One question only--How would allowing gay marriage affect YOUR marriage?

[Kelzie]

And on that point we disagree. Marriage is so much more than a simple expression of love and commitment, but an elevation of that which any ally-cat or "consenting adult" can do to something far greater.

Women are not irrelevant to the family, so I can not support 2 men marrying.
Men are not irrelevant to the family, so I can not support 2 women marrying.

I believe women and men are irrelevant. Love however, is not. A child growing up in a single parent home filled with love will turn out just as well as a child in a two parent home. Kids aren't as picky as you'd like to make them.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I believe women and men are irrelevant. Love however, is not. A child growing up in a single parent home filled with love will turn out just as well as a child in a two parent home. Kids aren't as picky as you'd like to make them.

irrelevant? thats one of the craziest things I have ever heard. without either one, we dont survive.

it goes back to that whole "the way nature intended things" argument.

 

[Kelzie]

irrelevant? thats one of the craziest things I have ever heard. without either one, we dont survive.

it goes back to that whole "the way nature intended things" argument.

I meant as far as raising children go and you know it. I highly doubt the human species will be threatened if we start allowing gays to marry.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I meant as far as raising children go and you know it. I highly doubt the human species will be threatened if we start allowing gays to marry.

no more than the homosexuals would be threatened by having "civil unions" instead of marriage i suppose.

and honestly, I didnt know you meant only as far as raising children.

I also dont concede

A child growing up in a single parent home filled with love will turn out just as well as a child in a two parent home.

 

[Kelzie]

no more than the homosexuals would be threatened by having "civil unions" instead of marriage i suppose.

and honestly, I didnt know you meant only as far as raising children.

I also dont concede

You don't have to condede. People rarely do when it's a matter of belief. As long as you recognize there's no logical reason to not allow gays to marry.

Homosexuals wouldn't be "threatened" by having civil unions. But even you must admit it's inferior to marriage. If you honestly felt in your heart that their relationship is as sacred as hetero's, would you have any problem calling it marriage? I'd bet not.

 

[Jerry]

I believe women and men are irrelevant. Love however, is not. A child growing up in a single parent home filled with love will turn out just as well as a child in a two parent home. Kids aren't as picky as you'd like to make them.

"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle"; is that the sort of thing you mean?

I and my sisters proffered for our mother and father to live in the same house when we were young, just as my boys and my niece do. Given that and my daily reminders of how important gender roles are in the family, I can not agree.

I can not agree that mothers are irrelevant to the family, as you believe.
I can not agree that fathers are irrelevant to the family, as you believe.

IMO that's nothing more than Lesbian Feminist 'speak.

Like flower is to a cake, love is necessary, but love is not enough.

 

[Kelzie]

"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle"; is that the sort of thing you mean?

I and my sisters proffered for our mother and father to live in the same house when we were young, just as my boys and my niece do. Given that and my daily reminders of how important gender roles are in the family, I can not agree.

I can not agree that mothers are irrelevant to the family, as you believe.
I can not agree that fathers are irrelevant to the family, as you believe.

IMO that's nothing more than Lesbian Feminist 'speak.

Like flower is to a cake, love is necessary, but love is not enough.

Hardly. I like men just fine. Might even marry one someday. However, you insinuating that homes without both genders represented are somehow defective or not as good severely insults not only me, but my mom who busted her *** to raise my sister and I. She loved us, and made sacrifices for us and that was all we needed. I do not appreciate your mischaracterization of my family as "Lesbian Feminist 'speak". Tell me, as it is obvious that you come from a two gender home, where exactly you got the experience and knowledge one would assume would be needed to classify my family as inferior? It is not my belief, it is my experience that says that all children need is love. It would appear to be your belief otherwise.

 

[Jerry]

Hardly. I like men just fine. Might even marry one someday. However, you insinuating that homes without both genders represented are somehow defective or not as good severely insults not only me, but my mom who busted her *** to raise my sister and I. She loved us, and made sacrifices for us and that was all we needed. I do not appreciate your mischaracterization of my family as "Lesbian Feminist 'speak". Tell me, as it is obvious that you come from a two gender home, where exactly you got the experience and knowledge one would assume would be needed to classify my family as inferior? It is not my belief, it is my experience that says that all children need is love. It would appear to be your belief otherwise.

I don't believe that I said word one about "your" family, rather your opinion that "I believe women and men are irrelevant [to the family]". You just said that your mother is irrelevant, and now you're mad at me for something?

I take it you come from a broken home?

 

[ProudAmerican]

As long as you recognize there's no logical reason to not allow gays to marry.

subjective dont you think?

there are many here that claim there was no logical reason to invade Iraq.

 

[Kelzie]

I don't believe that I said word one about "your" family, rather your opinion that "I believe women and men are irrelevant [to the family]". You just said that your mother is irrelevant, and now you're mad at me for something?

I take it you come from a broken home?

You didn't say anything directly about my family, but you did state that a family isn't whole without both genders. Mine was. My mom as a female was irrelevant. My mom as a caregiver who loved us was not.

And it depends on how you define broken. I certainly didn't see it that way.

 

[Kelzie]

subjective dont you think?

there are many here that claim there was no logical reason to invade Iraq.

Logic shouldn't be subjective.

 

[Jerry]

You didn't say anything directly about my family, but you did state that a family isn't whole without both genders. Mine was. My mom as a female was irrelevant. My mom as a caregiver who loved us was not.

And it depends on how you define broken. I certainly didn't see it that way.

I'm trying to walk on egg shells here, as this is an inherently sensitive topic for lots of people.

I'm a little unclear on something: by "Mine was", did you mean that your home was 'broken'. or no?

For the record I do believe that, all things being equal, 2 parents are better than one, though I stop short of saying that fathers are irrelevant to their children's well being, or that a woman can be a dad. I think that we are crossing the issues of single parent homes -vs- fatherless or motherless homes.

I would say that a "broken" home is one where the marriage failed and the parents split. I would also distinguish a 'broken home' from a "dysfunctional" home, because the parents can allow fighting, tension, abuse, neglect, etc., with out divorcing. Though broken and dysfunctional homes sheer commonalities, I make a distinction so as to represent the majority dynamic.

I would say that a home that only ever had one parent is, to some degree, dysfunctional. The parent that is there is forced to take on extra burdens which the second parent would have otherwise performed.

Some of the experiences I speak from are:
*My mother having left my family when I was @ 6;
*Learning first hand that no baby sitter, daycare, of subsequent girlfriend or eventual second wife of my dad's could have replaced her;
*Observing the long-tem effects of my mother's leaving and absence on my sisters;
*Finally seeing the long-term effects that her leaving and absence have had on me;

There are many other things as well, but I don't think anyone here is interested in other people's dirty laundry.

This is just for the liberal hard-core God-haters out there: I'm a big Dr. Laura fan! Dr. Laura has, over the last 10 years that I have listened to her, articulated what I have always instinctively known (for example, when I was forced to choose which parent I was going to live with I instinctively knew that a boy my age needed to be around a male role-model, so I chose my dad), has helped me put things into perspective and, just maybe, guided me to maturing into the person I am today.

The above was probably trolling, but I would be attacked by these folks anyway so it may as well be on my terms

 

[Jerry]

As long as you recognize there's no logical reason to not allow gays to marry.

Sure there is:
1. Gay 'marriage promotes the sexist notion that women/mothers are irrelevant to the family and welfare of children;
2. Gay marriage promotes the sexist notion that men/fathers are irrelevant to the family and welfare of children;
3. Gay marriage condones homosexual behavior brought on by sexual abuse;
4. Gay marriage condones sexual immaturity in those who lack a proper male role model while growing up;
5. Gay marriage promotes the notion that Gender Identity Disorder, to any degree, is "normal, natural and healthy";
6. The legal argument supporting gay marriage must also allow for polygamy, incest and pedophilia (like that 15 year old in Colorado);
7. Gay marriage advances Lesbian Feminism (Queer By Choice)
8. From The Nakid Communist by W. Cleon Skousen, pg. 253:

Current Communist Goals:
#16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
#26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy.
#40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

See? I found 8 reasons to oppose gay marriage right off the top of my head, and I didn't even need the bible to do it.

 

[Jerry]

So much for walking on eggshells......oh well, let the flaming begin….

 

[Kelzie]

I'm trying to walk on egg shells here, as this is an inherently sensitive topic for lots of people.

I'm a little unclear on something: by "Mine was", did you mean that your home was 'broken'. or no?

No I meant mine was a home without two genders.

For the record I do believe that, all things being equal, 2 parents are better than one, though I stop short of saying that fathers are irrelevant to their children's well being, or that a woman can be a dad. I think that we are crossing the issues of single parent homes -vs- fatherless or motherless homes.

You're saying the problem is that both gender's aren't represented, so to you, a single parent home would be the same as fatherless/motherless home.

I would say that a "broken" home is one where the marriage failed and the parents split. I would also distinguish a 'broken home' from a "dysfunctional" home, because the parents can allow fighting, tension, abuse, neglect, etc., with out divorcing. Though broken and dysfunctional homes sheer commonalities, I make a distinction so as to represent the majority dynamic.

I would say that a home that only ever had one parent is, to some degree, dysfunctional. The parent that is there is forced to take on extra burdens which the second parent would have otherwise performed.

Some of the experiences I speak from are:
*My mother having left my family when I was @ 6;
*Learning first hand that no baby sitter, daycare, of subsequent girlfriend or eventual second wife of my dad's could have replaced her;
*Observing the long-tem effects of my mother's leaving and absence on my sisters;
*Finally seeing the long-term effects that her leaving and absence have had on me;

There are many other things as well, but I don't think anyone here is interested in other people's dirty laundry.

I fail to see how that shows you needed someone of the female gender. I certainly never felt like I needed a father.

This is just for the liberal hard-core God-haters out there: I'm a big Dr. Laura fan! Dr. Laura has, over the last 10 years that I have listened to her, articulated what I have always instinctively known (for example, when I was forced to choose which parent I was going to live with I instinctively knew that a boy my age needed to be around a male role-model, so I chose my dad), has helped me put things into perspective and, just maybe, guided me to maturing into the person I am today.

The above was probably trolling, but I would be attacked by these folks anyway so it may as well be on my terms

I don't know who Dr. Laura is. Is she anything like Dr. Phil? I'm not a big fan, pop psych makes me roll my eyes. To each their own, I guess.

 

[Jerry]

No I meant mine was a home without two genders.

Oh.

You're saying the problem is that both gender's aren't represented, so to you, a single parent home would be the same as fatherless/motherless home.

Well, no, a 2 parent-one gender home (rather by a gay couple or, say, a spouseless mother moving in with a sister, or similar) generally has a greater income and can give more attention to the children by virtue of 2 adults being present.

With respect strictly to gender roles, I would say that a household with children which is absent a father-figure/male-role-model is dysfunctional to some degree. I've witnessed this first hand.

Perhaps if you had a father figure you would not be so dismissive of the value of men in the family.

I fail to see how that shows you needed someone of the female gender. I certainly never felt like I needed a father.

Well, that goes into what happened and requires more detail than I feel comfortable posting. We simply have different experiences in this regard, and I don't believe that anything we could say or source to each other could negate those experiences. Perhaps that is where our impasse lays.

I don't know who Dr. Laura is. Is she anything like Dr. Phil? I'm not a big fan, pop psych makes me roll my eyes. To each their own, I guess.

Dr. Laura thinks Dr. Phil is a crock.
Dr. Laura thinks pop-psy. is a crock, and she demonstrates it on a weekdayly basis. She’s a credentialed, conservative, Jewish radio talk show host for Premiere. She basically helps people with their various issues and, oh yes, is fanatically hated by liberal feminists.

If you would like to check her out: here is a link to her creds., her website.

 

[Kelzie]

Oh.

Well, no, a 2 parent-one gender home (rather by a gay couple or, say, a spouseless mother moving in with a sister, or similar) generally has a greater income and can give more attention to the children by virtue of 2 adults being present.

With respect strictly to gender roles, I would say that a household with children which is absent a father-figure/male-role-model is dysfunctional to some degree. I've witnessed this first hand.

Perhaps if you had a father figure you would not be so dismissive of the value of men in the family.

I'm dismissive of the value of gender. I'm sure men can do a fantastic job raising children.

Well, that goes into what happened and requires more detail than I feel comfortable posting. We simply have different experiences in this regard, and I don't believe that anything we could say or source to each other could negate those experiences. Perhaps that is where our impasse lays.

Fair enough, can't argue with that. Well...I could but it'd be rather one sided.

Dr. Laura thinks Dr. Phil is a crock.
Dr. Laura thinks pop-psy. is a crock, and she demonstrates it on a weekdayly basis. She’s a credentialed, conservative, Jewish radio talk show host for Premiere. She basically helps people with their various issues and, oh yes, is fanatically hated by liberal feminists.

If you would like to check her out: here is a link to her creds., her website.

Blech. Conservative. No offense, I'm sure she's very lovely.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Logic shouldn't be subjective.

but it is.

what is clearly logical to one person may seem ridiculous to another.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Jerry,

I hate to rain on the dr laura parade......but Im a pretty hard core conservative and IMO shes a crock.

of course, its nothing more than my opinion.

 

[Kelzie]

but it is.

what is clearly logical to one person may seem ridiculous to another.

That is absloutely not true. A person might misuse the word "logic" to describe their stance, but that does not make it so. Logic follows specific rules and as very objective. An example is:

All cats are black.
Stripes is a cat.
Stripes is black.

Now notice your premise doesn't have to be correct for your argument to be logical. Which is something that can be used to rebut, however, the argument itself is very objective. If you agree with the premise (that all cats are black and that Stripes is a cat) you can come to no other conclusion except that Stripes is black.

 

[ProudAmerican]

That is absloutely not true. A person might misuse the word "logic" to describe their stance, but that does not make it so. Logic follows specific rules and as very objective. An example is:

All cats are black.
Stripes is a cat.
Stripes is black.

Now notice your premise doesn't have to be correct for your argument to be logical. Which is something that can be used to rebut, however, the argument itself is very objective. If you agree with the premise (that all cats are black and that Stripes is a cat) you can come to no other conclusion except that Stripes is black.

now translate that into your argument that there is no logical reason why gays shouldnt marry?

its just not as simple as "all cats are black"

if someone said "there is no logical reason we should have gone into iraq"

its still not as simple as "all cats are black"

 

[Kelzie]

now translate that into your argument that there is no logical reason why gays shouldnt marry?

its just not as simple as "all cats are black"

if someone said "there is no logical reason we should have gone into iraq"

its still not as simple as "all cats are black"

Because anti-gay marriage people cannot prove that A=B and B=C. They always state that A=C (ie. that gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage) but they offer no way to get from A to C.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Because anti-gay marriage people cannot prove that A=B and B=C. They always state that A=C (ie. that gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage) but they offer no way to get from A to C.

hmm,

Ive only said it would destroy the "tradition" of marriage. Ive never used the word sanctity.

and logically, I think its 100% true that the tradition of marriage as it has always been will be destroyed.

 

[Kelzie]

hmm,

Ive only said it would destroy the "tradition" of marriage. Ive never used the word sanctity.

and logically, I think its 100% true that the tradition of marriage as it has always been will be destroyed.

Except I do not accept your premise of "tradition," as we've already discussed. In my opinion, the tradition of marriage involved love and committment. For you, the gender of the people involved appear to be the most important thing. In which case, yes you would have a logical argument, but the premise would be false.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Except I do not accept your premise of "tradition," as we've already discussed. In my opinion, the tradition of marriage involved love and committment. For you, the gender of the people involved appear to be the most important thing. In which case, yes you would have a logical argument, but the premise would be false.

I dont understand.

My premise is that traditionally, marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

now whether or not you think that is right, or ok is irrelevant. it cant be disputed that it is the way it has always been.
in your opinion love and committment are all that is needed. but the FACT IS, its traditionally been a man and a woman.

so why would my premise be false?