ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 12th November 2012, 06:06 AM   #161
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 33,728
Fairness means treating everybody the same. It doesn't mean that treatment is necessarily sensible. Sure, marriage is a stupid and pointless institution for fools. But as long as it's available for some, it should be available for all.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 06:09 AM   #162
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,997
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Sure, marriage is a stupid and pointless institution for fools. But as long as it's available for some, it should be available for all.
TM, why are you so down on marriage? Having only been married for just a little over two years certainly doesn't make me a pro, but I like being married. In fact, getting married is one of the best decisions I've ever made. Maybe it has something to do with marring for the first time at age 46, I sowed my wild seeds.
__________________
"My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 06:14 AM   #163
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 33,728
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
TM, why are you so down on marriage?
Because it's lazy. People give up once they get married, and eventually either a)split up, b)become unhappy but are too riddled with inertia to bother splitting up so spend decades in misery, or c) are blissfully in True Love with hearts and candy kisses 4ever!!!!!!!

I leave it to the statistics to determine how often c happens instead of a. To my mind, b is the worst possible option. The other two are pretty horrible, too.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 06:23 AM   #164
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,997
I think the opposite, I work harder at my relationship because we are married. I don't think my spouse is my "soul-mate" (what a joke) and at least twice I have wanted to hit her on the head with the coffee pot. With that said, she is my "slow burn". Both of us have stated that we will divorce if we are no longer happy together (this is her second marriage, so yeah, I believe her).
__________________
"My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 11:29 AM   #165
bikerdruid
hermit hippy weirdo
 
bikerdruid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,359
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Fairness means treating everybody the same. It doesn't mean that treatment is necessarily sensible. Sure, marriage is a stupid and pointless institution for fools. But as long as it's available for some, it should be available for all.
fair enough.
__________________
Subvert the Dominant Paradigm!!
bikerdruid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 11:32 AM   #166
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 57,287
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
Government isn't involved for the religious aspect, but rather for the legal enforcement of the marriage, as well as any dissolution later.

People treat the government's role as if it is some ethical legitimizer rather than the function of a subservient enforcer, which is a utilitarian activity.
Thank you but none of that is relevant to my point. I don't care why govt is involved. I don't care if it is a giant waste of everyone's time for the govt to be involved (as it relates to my point).

If govt is going to be in the marriage business then treat everyone equally. End of story.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 11:40 AM   #167
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Because it's lazy. People give up once they get married, and eventually either a)split up, b)become unhappy but are too riddled with inertia to bother splitting up so spend decades in misery, or c) are blissfully in True Love with hearts and candy kisses 4ever!!!!!!!
Coming from a community that doesn't believe in divorce, I think you underestimate how hard you work to improve your relationship when you not only truly care for the person but are genuinely committed to your happiness together. I genuinely believe that a married couple can build something that is impossible without that deep and permanent commitment having been made.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 11:44 AM   #168
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 57,287
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
They both ignore what it is that is being granted or withheld, and put the issue of who gets it at the fore. We don't know what it is that they are getting, but we are very concerned about who gets it.
An absolutely meaningless distinction as it relates to my point. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever. What matters is that the govt which is tasked to treat everyone equally isn't treating everyone equally. That's it. End of story. All of the rest is silly irrelevancies. Now, don't get me wrong, you want to end govt involvement with marriage? Please, have at it. I think you are going to fail but I really don't give a damn. If you do succeed then my hats off to you. But until then, STOP discriminating. Is that really so hard to understand?

Quote:
One version is hateful. The other is kind. Both are meaningless.
Yep, and that fact is entirely irrelevant. What matters is inequality. It's not my job to tell gays and lesbians who want to get married that their subjective desires are meaningless and therefore they ought to care more about ending the relationship between marriage and the state.

I don't ******* care. I think there are trade offs when it comes to the states involvement. I think there are good things about marriage that I wouldn't mind keeping. BUT I DON'T CARE! If marriage disappeared tomorrow it would really be no skin off of my teeth.

Here's the deal, so long as marriage and the state are intertwined then I'm going to fight for equality. Understood? Nothing else matters. I don't feel the need to get the state out of the marriage business. I just don't give a ****. And that you think it is important ISN'T a reason for me to stop fighting for equality.

Sorry for the rant. I just find the idea of dismissing the fight for equality on the grounds that marriages is not something that gays and lesbians should even want to be a bizarre presupposition. What I mean to say is that I'm not so presumptuous as to tell gays and lesbians that not only can they not have state sanctioned marriage but they are wrong to want it.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.

Last edited by RandFan; 12th November 2012 at 11:45 AM.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 11:45 AM   #169
bikerdruid
hermit hippy weirdo
 
bikerdruid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,359
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
I genuinely believe that a married couple can build something that is impossible without that deep and permanent commitment having been made.
glad to hear that you support marriage equality.
__________________
Subvert the Dominant Paradigm!!
bikerdruid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 02:00 PM   #170
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by bikerdruid View Post
glad to hear that you support marriage equality.
I support equal governmental rights for all citizens. But "marriage equality" in the way you mean is nonsensical because "same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 02:07 PM   #171
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,450
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Thank you but none of that is relevant to my point. I don't care why govt is involved. I don't care if it is a giant waste of everyone's time for the govt to be involved (as it relates to my point).

If govt is going to be in the marriage business then treat everyone equally. End of story.
Does that include polygamous marriage? Or brother sister marriage? I am not trying to start anything, just curious.
Caper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 02:13 PM   #172
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 57,287
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
I support equal governmental rights for all citizens. But "marriage equality" in the way you mean is nonsensical because "same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms.
No it isn't.

Originally Posted by Merriam Webster
mar·riage

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 02:14 PM   #173
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Anyway, here's the best argument for recognizing only man-and-woman marriage:

The purpose of the government-recognized marriage is to incentivize relationships for producing and raising children. This is why marriage is traditionally limited to adults of opposite gender that are not too closely related, and why failure to produce children is a traditionally-accepted grounds for annulment or divorce.

Children are the expected result and consequence of allowing a couple to build a home together, and marriage is designed to be permanent enough to continue to provide the family environment that children need.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 02:16 PM   #174
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
No it isn't.
Yes, it is. Yay for modern redefinitions, but the only real marriages are the first life-long oaths before God of a man and a woman together, period.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 02:16 PM   #175
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,808
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
I support equal governmental rights for all citizens. But "marriage equality" in the way you mean is nonsensical because "same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms.
Yep, like spousal rape.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 02:21 PM   #176
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 57,287
Originally Posted by Caper View Post
Does that include polygamous marriage? Or brother sister marriage? I am not trying to start anything, just curious.
That's cool. When I first came to this forum 11 years ago I took a stand against the rights of gays and lesbians to marry. This was (I believed) my knock-down argument. I soon learned that it's no more relevant to same sex marriage than it is to heterosexual marriage.

Bob: We need to get rid of heterosexual marriage.
Tim: Why?
Bob: Because it will lead to homosexual marriage.
Tim: And that's a problem because?
Bob: That will in turn lead to people marrying tractors and other farm implements.

But, you asked a question and it deserves an answer. Particular given the context that my post was in reference to which was a suggestion that we should get the state out of marriage. Perhaps Bob's argument is valid after all.

It could include polygamous marriage and sibling marriage. I honesty don't know. If and when people are fighting for them then we can have a discussion and determine if there is a compelling interest either way.

Either way it doesn't appeal to my sense of disgust or revulsion. The jury, in my mind, is still out.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.

Last edited by RandFan; 12th November 2012 at 02:23 PM.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 02:21 PM   #177
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Yep, like spousal rape.
Or humble skepticism.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 02:23 PM   #178
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,997
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
I support equal governmental rights for all citizens. But "marriage equality" in the way you mean is nonsensical because "same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms.
I'm in a legal same-sex marriage, I am legally married so please explain to me how my marriage is a "contradiction in terms".
__________________
"My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 02:24 PM   #179
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,808
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Yes, it is. Yay for modern redefinitions, but the only real marriages are the first life-long oaths before God of a man and a woman together, period.
So my grandfathers marriage doesn't count because it wasn't their first marriage? I though remarrying was fine for widows and widowers? Or are they discounted for being in their 70s when they married?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 02:26 PM   #180
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,808
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Or humble skepticism.
It is a clear redefinition by a liberal agenda to change what marriage means and happened in living memory.

That is something you are against so why is that change in the unchangeable marriage acceptable?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 02:33 PM   #181
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 57,287
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Yes, it is. Yay for modern redefinitions, but the only real marriages are the first life-long oaths before God of a man and a woman together, period.
"Redefinitions"? Words are not laws that govern the universe. They are not a priori. It doesn't matter what referent you use for square. It will never by definition be a circle. A union between two people is marriage. You don't have to like it but you are not god and you are not world leader and the rest of us have left you behind just like we left those who believed that marriage was only a union between a man and woman of the same race.

Sorry, but it really is over. People should be able to recognize when they have thoroughly lost. Every year the number of nations and states that recognize gay marriage is increasing. The trend is only going in one direction. Get over it. And if you don't that's fine also. Some day you will die and your anachronistic views will die with you just like they are doing with the racists and misogynists. Hatred and bigotry is ultimately self defeating.

Same-sex marriage in the United States
Countries That Recognize Gay Marriage
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.

Last edited by RandFan; 12th November 2012 at 02:36 PM.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 02:43 PM   #182
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,450
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Either way it doesn't appeal to my sense of disgust or revulsion. The jury, in my mind, is still out.

Not mine. Don't mind polygamous marriage. No need to allow sibling marriage,,,, it's twisted and gross.
Caper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 02:44 PM   #183
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 33,728
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Coming from a community that doesn't believe in divorce, I think you underestimate how hard you work to improve your relationship when you not only truly care for the person but are genuinely committed to your happiness together.
No, it's not that I "underestimate" the amount of hard work, it's that I reject the notion that a relationship you have to work hard at is worth having. My mom's family is Catholic, and they don't believe in divorce, so they worked at keeping their marriages together. Congratulations are in order for some of my mom's relatives. The cousin who worked and worked to preserve her marriage--and did! Well done! Sure, he beat her. And the kids. But they stayed together, and that's the important thing.

And then there's the sad cases of those who stay together out of inertia, or because it's expected. My grandparents had a very long marriage. They didn't love each other, not past the first thirty years, but they stuck it out for another forty because it was what was done. Forty years of being unhappy. Worth it?

Quote:
I genuinely believe that a married couple can build something that is impossible without that deep and permanent commitment having been made.
And I genuinely believe that before you work at something you should determine whether it's worth the expense in time and resources. In most cases, it's not. This "together forever" crap is romantic drivel, and a great deal of human misery is created and compounded by people buying into the notion of One True Love and then trying to make it work when it's clearly not.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 02:45 PM   #184
Dessi
Species Traitor
 
Dessi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 2,765
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Anyway, here's the best argument for recognizing only man-and-woman marriage:

The purpose of the government-recognized marriage is to incentivize relationships for producing and raising children. This is why marriage is traditionally limited to adults of opposite gender that are not too closely related, and why failure to produce children is a traditionally-accepted grounds for annulment or divorce.

Children are the expected result and consequence of allowing a couple to build a home together, and marriage is designed to be permanent enough to continue to provide the family environment that children need.
A few things here:

1) There is NOT a requirement to have children, or even an expectation, in order to marry. Never has been, never will be, has no legal precedent in anything.

2) Even if there were, the procreation argument suspiciously *only* applies to same-gender couples, never opposite-gender couples. Examples:

- post-menopausal, post-vasectomy, post-hysterectomy people can have opposite-gender marriages, but not same-gender marriage.

- people in their late 90s can have opposite-gender marriages, but not same-gender marriage.

- my former coworker and his wife were unable to conceive for 12 years before falling back on in-vitro, no one challenged their marriage because they were a heterosexual couple.

- voluntarily childless couples can have opposite-gender marriages, but not same-gender marriages.

- about 50% of the gay/bisexual men and women I know over 35 have children from a previously heterosexual marriage. These same couples are unable to marry in Nebraska with their same-gender spouse, even though they satisfy the procreation requirement anyway.

People aren't being discriminated against due to their procreational ability. They're being discriminated against due to their same-gender relationship for no obvious rational basis. I submit the discrimination is based on irrational prejudice against same-gender couples, nothing more, nothing less.
__________________
>^.^<

Last edited by Dessi; 12th November 2012 at 02:52 PM.
Dessi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 02:48 PM   #185
Dessi
Species Traitor
 
Dessi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 2,765
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
But "marriage equality" in the way you mean is nonsensical because "same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms.
Because you said so? Errrmm, no. What contradiction are you referring to?
__________________
>^.^<
Dessi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 02:54 PM   #186
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,450
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
A few things here:

1) There is NOT a requirement to have children, or even an expectation, in order to marry. Never has been, never will be, has no legal precedent in anything.
I'm pretty sure in marriage there was always an expectation to have children..... Not so much anymore..... though still for straight couples.

I don't know if there are expectations on gay couples to adopt or use surrogates or donors.

But I'm quite certain that throughout history, marriage has been in large part about procreating.
Caper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 03:04 PM   #187
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,997
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
...I reject the notion that a relationship you have to work hard at is worth having.
But what in life worth having doesn't involve hard work? Making a living, getting to level 90 in World of Warcraft, fixing my car window.

Quote:
My mom's family is Catholic, and they don't believe in divorce, so they worked at keeping their marriages together. Congratulations are in order for some of my mom's relatives. The cousin who worked and worked to preserve her marriage--and did! Well done! Sure, he beat her. And the kids. But they stayed together, and that's the important thing.
Myself and Mrs. Alt were both raised in Catholic homes, my family was more religious yet we both agree that divorce is the only option if we decide we are no longer want to be married. Our choice to stay married or not has nothing to do with religion, why should it be? We shook off those shackles years ago.

Quote:
And then there's the sad cases of those who stay together out of inertia, or because it's expected. My grandparents had a very long marriage. They didn't love each other, not past the first thirty years, but they stuck it out for another forty because it was what was done. Forty years of being unhappy. Worth it?
TM, I get that your family has had some bad experiences with marriage, but that doesn't make marriage a bad idea on principle. If after 30 years my marriage turns more into a roommate situation I won't be upset about that, I'll be almost 90 then....who's gonna want to date me? I probably won't even remember my own name. With that said, if Mrs. Alt is the last face I ever see I will die a very, very happy woman.

Quote:
And I genuinely believe that before you work at something you should determine whether it's worth the expense in time and resources. In most cases, it's not.
It's a leap of fate, this is the beast called being human. Most things aren't worth it but you can have fun on the way to realizing it.

Quote:
This "together forever" crap is romantic drivel, and a great deal of human misery is created and compounded by people buying into the notion of One True Love and then trying to make it work when it's clearly not.
There is no "One True Love" there are at least 12. One might be in Canada, one might be in Russia but since I'm in New York I'll take the one that annoys the hell out of me, hogs the covers, hates visiting my family and who every morning I thank Sky Daddy for putting her in my way.
__________________
"My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

Last edited by Alt+F4; 12th November 2012 at 03:06 PM.
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 03:05 PM   #188
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by Caper View Post
I'm pretty sure in marriage there was always an expectation to have children....
"Pretty sure", huh?...how could anyone disagree with that?


Quote:
But I'm quite certain that throughout history, marriage has been in large part about procreating.

The writing is on the wall...it has been for some time. Either people will accept that things change, and that the GLBT community has the RIGHT to get married, or they will be trampled under the footsteps of history.
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 03:06 PM   #189
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,997
Originally Posted by Caper View Post
I'm pretty sure in marriage there was always an expectation to have children.
Even for older couples? I married for the first time at 46, the baby ship had sailed.
__________________
"My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 03:11 PM   #190
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,450
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
Even for older couples? I married for the first time at 46, the baby ship had sailed.
I doubt there was any expectation for children for older couples throughout history...... I doubt they made up a large % of marriages... except older men marrying younger women.
Caper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 03:11 PM   #191
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 57,287
Enough with the "we need more kids" meme.

Originally Posted by Caper View Post
But I'm quite certain that throughout history, marriage has been in large part about procreating.
I don't agree. One could as easily state that marriage has been in large part about pots and pans.

Current Population Clock
U.S. 314,755,715
World 7,051,819,744

7 Billion, that's with a "B".

If those numbers were a quarter of what they are now we would have no rational basis to fear the demise of the human race. Let's assume that marriage was at one time intended to ensure procreation. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that gay marriage could even possibly impact procreation.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 03:11 PM   #192
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,101
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Yes, it is. Yay for modern redefinitions, but the only real marriages are the first life-long oaths before God of a man and a woman together, period.
So all those people who got married before the wrong god, or got married without the mention of any god, don't have real marriages? That's asinine.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 03:12 PM   #193
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,450
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post

If those numbers were a quarter of what they are now we would have no rational basis to fear the demise of the human race. Let's assume that marriage was at one time intended to ensure procreation. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that gay marriage could even possibly impact procreation.
I'm not arguing that at all. Why is that at all a relevant response to my post?
Caper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 03:13 PM   #194
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
...the only real marriages are the first life-long oaths before God of a man and a woman together, period.
So before there was religion, everyone was "living in sin"?, and any "marriage" they might have had (and called by a different name) were not "real"?


...oh, and those "life long" oaths are patently worthless since half of all marriages end in divorce.


"Defending" hetro marriage with god is irrelevant...as soon as you make it "about god", you have lost the argument.
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 03:17 PM   #195
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 57,287
Originally Posted by Caper View Post
I doubt there was any expectation for children for older couples throughout history...... I doubt they made up a large % of marriages... except older men marrying younger women.
Meh~ Don't care doesn't matter.

BTW: I've seen every reenactment video for the Prop 8 trial. Defendants were given the opportunity to provide evidence to demonstrate that gay marriage would change the dynamic of marriage and procreation in any negative way. More importantly, the defense was asked pointedly for the evidence because the judge had expected such evidence would be introduced given that the premise was part of the defense's position. It should be noted that the judge was a little disappointed when the evidence was not forth coming.

So, the defendants in the trial didn't have it, you?
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 03:18 PM   #196
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 33,728
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
But what in life worth having doesn't involve hard work? Making a living, getting to level 90 in World of Warcraft, fixing my car window.
But if you had to eat ten raw pigs for breakfast daily to make a living, if you had to win 10,000 Tol Barads without taking damage to reach 90, if you had to smelt the glass yourself in Siberia and walk it back to your car over a land bridge, that would be hard work that isn't worth doing. I never said hard work is necessarily bad, just that some work is harder than the results justify.

Quote:
Myself and Mrs. Alt were both raised in Catholic homes, my family was more religious yet we both agree that divorce is the only option if we decide we are no longer want to be married. Our choice to stay married or not has nothing to do with religion, why should it be? We shook off those shackles years ago.
I was citing the reason why, in my example of marriages that shouldn't have stuck together, they did. The Methodist side of the family went ahead with divorces when they felt them justified.


Quote:
TM, I get that your family has had some bad experiences with marriage, but that doesn't make marriage a bad idea on principle. If after 30 years my marriage turns more into a roommate situation I won't be upset about that, I'll be almost 90 then....who's gonna want to date me? I probably won't even remember my own name. With that said, if Mrs. Alt is the last face I ever see I will die a very, very happy woman.
Which is nice for you. If you get that I don't consider marriage a good idea on the basis of my observations, you should equally get that you consider marriage a good idea on the basis of your observations. If our experiences cancel each other out, then what can we judge by? Statistics? That divorce rate isn't going down.

Quote:
It's a leap of fate, this is the beast called being human. Most things aren't worth it but you can have fun on the way to realizing it.
I think you meant "faith" there. A Freudian would say it was a subconsious slip--that perhaps you believe in soppily romantic predestined Disney-style True Wuv! :-)


Quote:
There is no "One True Love" there are at least 12. One might be in Canada, one might be in Russia but since I'm in New York I'll take the one that annoys the hell out of me, hogs the covers, hates visiting my family and who every morning I thank Sky Daddy for putting her in my way.
And for every realist about their relationship you get how many idealistic dreaming morons? Who grow up fed on the idea that there's one (exactly one, no more, no less) Perfect Match for them? And wind up rejecting all suitors because they aren't THE ONE? Or they "settle", consciously deciding "good enough" but secretly resenting that for the rest of their marriage?

I think it would be impossible to get the numbers on it because people aren't honest with themselves, much less people taking polls of such things, but I'd be unsurprised to discover that most marriages occured just because people felt they ought to, to not be alone, because it's what's expected, because they got scared they'd never find anybody, because they want kids or to feel like grownups or to show up Suzy or to prove something.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 03:20 PM   #197
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 57,287
Originally Posted by Caper View Post
I'm not arguing that at all. Why is that at all a relevant response to my post?
Because it's an irrelevant point to bring up. Procreation has nothing to do with marriage. It's a red herring. Why did you think your point was relevant to the discussion?
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 03:20 PM   #198
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,450
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Meh~ Don't care doesn't matter.

BTW: I've seen every reenactment video for the Prop 8 trial. Defendants were given the opportunity to provide evidence to demonstrate that gay marriage would change the dynamic of marriage and procreation in any negative way. More importantly, the defense was asked pointedly for the evidence because the judge had expected such evidence would be introduced given that the premise was part of the defense's position. It should be noted that the judge was a little disappointed when the evidence was not forth coming.

So, the defendants in the trial didn't have it, you?



Why would I have it? I don't care of homosexuals marry.
Caper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 03:25 PM   #199
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 57,287
Originally Posted by Caper View Post
Why would I have it? I don't care of homosexuals marry.
Why are you involved with this thread?

Originally Posted by Caper
I doubt there was any expectation for children for older couples throughout history...... I doubt they made up a large % of marriages... except older men marrying younger women.
What exactly is your point?

I'm sorry if I'm completely failing to understand what you are on about but I'm not sure the fault is all mine.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 03:26 PM   #200
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
It's really all about hate. Finding some minority that one can direct that hate, at. Gays make an "easy" target, and god makes the perfect scapegoat, ie., because god wants you to hate gays...it says so in the bible.
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:07 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.