- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The purpose of marriage has changed.
You didn't answer my question about whether you have parents or grandparents who might remarry. Perhaps some already have. Be sure to condemn their abuse of marriage.
Does it really matter all that much what the fundamental purpose of marriage really is in the gay marriage debate? When all is said and done, gay marriage will not affect that fundamental purpose any more than childless couples or older couples have ever done.
What does is matter if a minority of people who get married will never have children? It doesn't seem to have made any difference so far.
The variations have changed, not the purpose. Everywhere you go on Earth, marriage is about socializing children. This applies to each of your examples.
Where are you getting this "purpose of marriage" argument?
Even the Bible doesn't say that the purpose of marriage is children. Even history or tradition doesn't say the sole purpose of marriage is children because marriage was primarily economic until it was accepted as a spiritual institution.
Frankly, the whole "marriage is only about children" argument is entirely your opinion.
So I'm attending the beginning of a 100 level sociology class, and the instructor who teaches this subject at the 400 level, reaches the topic of cultural universal.
To periphrasis, he tells us that the reason all societies have "marriage" is to acknowledge a pair bond, to let everyone know that a couple has joined their lives and operate by special rules, and that everyone should honor this union because now the couple's main function is to socialize children. He then gave a few examples of how marriage serves this same function in very different cultures around the globe before moving on to other elements every society has, like funerals.
So before anyone tries to play the religion card, this is sociology, a science, not a religion, not my subjective personal opinion on morality......science and cultural universal.
****
Talk about validation.
Marriage is about raising children, not in supporting just whatever sort of relationship you feel like. If you have no intention of raising children, you therefore have no business getting married.
If gay 'marriage is principally about socializing children, then I'm for gay marriage. If gay marriage is principally about anything other than socializing children, such as "equality" or "rights" or some other bull**** nonsense, then I'm against it.
*Note: I would not then be against gays haveing relationships, living together and whatnot. I would then be against gays having access to marriage, even civil unions.
Those other couples have raised the divorce rate to 50%.
Those other couples have raised the divorce rate to 50%.
"Gays will also have a 50% divorce rate" is not a supporting argument to folks like myself who don't want a 50% divorce rate to begin with.
The divorce rate is the problem, gay marriage needs to show how it's part of the solution.
When, and I do argue that it's a matter of "when" and not "if", we are having this debate over polygamy, I will hold them to the same standard.
WTF is up with the poll results? Polls here never get 180 votes, not to mention 120 anti-gay marriage votes. Plus the numbers are unlikely well-rounded.
With all respect to CC I believe some of our left wing friends are stuffing the ballots...........
I checked. Actually, it's conservatives stuffing the ballot box. 102 "guests' voted for the "NO" vote, same choice made by NP and several other conservatives. There are only 19 "legitimate" no votes, where as there are 52 "legitimate" yes votes.
Since the "No" vote is the one favored by the conservatives, I must conclude that some conservatives have attempted to skew this poll.
Now, I'm not sure if there is anyone on this forum responsible for this but if so, what did you prove? That you can mess with the poll to attempt to get folks to believe that your position is in the majority here at DP? Well guess what... YOU FAILED. Just made your position look worse and gave it a pathetic, cheating edge.
This has been a public service announcement from your neighborhood Resident Despot. :2razz:
I checked. Actually, it's conservatives stuffing the ballot box. 102 "guests' voted for the "NO" vote, same choice made by NP and several other conservatives. There are only 19 "legitimate" no votes, where as there are 52 "legitimate" yes votes.
Since the "No" vote is the one favored by the conservatives, I must conclude that some conservatives have attempted to skew this poll.
Now, I'm not sure if there is anyone on this forum responsible for this but if so, what did you prove? That you can mess with the poll to attempt to get folks to believe that your position is in the majority here at DP? Well guess what... YOU FAILED. Just made your position look worse and gave it a pathetic, cheating edge.
This has been a public service announcement from your neighborhood Resident Despot. :2razz:
I wasn't aware guests were allowed to vote in polls. Are you certain they were not "legitimate guests"?
Unless it is a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad. This would not be the first time.
Doubt it. Not this poll. Another poll that was perhaps more clear, maybe. This seems like a ballot box stuff job.
It's the way the question is phrased that makes it possible.
"No--some people should recieve preferential treatment"
Either way we know someone is being a jerk.
Yep... all it took was one Jerry-built comment and the thread went berserk.this thread has been Hi-jacked---call the Law
Yep... all it took was one Jerry-built comment and the thread went berserk.
Your habit of sneeringly belittling peoples' knowledge and insulting their intelligence at every opportunity is really very tiresome. It is also richly ironic, as you don't come across as particularly clever yourself. :roll:I guess that is to complicated for you?
It may well be my memory that's faulty--it was well over 30 since I last took bible studies seriously--but I don't remember the Jesus' sacrifice ever being referred to as "a covenant" in my Catholic schooling. And I was sent to Catholic junior and high schools (where religious education was extensive and compulsory), attended Sunday school, sang in the church choir and attended mass at least twice a week. IIRC, the Catechism was the mainstay of everything we were taught about Christianity back in my day.Welcome to the world of Catholicism.
Your habit of sneeringly belittling peoples' knowledge and insulting their intelligence at every opportunity is really very tiresome. It is also richly ironic, as you don't come across as particularly clever yourself. :roll:
It may well be my memory that's faulty--it was well over 30 since I last took bible studies seriously--but I don't remember the Jesus' sacrifice ever being referred to as "a covenant" in my Catholic schooling. And I was sent to Catholic junior and high schools (where religious education was extensive and compulsory), attended Sunday school, sang in the church choir and attended mass at least twice a week. IIRC, the Catechism was the mainstay of everything we were taught about Christianity back in my day.
Clearly it hasn't.
Ahh yes, well you're asking about me specifically so let's be clear up front that I have no empirical data establishing myself or my family as a representative sample of the greater population. You are asking for anecdote, which I'm happy to give, but let's keep in mind that this is just anecdote.
My parents divorced when I was about 7. My father remarried for the expressed purpose of reforming the family (it had the opposite effect, in practice). My mother never re-married because she has always placed her personal freedom above anything which made her feel tied down. The only exception to that was her job, N.U.M.M.I....which thanks to Obama will be closing forever in March (hows that unemployment rate doing?)...hopefully I can convince her to move to SD, but I digress.
Of the grandparent's I'm familiar with: my mother's parents divorced when my mother was a teen. My grandfather had a gambling habit which my grandmother finally couldn't live with any longer. Their divorce was sad but civil. My grandfather remand very much active in the family, tending the family home even though he had moved out with the divorce, being present for family events, and it was easy to see that my grandparents still had affection for each other.
At the moment of his death he was surrounded by his children holding his hand, laying on bed he shared with his wife, in the family home everyone grew up in. I'm sure my grandmother would have been there were it not for very advanced alzheimers...frankly the doctors don't know how she's still alive.
I checked. Actually, it's conservatives stuffing the ballot box. 102 "guests' voted for the "NO" vote, same choice made by NP and several other conservatives. There are only 19 "legitimate" no votes, where as there are 52 "legitimate" yes votes.
Since the "No" vote is the one favored by the conservatives, I must conclude that some conservatives have attempted to skew this poll.
Now, I'm not sure if there is anyone on this forum responsible for this but if so, what did you prove? That you can mess with the poll to attempt to get folks to believe that your position is in the majority here at DP? Well guess what... YOU FAILED. Just made your position look worse and gave it a pathetic, cheating edge.
This has been a public service announcement from your neighborhood Resident Despot. :2razz:
Cheatin will make you grow hair on your palms, don't forget.
I always heard that hair will grow on your palms if you do "other things".
Cheatin will make you grow hair on your palms, don't forget.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?