Gay marriages....now what about siblings parents or animals?

[Llamalandia]

Not a certain religion any religion and show me where in the constitution you have a right to marriage at all (though I concede one might able to argue it on the basis of first amendment freedom of association grounds). Also the govt doesn't give you rights your rights are inherent as a human being and are natural rights. You can wear a ring and say your married all you want I can't stop you nor can nor should the govt or anyone else church be able to stop you though again I point out until the last couple hundred years marriage has been a religious thing not a secular one.

because there aren't anyother legal sources than constitutions

Natural Law I guess though I don't think you can cite that in a US court of law though I could be mistaken. There is also God if you happen to believe in Him (or Her or whatever) again though not citable in US court. As far as I know constitutions (or charters or whatever) are generally the only sources securing rights to people that can't be changed by simple congressional statute.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Also, take into context the psychological effects on a person in an abusive relationship. Many stay because they feel they have no other choice. I think it has a lot less to do with social stigma, or commitment and more to do with feeling trapped.

Often the methods of an abuser are so manipulative as to come off as charming as can be, then methodically separate all sources of support such as family and friends, manipulate the victim into thinking he/she is worthless without the partner in question, and otherwise remove any form of independence so that the victim often sincerely believes there is no escape. It's quite tragic really.

I was merely illustrating the point of how deadly serious marriage was taken by society even just 60 years ago not arguin that women (or men) should stay in physically abusive relationships for any reason, though I do believe in very rare instances an abuser can be forgiven and reconciliation can occur but only after separation. Again not arguing that abusive marriage should be perpetuated by societal shame just showing that it used to be and if even abuse wasn't considered sufficient to end a marriage then these unreconcialable differences cited today would never have even made it past the court house step; it would have been utterly laughable. It seems are far cry from where we are today.

I have to ask: are you in a relationship, are you married? Do you have any personal experience on what you're talking about?

Somehow I doubt that you know how and what a marriage is. If you truly knew, you wouldn't say half of the things you have been saying in this thread. If you were grounded in reality, your song would be so different. As it stands, your point of view is so idealistic, it reeks of Disney movies. I'm sorry, but that is the impression I keep getting from your posts.

[Llamalandia]

I don't believe it's disconnected from my reality or lived experiences it is in my opinion that every one I have known would have been better off in a loving two parent family than in a broken home is all.

Loving families are not usually the ones that are broken up via divorce.

People shouldn't have families if they aren't willing to be loving towards each other for the rest of their natural lives it's just that simple.

[Person012345]

I don't see anything particularly wrong with that, but I do get the point of not entering into marriages whimsically, or leaving one in the same manner. Especially if children are involved as it has a heavy effect on kids. I do think couples should try. People really shouldn't be tossed about if it can be avoided. However, when trying fails go your merry ways, I say.

As to the latter, frankly I have no idea. *shrugs*

I simply disagree and personally believe divorce is worse for kids, but I'm sure peer reviewed studies would likely show me to be incorrect. I also feel couples in these modern times give up way way too easily, I mean women used to stay married to wife beaters (not saying this shouldn't change just pointing out fact) because they were so committed to marriage and avoiding being a divorcee and felt it was best for the children to stay together despite actual physical abuse. Now people cite boredom as an irreconcilable difference to justify divorce and that is just not cool with me.

I know lolicon ecchi with a better grasp on reality than you.

[Individuality-ness]

Do you have any personal experience on what you're talking about?

To be fair Nana, I don't have personal experience in regards to marriage and I still know that what's being spewed out is bullcrap.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Do you have any personal experience on what you're talking about?

To be fair Nana, I don't have personal experience in regards to marriage and I still know that what's being spewed out is bullcrap.

That wasn't aimed at you because unlike Llamalandia, you aren't suffering from aggravated reality disconnect. It's quite obvious and I thought you of all people could see that.

[Llamalandia]

I was merely illustrating the point of how deadly serious marriage was taken by society even just 60 years ago not arguin that women (or men) should stay in physically abusive relationships for any reason, though I do believe in very rare instances an abuser can be forgiven and reconciliation can occur but only after separation. Again not arguing that abusive marriage should be perpetuated by societal shame just showing that it used to be and if even abuse wasn't considered sufficient to end a marriage then these unreconcialable differences cited today would never have even made it past the court house step; it would have been utterly laughable. It seems are far cry from where we are today.

I have to ask: are you in a relationship, are you married? Do you have any personal experience on what you're talking about?

Somehow I doubt that you know how and what a marriage is. If you truly knew, you wouldn't say half of the things you have been saying in this thread. If you were grounded in reality, your song would be so different. As it stands, your point of view is so idealistic, it reeks of Disney movies. I'm sorry, but that is the impression I keep getting from your posts.

No not currently. Yes I like disney movies (at least animated ones) and believe that is not actually a horrible idealized world to shoot for seems like a good idea to me. Maybe if when I am married I will change my mind but for now this is my position and I don't believe it to be that disconnected from reality (at least not in my own experience). But consider how paternity tests have become trivial fodder for daytime tv and show like Jerry Spring (which I used to find hilarious I admit) is that really the kind of society you want and wouldn't you rather do everything in your power to change it?

[Individuality-ness]

To be fair Nana, I don't have personal experience in regards to marriage and I still know that what's being spewed out is bullcrap.

That wasn't aimed at you because unlike Llamalandia, you aren't suffering from aggravated reality disconnect. It's quite obvious and I thought you of all people could see that.

I know that, I'm just saying that not having personal experience doesn't disqualify you from know what's reality and what's not. *shrug*

[Grainne Ni Malley]

There does seem to be a bit of disconnect from the real world in his stance, but I understand the points he is trying to make as far as it being in the ultimate best interest of children involved to make a marriage work if at all possible. It's not to say single parents don't do a kick-ass job of raising kids. I am one. Alas, it would have been much easier on my son if I hadn't dragged him through one failed relationship after another. That's not to say I should have never left my partner/s. More like I should have mad far wiser choices in life.

Otherwise, I am good. Waiting to see if my cancer is still in remission is like holding my breath inside a balloon, but other than that I am quite good thank you. If you do call it quits have yourself a peaceful night.

Sorry to here about the potential cancer that sucks thoughts and prayers with you.

While I agree that some single parents do do a very good job, unfortunately these heroic individuals are too few and far between in my opinion and I do know for a fact that children on average do better in a two parent household (regardless gay/straight issue) than children of one parent. Just the sad reality that I believe needs to end. People should be married then have kids and stay married at the very least for the children (again barring spousal abuse etc.) . I realize not all single parents are single by choice and I do believe society in general has an especial duty to support them if for no other reason than society's self-interest in having a child raised as well adjusted and well educated member of said society who will grow up to be a positive contribution.

Thank you. Currently it is in remission as far as I know, though waiting over a week to hear how my last test results came out is a bit tortuous. I will be taking it upon myself to call in come tomorrow... I mean later today.

If a two-parent household is healthy and nurturing more often than not, then I agree. This scenario would be best. Which (to keep this on topic) is why I also believe gay people should be able to marry/adopt/raise children. If a gay couple can live their lives just like everyone else in a virtually happy marriage and lovingly raising kids, they contribute to the overall well-being of our society. I have a friend who has two moms. She is intelligent, well-rounded and in a heterosexual marriage of her own raising two beautiful, happy, healthy kids.. I see all arguments against gay marriage/parenting fall to pieces when I think of her.

[Llamalandia]

I simply disagree and personally believe divorce is worse for kids, but I'm sure peer reviewed studies would likely show me to be incorrect. I also feel couples in these modern times give up way way too easily, I mean women used to stay married to wife beaters (not saying this shouldn't change just pointing out fact) because they were so committed to marriage and avoiding being a divorcee and felt it was best for the children to stay together despite actual physical abuse. Now people cite boredom as an irreconcilable difference to justify divorce and that is just not cool with me.

I know lolicon ecchi with a better grasp on reality than you.

I seriously find that hard to believe maybe it is just that i seem to live in a fairly idealized bubble of modern middle class suburbia where most major debates aren't about who a child's father is but rather about whether to drive a prius to be ecofriendly or an suv for safety (at least perceived safety) and I assume that was hyperbole on your part

[Person012345]

I know lolicon ecchi with a better grasp on reality than you.

I seriously find that hard to believe maybe it is just that i seem to live in a fairly idealized bubble of modern middle class suburbia where most major debates aren't about who a child's father is but rather about whether to drive a prius to be ecofriendly or an suv for safety (at least perceived safety) and I assume that was hyperbole on your part

It wasn't.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I have to ask: are you in a relationship, are you married? Do you have any personal experience on what you're talking about?

Somehow I doubt that you know how and what a marriage is. If you truly knew, you wouldn't say half of the things you have been saying in this thread. If you were grounded in reality, your song would be so different. As it stands, your point of view is so idealistic, it reeks of Disney movies. I'm sorry, but that is the impression I keep getting from your posts.

No not currently. Yes I like disney movies (at least animated ones) and believe that is not actually a horrible idealized world to shoot for seems like a good idea to me. Maybe if when I am married I will change my mind but for now this is my position and I don't believe it to be that disconnected from reality (at least not in my own experience). But consider how paternity tests have become trivial fodder for daytime tv and show like Jerry Spring (which I used to find hilarious I admit) is that really the kind of society you want and wouldn't you rather do everything in your power to change it?

I don't have the tendency of trying to meddle in other people's lives by saying that the church should regulate their marriage or their divorce. Something you seem to want to do.

That wasn't aimed at you because unlike Llamalandia, you aren't suffering from aggravated reality disconnect. It's quite obvious and I thought you of all people could see that.

I know that, I'm just saying that not having personal experience doesn't disqualify you from know what's reality and what's not. *shrug*

In his case, yes, it does. Someone that disconnected from reality? Yes, it does disqualifies him.

BTW, did you read the rest of the post or were you just going to focus on that first part? Because I must say you should read the rest of the post you're refuting as it explains itself.

[Llamalandia]

Sorry to here about the potential cancer that sucks thoughts and prayers with you.

While I agree that some single parents do do a very good job, unfortunately these heroic individuals are too few and far between in my opinion and I do know for a fact that children on average do better in a two parent household (regardless gay/straight issue) than children of one parent. Just the sad reality that I believe needs to end. People should be married then have kids and stay married at the very least for the children (again barring spousal abuse etc.) . I realize not all single parents are single by choice and I do believe society in general has an especial duty to support them if for no other reason than society's self-interest in having a child raised as well adjusted and well educated member of said society who will grow up to be a positive contribution.

Thank you. Currently it is in remission as far as I know, though waiting over a week to hear how my last test results came out is a bit tortuous. I will be taking it upon myself to call in come tomorrow... I mean later today.

If a two-parent household is healthy and nurturing more often than not, then I agree. This scenario would be best. Which (to keep this on topic) is why I also believe gay people should be able to marry/adopt/raise children. If a gay couple can live their lives just like everyone else in a virtually happy marriage and lovingly raising kids, they contribute to the overall well-being of our society. I have a friend who has two moms. She is intelligent, well-rounded and in a heterosexual marriage of her own raising two beautiful, happy, healthy kids.. I see all arguments against gay marriage/parenting fall to pieces when I think of her.

Yeah I have no real problem with gay couples adopting especially considering the number of children languishing in foster care at the moment. I think gay marriage is really more a definitional issue one of semantics more than actual substance. That said I would be adamantly opposed to incestuous marriages and absolutely abhor the thought of such persons having or raising a child together. Yet, it seems many in this thread have few qualms about incestuous or polygamous marriage whatsoever.

[AiliailiA]

Loving families are not usually the ones that are broken up via divorce.

People shouldn't have families if they aren't willing to be loving towards each other for the rest of their natural lives it's just that simple.

That's simplistic, not simple. Firstly, you don't love someone by an effort of will. You can stop loving them completely against your own will (think about it: love feels great; why wouldn't you want to stay in love?). The most you can ask of people is that they treat others decently. You have no right to demand that their feelings be a certain way, let alone stay that way.

Secondly, why "for the rest of their natural lives"? If the purpose is to provide a loving home for children, doesn't that purpose end when the children grow up? For a typical couple having their first child in their mid to late twenties (and perhaps a second child two or three years later) this gets them to the mid 40's or maybe 50. Modern life expectancy is about 80. Why can't they divorce if one (or both) want to? Why should they go without love and/or sex for another 30 years?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Thank you. Currently it is in remission as far as I know, though waiting over a week to hear how my last test results came out is a bit tortuous. I will be taking it upon myself to call in come tomorrow... I mean later today.

If a two-parent household is healthy and nurturing more often than not, then I agree. This scenario would be best. Which (to keep this on topic) is why I also believe gay people should be able to marry/adopt/raise children. If a gay couple can live their lives just like everyone else in a virtually happy marriage and lovingly raising kids, they contribute to the overall well-being of our society. I have a friend who has two moms. She is intelligent, well-rounded and in a heterosexual marriage of her own raising two beautiful, happy, healthy kids.. I see all arguments against gay marriage/parenting fall to pieces when I think of her.

Yeah I have no real problem with gay couples adopting especially considering the number of children languishing in foster care at the moment. I think gay marriage is really more a definitional issue one of semantics more than actual substance. That said I would be adamantly opposed to incestuous marriages and absolutely abhor the thought of such persons having or raising a child together. Yet, it seems many in this thread have few qualms about incestuous or polygamous marriage whatsoever.

Polyamorous marriages aren't a problem as long as everyone involved consent, fully, to such an arrangement.

Incestuous ones? I reserve judgment.

[Llamalandia]

No not currently. Yes I like disney movies (at least animated ones) and believe that is not actually a horrible idealized world to shoot for seems like a good idea to me. Maybe if when I am married I will change my mind but for now this is my position and I don't believe it to be that disconnected from reality (at least not in my own experience). But consider how paternity tests have become trivial fodder for daytime tv and show like Jerry Spring (which I used to find hilarious I admit) is that really the kind of society you want and wouldn't you rather do everything in your power to change it?

I don't have the tendency of trying to meddle in other people's lives by saying that the church should regulate their marriage or their divorce. Something you seem to want to do.

I know that, I'm just saying that not having personal experience doesn't disqualify you from know what's reality and what's not. *shrug*

In his case, yes, it does. Someone that disconnected from reality? Yes, it does disqualifies him.

BTW, did you read the rest of the post or were you just going to focus on that first part? Because I must say you should read the rest of the post you're refuting as it explains itself.

Fair enough but I don't believe govt should be in the business of meddling with peoples marriages or lives yet they are. After all it was govt who outlawed interracial marriages until the civil rights era. Let me go back and read your post again though.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I don't have the tendency of trying to meddle in other people's lives by saying that the church should regulate their marriage or their divorce. Something you seem to want to do.



In his case, yes, it does. Someone that disconnected from reality? Yes, it does disqualifies him.

BTW, did you read the rest of the post or were you just going to focus on that first part? Because I must say you should read the rest of the post you're refuting as it explains itself.

Fair enough but I don't believe govt should be in the business of meddling with peoples marriages or lives yet they are. After all it was govt who outlawed interracial marriages until the civil rights era. Let me go back and read your post again though.

And yet you think churches can do better than the government because... Churches that have also contributed in the past to racism? Among other maladies? Do you really believe that they can do a better job at regulating marriage? And divorce?

Has history not taught you anything on that regard?

[Llamalandia]

I don't believe i am disconnected from reality, its just that in my reality divorce is still a pretty serious thing (conservative part of USA) and everyone is fairly middle class and I have never even known anyone who didn't know who their father was, or who had parents who were abusive. But thats just my real experience.

[Grainne Ni Malley]

Also, take into context the psychological effects on a person in an abusive relationship. Many stay because they feel they have no other choice. I think it has a lot less to do with social stigma, or commitment and more to do with feeling trapped.

Often the methods of an abuser are so manipulative as to come off as charming as can be, then methodically separate all sources of support such as family and friends, manipulate the victim into thinking he/she is worthless without the partner in question, and otherwise remove any form of independence so that the victim often sincerely believes there is no escape. It's quite tragic really.

I was merely illustrating the point of how deadly serious marriage was taken by society even just 60 years ago not arguin that women (or men) should stay in physically abusive relationships for any reason, though I do believe in very rare instances an abuser can be forgiven and reconciliation can occur but only after separation. Again not arguing that abusive marriage should be perpetuated by societal shame just showing that it used to be and if even abuse wasn't considered sufficient to end a marriage then these unreconcialable differences cited today would never have even made it past the court house step; it would have been utterly laughable. It seems are far cry from where we are today.

Personally I would cringe at the idea of anyone returning to a formerly abusive relationship. Having suffered one, and my only escape despite several attempts to get him to leave once I was mentally healthy enough to realize he had to move out was his eventual and unfortunate suicide. Abusive relationships are often cyclical wherein the potential abuser will appear to have gotten over abusive tendencies only to resort to them again, especially if the same factors are present. It would have to be a very, very rare situation in my book. If at all.

Also, 60 years ago women had far fewer rights and opportunities to be self-sufficient. Dependency was almost entirely upon the man and options for leaving a marriage no matter the circumstances were not only heavily frowned upon, but also hard to come by. I don't know how much exactly the advancement of women's rights has played a part in increasing divorce rates, though I am sure it has played a part. However, I do not necessarily view this as a bad thing by any means. I do believe people should be free, but responsibly so. Even if this means free to move on from one stage of their life where their partner is no longer relevant. If a person has an itching to move on, there is no amount of reasoning to stick around that I can find plausible. Ultimately, if someone is dissatisfied enough to move on, staying in the relationship only makes things worse.

[Llamalandia]

Yeah I have no real problem with gay couples adopting especially considering the number of children languishing in foster care at the moment. I think gay marriage is really more a definitional issue one of semantics more than actual substance. That said I would be adamantly opposed to incestuous marriages and absolutely abhor the thought of such persons having or raising a child together. Yet, it seems many in this thread have few qualms about incestuous or polygamous marriage whatsoever.

Polyamorous marriages aren't a problem as long as everyone involved consent, fully, to such an arrangement.

Incestuous ones? I reserve judgment.

What about the children in these polyamorous arrangements do they get any say if they would like to hove five moms and dads hmm?

[Immoren]

because there aren't anyother legal sources than constitutions

Natural Law I guess though I don't think you can cite that in a US court of law though I could be mistaken. There is also God if you happen to believe in Him (or Her or whatever) again though not citable in US court. As far as I know constitutions (or charters or whatever) are generally the only sources securing rights to people that can't be changed by simple congressional statute.

well now i've seen the light
finland should abolish marriage because i didn't found it from our constitution

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I don't believe i am disconnected from reality, its just that in my reality divorce is still a pretty serious thing (conservative part of USA) and everyone is fairly middle class and I have never even known anyone who didn't know who their father was, or who had parents who were abusive. But thats just my real experience.

That you don't know these things about them doesn't mean these circumstances aren't happening. People don't have to keep you appraised of their intimate lives, abuse can be happening right under your very nose, and you can be quite unaware of it.

[AiliailiA]

I know lolicon ecchi with a better grasp on reality than you.

I seriously find that hard to believe maybe it is just that i seem to live in a fairly idealized bubble of modern middle class suburbia where most major debates aren't about who a child's father is but rather about whether to drive a prius to be ecofriendly or an suv for safety (at least perceived safety)

Oh my god! The fabric of society, it's torn! No-one cares who is who's father. All they care about is cars!



I don't suppose you know anyone who keeps a draught-horse do you? I rather foolishly bought twelve gross of extra-large horseshoes back in '65. War surplus you know, seemed like a bargain. I'm having a devil of a time shifting them.

[Llamalandia]

Natural Law I guess though I don't think you can cite that in a US court of law though I could be mistaken. There is also God if you happen to believe in Him (or Her or whatever) again though not citable in US court. As far as I know constitutions (or charters or whatever) are generally the only sources securing rights to people that can't be changed by simple congressional statute.

well now i've seen the light
finland should abolish marriage because i didn't found it from our constitution

Or amend your constitution appropriately though I believe it's best that the govt have nothing to do with marriages save perhaps preventing immediate relative incest.

[Individuality-ness]

I know that, I'm just saying that not having personal experience doesn't disqualify you from know what's reality and what's not. *shrug*

In his case, yes, it does. Someone that disconnected from reality? Yes, it does disqualifies him.

BTW, did you read the rest of the post or were you just going to focus on that first part? Because I must say you should read the rest of the post you're refuting as it explains itself.

I did read the rest of the post, I just felt as if for some reason I had to point it out. I don't know why, I do this all the time.

I apologize.

I was merely illustrating the point of how deadly serious marriage was taken by society even just 60 years ago

In 1953? Can I just say right now that TV sitcoms from the 1950s are not accurate representations on how married life was like, just as our current sitcoms do not reflect on the reality of American families today?

not arguin that women (or men) should stay in physically abusive relationships for any reason, though I do believe in very rare instances an abuser can be forgiven and reconciliation can occur but only after separation.

Wait, whut?

Are you seriously suggesting that a victim of abuse should be willing to reconcile with her abuser and seek common ground? What kind of flying fucking bull crap of steaming horseshit is that?!

Again not arguing that abusive marriage should be perpetuated by societal shame just showing that it used to be and if even abuse wasn't considered sufficient to end a marriage then these unreconcialable differences cited today would never have even made it past the court house step; it would have been utterly laughable. It seems are far cry from where we are today.

Having no-fault divorce on the list is a HUGE improvement.

Before, if a couple really wanted a divorce, they'd either have to prove that there was domestic abuse, that one of the spouses was having an affair, or that one of them was barren. Neither of them which are easy to prove in court, and in fact people spent money on lawyers to manipulate evidence and manufacture stories to get the divorces they wanted, making up false love letters and having witnesses commit perjury to get a divorce on grounds for adultery for example.

Now there's a lot less court time involved, it's cheaper, and there's less shame in regards to getting a no-fault divorce. And people are okay with divorce as a responsible solution to a relationship that didn't work out right. I don't see the reason why we need to go back to the dark ages of divorce just because it makes you feel icky inside.