based on a lie, and that professing homosexuals will implicitly require any children under their parentage to accept that lie under duress, and that nothing good can come from such an arrangement.
Not sure what you mean by "running like the wind". Convincing the population at large is a matter of time and exposure, not something any single person can type down here in a few lines to provide some awe inspiring insite for the masses. The masses have their own personal and religious convictions. You disagree with them demonstrating competence in their area of expertise because you disagree with their conclusion against "common sense". Nothing else I can say to convince you otherwise. Glad we can agree, given how few people are involved anyway, your apocalyptic predictions, which you have yet to describe as anything other than something unspecified horrible event, are a bunch of hogwash. Trying to say gay marriage will damage marriage any more than the marriage between an axe murderer and child molester doesn't even pass the sniff test. ^straight people's doing, not our doing. Women's rights was probably more "damaging" than even no-fault divorce was. Independence eliminated the requirement to get married, and stay married. Your wisdom against another. Personally, I think you're blowing the gay issue out of proportion with the child wont even give a crap, as long as they are loved and cared for.
Actually, neither she nor the government had any idea that she was incapeable of procreation before her second marriage. And separate issues. Why people marry and why the government chooses to license and regulate the relationship.
Odd reply to my post that contained none of these things. Anything relevant to the post of mine YOU chose to quote and respond to.
You speak more truly than you know, as your kind have no insight to offer, that faculty having become your mortal enemy. What passes for inspiration from your kind is limited to emotionalism and manipulative guilt trips coupled with rhetorical sophistry. It's quite a bit more than just that, but you're not interested in any elaboration along those lines. We don't agree on anything whatsoever, so if you could ease up on the weaselly dissembling that would be great. No doubt it won't, from the perspective of the shallow-minded clods you're appealing to. Yeah, I get it. "Heteros" let the roof leak, so why shouldn't you set the house on fire? You have no idea what that means. See above.
You expected more from the general population? . Nor do you seem interested in sharing... We probably agree on a fair amount, unless you're refering specifically to opinions about homosexuality. Let's put things into perspective: Women's rights and independence, no-fault divorce, contraception, and legalized adultery literally flipped the world of Marriage upside down for everyone. (Nearly?) every marriage involves a woman, every marriage involves the possibility of divorce and adultery. If you want to talk about "setting the house on fire", the house was ablaze well before gays got involved. And what will gay marriage do? It will have 0 effect on existing marriages, and will only add to the overall number of marriages by what, maybe 1% at most? Your apocalyptic predictions are a little out of place. Maybe 1% of the population will enter a same-sex marriage. Less than that will raise a child within that union. And in most cases, that child, likely adopted, will probably have a much better life than they had being raised by the State. Your apocalyptic predictions for same-sex marriage are pretty far-fetched given how small the population will be, and will be dwarfed beyond recognition by other changes to marriage and society at large.
And nobody would ever challenge her right to marry, stay married, and keep the benefits involved, even with the knowledge that she can't reproduce.
I was talking about you specifically. No we don't, trust me. Why on Earth would I be interested in a perspective offered by an emissary of the devil?
