|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
I wanna be in the NBA.
Hire an agent and get some tryouts with some NBA teams. I would presume you are of the age where you can forgo the requirement of having to declare for the draft. If you lack game film for scouts to watch, you might want to consider playing overseas for a year or two, possibly in Israel, Turkey or Spain. I don't see anyone preventing you from doing this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,380 Likes: 881
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,380 Likes: 881 |
Just clicking.
Again, I'm curious as to why the federal government should have any say regarding marriage. I've read the Constitution front and back and couldn't find one darn thing about marriage in it....
How about we leave it to the states to decide, which is actually prescribed by the Tenth Amendment? Anyone? Anyone???
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
I lack a fundamental prerequisite, I am unable to play basketball.
I just want the same label. Why won't you just call me a professional basketball player? Is it because I AM NOT and CANNOT BE?
You're so mean to deny me this basic right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,380 Likes: 881
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,380 Likes: 881 |
Just to clarify, are you comparing admission into a private competitive sports league (controlled by a private entity) with the federal government's interpretations and allowance of benefits associated with marriage?
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
No, I am comparing the desire for having a particular label or qualification when I am unable to fulfill the basic requirements of that label or qualification to, well, the same thing.
Further, that even though I can do everything else that an NBA player can do, outside of basketball, I am being denied some fundamental right because they refuse to call me an NBA player.
It is not necessary to have the abilities of an NBA player, already having the same rights is not enough, I am denied the label and that's discrimination.
BTW, I don't WANT to play basketball and have no interest in ever doing so. I only want the label to end the terrible discrimination.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,380 Likes: 881
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,380 Likes: 881 |
So basically, your response is "yes."
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
I forgot, there's more.
Your definition of an NBA player is completely wrong. It does not matter that what you say has been true for many years. I have re-defined being an NBA player as anyone who would be happier if they were called an NBA player.
Playing basketball is not and never has been the primary purpose of an NBA player, and in fact has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Your beliefs are old-fashioned, antiquated, out-of-touch, and probably come from a well-known and widely discredited ancient publication, even though it does contain much fundamental truth, you're reading Athletics Pictured, aren't you?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
What is the "basic requirement" for marriage in your opinion?
In my opinion: Two consenting adults who want to commit to a long-term, monogamous relationship.
Also, your NBA analogy is the weakest argument I have ever seen regarding this issue..and that's saying something.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
How about we leave it to the states to decide, which is actually prescribed by the Tenth Amendment? Anyone? Anyone???
I think it's for the Federal government to make the push for the recognition because to me this is a basic civil rights issue. A state shouldn't be allowed to block a civil right because it does not believe in it. JMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
Let's have the gay community respond here.
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,849 Likes: 159
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,849 Likes: 159 |
Quote:
I lack a fundamental prerequisite, I am unable to play basketball.
Well, there goes your argument right out the window.. LOL
I'm pretty sure that most if not all gay and lesbian couples can be gay or lesbian 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,380 Likes: 881
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,380 Likes: 881 |
Quote:
Quote:
How about we leave it to the states to decide, which is actually prescribed by the Tenth Amendment? Anyone? Anyone???
I think it's for the Federal government to make the push for the recognition because to me this is a basic civil rights issue. A state shouldn't be allowed to block a civil right because it does not believe in it. JMO.
I don't fully agree with what you're saying, but that's a fair point. Point taken.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
The ability to mutually, biologically produce children. That is the purpose of the institution. The laws and customs surrounding it have arisen largely because most marriages will create things which will outlive either member of the couple, in a real, physical, and connected sense.
There is a fusing of bloodlines, there is continuation of the species.
Same-sex couples CANNOT do this. They will create nothing that outlives them, in a living sense. They will create no fusing of bloodlines. Other than brothers and sisters, there will be no "next of kin". They will have no "progeny". These words appear often in law and custom, why do you think that is?
Sure, there are childless couples. For most of human history, such a marriage was called a "failed marriage". This was a justifiable reason for splitting up and trying again with someone else, in fact at various times and places such action was enforced.
Civil Union grants all the rights and privileges, while still recognizing the difference, though not really in any important sense.
I am aware the NBA example is weak, however I would point out that the overtones of the "interracial marriage" line falsely grant that argument with a power that it should not have in relation to this discussion, and consider it's use reprehensible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,849 Likes: 159
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,849 Likes: 159 |
My wife and I have been Married 27 years this May.
When we got married, we decided that we didn't want children (we wish otherwise now, but at 61, we're out of that option)
You say:
The ability to mutually, biologically produce children. That is the purpose of the institution.
Is that to say that my marriage has no purpose?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Should a straight, married couple who either has no children because they don't want to have children or are incapable of having children be classified as a "civil union" since they can't don't have the "ability to mutually, biologically produce children"? What about those whose only "progeny" is adopted children? At what point does a marriage turn into a civil union and vice versa?
Gay couples can also get sperm/egg donors just like straight couples. I think it's a hard argument that children who come from donors or are adopted aren't as loved as biological children and that the parents don't have the same bond to those children.
To me, the distinction is baseless. The purpose of marriage isn't to have children, it's purpose is to commit yourself to another person. Plenty of people have kids outside of marriage. However, marriage is a long-term commitment to each other, it's not a commitment to have children. I just don't get why we have to distinguish between marriage and civil unions when the only difference is the sex of the partners.
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
No, I am comparing the desire for having a particular label or qualification when I am unable to fulfill the basic requirements of that label or qualification to, well, the same thing.
But here you're equating 'basic requirements' with 'requirements that you invented'.
Procreation is not a basic requirement of any marriage. Period. Never has been, never will be.
What's happened here is that you've established a flawed argument as a truth, and made your argument under the assumption that what you've said is factual. It isn't.
From there you spun off into the weird NBA analogy, which doesn't make sense of any level.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Adopted children are NOT progeny.
If you wish an adopted child to be treated as your "next of kin", you have to file special paperwork to designate specific authority. Your progeny are automatically your next of kin, you can follow a similar procedure to PREVENT them from having specific authorities, but you can not "designate" that they are NOT your "next of kin". Because they are.
If you choose to believe that the same parental bond is possible, that's a nice thought, but it is simply flat-out wrong. The adopted child is not of your blood. Their genes are not from yours. Their inherited traits are not yours. The characteristics of your family line are not theirs.
Which is better, an adopted home or the natural parents home, for the child? As a general rule, with some exceptions, the home of the biological parents. When there are custodial disputes, as there have been, between a biological parent and an adoptive parent, who almost always wins, and why?
You touched on the long-term aspect of marriage. Why is it long-term? What concern is there that marriage should last a good length of time? What benefit is there to society that the couple stay together? Why not marry someone else every weekend?
Marriage came into custom to ensure property passed down stayed in the same family or bloodline. The taking of the family name by the mother and the child is for this purpose. The passing of property and possessions thru the family was considered to have definite societal benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Daman, you had the ability, did you not?
You have answered your own question.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
If procreation is not and never has been a requirement of marriage, and I would call it a purpose rather than a requirement, but if so, why was a failure to have children one of the few legitimate reasons to divorce in many societies and cultures?
IMO, it is your assertion that is wrong, always has been, and always will be. Period.
Why doesn't your next door neighbor inherit your house when you die? Since apparently many won't think deeply here, I will explain. Thousands of years of experience have taught anybody paying attention that property passed on to someone who felt a sense of ownership, or pride in creation, or community obligation, to, with, or for that property tended to be more likely to have an interest in maintaining and using it which ultimately benefited the community in the long run.
There is a link to your children that is different from your link to your next door neighbor. Blood and family ties are important, recognition of them benefits society.
I believe I have outlined the reasons that my assertion is correct. What I am hearing in response is mostly "it's not fair". Also a lot of "it's the same thing" when I have outlined the differences in detail. Also a lot of "what about the small percentage of the population that doesn't do it that way?" Right here in our small sample size of people who married and decided not to have children, we have one who wished they had done it differently.
Then there are those who just say it ain't so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
If procreation is not and never has been a requirement of marriage, and I would call it a purpose rather than a requirement, but if so, why was a failure to have children one of the few legitimate reasons to divorce in many societies and cultures?
Here's what you've done here. You took your original declaration - that procreation was a 'basic requirement', and then morphed that into 'a purpose' (and I will grant that it is a purpose). Then what you did was simply add in a qualifier, that, if not present, would lead to a nonsensical point -
The qualifier here is 'and I would call it a purpose rather than a requirement'. So if we remove that, we have -
If procreation is not and never has been a requirement of marriage, why was a failure to have children one of the few legitimate reasons to divorce in many societies and cultures?
Which really doesn't make any logical sense. Impotence or infertility being grounds for divorce historically doesn't indicate in any way, shape or form that procreation is a basic requirement of marriage.
Quote:
IMO, it is your assertion that is wrong, always has been, and always will be. Period.
It is not wrong that procreation is not a basic requirement of marriage.
If you believe that, you have comprehension problems.
Quote:
I believe I have outlined the reasons that my assertion is correct. What I am hearing in response is mostly "it's not fair".
People aren't saying 'it's not fair'. They're saying that your argument lacks logic because it does.
But most importantly - it has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of the situation.
Not a single part of your rambling, nonsensical argument has any validity whatsoever when it comes down to the law or equal rights. None whatsoever.
'It's not designed for this' or 'It's never been this way' is not a valid argument for not allowing gays to marry. No matter how much someone wants something to be.
I've yet to hear a single rational, logical point coming from those who don't think gay marriage should be legal. Not one. It's all rooted in morality, religion, and tradition, none of which have any swaying power when it comes to the law or equality.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
It's all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.  The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,380 Likes: 881
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,380 Likes: 881 |
Quote:
If procreation is not and never has been a requirement of marriage, and I would call it a purpose rather than a requirement, but if so, why was a failure to have children one of the few legitimate reasons to divorce in many societies and cultures?
Well, it's definitely not a requirement because the marriage exists before, during, and after the children are either born or not born. Once you go through whatever state/religious ceremony you need to go through, you're married. That's it. I could be wrong, but I think that's PDR's point.
As far as purpose, it could be one of many purposes, but I think THE purpose of marriage is your willingness to commit to another person. I think American laws, traditions, and cultures would all seemingly point to the core purpose of marriage as being at least the commitment of a permanent loving relationship. People have long been married and not have children and still recognized the purpose of their marriage. I think Daman would agree with that.
Quote:
Why doesn't your next door neighbor inherit your house when you die? Since apparently many won't think deeply here, I will explain. Thousands of years of experience have taught anybody paying attention that property passed on to someone who felt a sense of ownership, or pride in creation, or community obligation, to, with, or for that property tended to be more likely to have an interest in maintaining and using it which ultimately benefited the community in the long run.
I think you're getting well off-topic here....
Quote:
There is a link to your children that is different from your link to your next door neighbor. Blood and family ties are important, recognition of them benefits society.
I would consider the spouse of a person to be family, as I consider my wife to be family. Using your analogy, I think the courts would agree because our house would transfer to her before it would go to my children. So if recognition of family ties is important, and your spouse is your family...shouldn't there be a recognition of your relationship to your spouse? Or should a homosexual person who dies intestate have all of his property transferred to people besides his or her partner?
Quote:
I believe I have outlined the reasons that my assertion is correct. What I am hearing in response is mostly "it's not fair". Also a lot of "it's the same thing"
Then I think you're hearing what you want to hear because I don't get that.
Quote:
Also a lot of "what about the small percentage of the population that doesn't do it that way?" Right here in our small sample size of people who married and decided not to have children, we have one who wished they had done it differently.
Then there are those who just say it ain't so.
I assume you're still talking about people who are married that don't want to have children. I don't think it's a small percentage. There's a decent amount of people and I'm sure plenty more on this board besides Daman. It's also an ever-growing sentiment with the millenial generation who has been brought into society during these hard economic times.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,380 Likes: 881
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,380 Likes: 881 |
I'm sure the same $ argument could have been made with interracial marriages many years ago when they were banned.
Are you against those, as well?
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
It's all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
I agree completely.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516 |
j/c
On a lighter note........and I don't want to step on toes here........but, when my daughter was 5 or 6, she desperately wanted to be a "big sister" to a sibling.
Getting out of the shower with mom one night, (my wife and daughter were in the shower - NOT me) she reiterated that thought.
Now, my wife had her uterus removed a year earlier. So my wife replied "Sooga, I can't have any more kids." and pointed at her surgery scar.
And, bless her heart, Sooga replied "oh yeah, I forgot you had your ukelele taken out."
That was 6 or 7 years ago, and we still laugh about it.
Okay - back to the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,380 Likes: 881
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,380 Likes: 881 |
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Ahh, progress occurs.
Nice to see that the poster who continually berates others for just making meaningless, pithy comments and not offering a cogent argument has finally made a belated effort at doing so.
If you agree that at least one purpose of marriage is procreation, what are the others, which cannot be fulfilled by just living together?
If not procreating IS, in fact, a good reason to NOT be married, sufficient in many eras when becoming UN-married was very, very difficult, does it not follow that a good reason to BE married is to procreate? Your only refutation of this point is that it does not make sense and is illogical? In what way? Simply claiming it to be illogical does not make it so. Haven't I heard that somewhere before?
Also, if you are going to use difficult to comprehend (for most) double negatives, you should carefully check that your following statements remain coherent with your overall thought process. If I DID have comprehension problems, and if I DID believe your statement, I would be agreeing with you. Comprehension problems, my rear, I can apparently comprehend what you are writing better than you can.
Yet, you wish to call me "nonsensical".
You keep leaving out "the ability" preceding "to procreate".
In fact, SEVERAL people have said it's not fair.
Much of our law IS rooted in religion. Not that religion is all that great, they were just some of the first people who wrote down the obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Also, if you are going to use difficult to comprehend (for most) double negatives, you should carefully check that your following statements remain coherent with your overall thought process. If I DID have comprehension problems, and if I DID believe your statement, I would be agreeing with you. Comprehension problems, my rear, I can apparently comprehend what you are writing better than you can.
Yet, you wish to call me "nonsensical".
Where, exactly, was I unclear here?
I said:
Quote:
Procreation is not a basic requirement of any marriage. Period. Never has been, never will be.
You continued to refute that argument, using wishy-washy language. Basically, you amended your assertion of 'basic requirement' to 'a purpose', but still maintained that my assertion that procreation is not a basic requirement of any marriage to be wrong.
And, yes, go ahead and read through the thread. Your argument is rambling and nonsensical.
Quote:
If not procreating IS, in fact, a good reason to NOT be married, sufficient in many eras when becoming UN-married was very, very difficult, does it not follow that a good reason to BE married is to procreate? Your only refutation of this point is that it does not make sense and is illogical? In what way? Simply claiming it to be illogical does not make it so. Haven't I heard that somewhere before?
Here is a perfect example of nonsensical rambling.
You're arguing here that procreation is a purpose of and a reason to be married.
I've never argued that point.
Your argument is illogical because it has no basis in the current reality of the situation. Your argument holds no validity in a court of law. At no point does your argument explain why homosexuals shouldn't be able to be married in the eyes of the law.
Quote:
If I DID have comprehension problems, and if I DID believe your statement, I would be agreeing with you.
How on Earth can you possibly argue that procreation is a 'basic requirement' of marriage?
Quote:
You keep leaving out "the ability" preceding "to procreate".
OK, I'll make sure to add it in the next time I make reference to it.
And it still won't give your argument any credibility whatsoever.
At this rate, you've backed yourself into a corner where legally one should be fertile to be eligible for marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,915 Likes: 16
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,915 Likes: 16 |
Quote:
Adopted children are NOT progeny.
If you wish an adopted child to be treated as your "next of kin", you have to file special paperwork to designate specific authority. Your progeny are automatically your next of kin, you can follow a similar procedure to PREVENT them from having specific authorities, but you can not "designate" that they are NOT your "next of kin". Because they are.
If you choose to believe that the same parental bond is possible, that's a nice thought, but it is simply flat-out wrong. The adopted child is not of your blood. Their genes are not from yours. Their inherited traits are not yours. The characteristics of your family line are not theirs.
Which is better, an adopted home or the natural parents home, for the child? As a general rule, with some exceptions, the home of the biological parents. When there are custodial disputes, as there have been, between a biological parent and an adoptive parent, who almost always wins, and why?
You touched on the long-term aspect of marriage. Why is it long-term? What concern is there that marriage should last a good length of time? What benefit is there to society that the couple stay together? Why not marry someone else every weekend?
Marriage came into custom to ensure property passed down stayed in the same family or bloodline. The taking of the family name by the mother and the child is for this purpose. The passing of property and possessions thru the family was considered to have definite societal benefit.
Man, you must not know many people in real life. I have known many that have grown up in bad homes while living with their biological parents. I've known many people that were adopted that have grown and thrived in WONDERFUL homes provided by their adopted parents. An adopted child was CHOSEN. His or her parents wanted them in their lives and jumped through years worth of hoops to get them. Biological parents(other than certain exceptions) merely have sex to have children. Often accidentally getting pregnant. No such thing as an accidental adoption. You need to expand your thinking....
Once a child is adopted there is no extra paper work making the child your heir. Once that child is your adopted progeny they are YOUR child in every sense of the word. And if they aren't every bit as close to you as a blood child would be? That's on YOU man. Not on the child, and not on the institution. That bond isn't an instant result of biology. Because there are a lot of biological parents that don't give a rats ass about their kids welfare.
All of which is beside the point. In the context of this discussion child birth is irrelevant. Gay people want the same right to form a union and be legally joined as the rest of us. So they CAN pass their possessions, legal standing, retirement benefits, etc. on to their heirs. Be it their spouse or adopted children. Why should we deny them the legal benefits you describe? How does allowing them the same rights harm you in any way? Simple answer is, it DOESN'T.
#BlackLivesMatter #StopAsianHate
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Long-term committment alone, horsecrap. I asked the question before, and here it is again. Why? Why do we care if two people stay together a long time?
If they have children, there is a reason and societal benefit. No children, no real benefit to long-term committment.
Your children inheriting your property implies continuity. Your next-door-neighbor inheriting does not. Your spouse being next in line of succession is irrelevant and outside the bounds of the discussion, or off-topic. The point was that your children come before the next-door neighbor. Blood ties.
I would bet that every father here, who has a trade or skill, has made some effort to teach that skill to his son. As a general rule, they have made little or no effort to teach that trade or skill to the children of the next-door-neighbor. Why?
The village grain-grinder or metal-worker would pass his knowledge down to his son, who would one day be known as Mr. Miller or Mr. Smith. Fathers named John or William would pass their skills and knowledge down to their children, whose surnames would one day be Johnson and Williamson.
When the village blacksmith or grain-grinder had no children, this valuable knowledge and skill was often lost, and the village suffered as a result.
For the ladies, surnames ending in "-dottir" are common in Scandinavian countries, but for some reason not in European countries or anywhere else, SFAIK. I have no idea why. Suggests a matriarchal society but I don't think this was the case.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,849 Likes: 159
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,849 Likes: 159 |
Quote:
Daman, you had the ability, did you not?
You have answered your own question.
Yes I had the ability, but that's not what you said., you said having kids was the purpose for marriage,.
well, not for me and my wife it wasn't. So you are saying our marriage has no purpose without kids.. You are essentially neutralizing the value of my marriage with that crap. What kinda bull is that you are throwing around..
Marriage doesn't have a damn thing to do with kids.. you be single and have kids, you can not engage in sex and still get preggers.
What part of that don't you get?
I don't give a damn about religion, I surely don't give a damn what ANY court has to say. If two people of the same sex wish to marry, It's NOBODY's business but theirs..
Oh,, and by the way, same sex couples can adobt.. and there is a HUGE need for adoptive parents.. Does that not count for something?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Once again, you've typed a lot and not said much. You skipped over my questions so I will post them for you to answer again:
Should a straight, married couple who either has no children because they don't want to have children or are incapable of having children be classified as a "civil union"? In this situation they don't have the "ability to mutually, biologically produce children" which you said was the entire purpose/requirement of marriage?
What about those whose only "progeny" is adopted children? You sort of answered this by saying that they're not your progeny which I think is ridiculous. You really need to talk to someone who has adopted a child. Their bond is just as strong as the biological bond. Anyone who says otherwise has absolutely no clue what they are talking about.
At what point does a marriage turn into a civil union and vice versa?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Here's your quote, phil.
"It is not wrong that procreation is not a basic requirement of marriage.
If you believe that, you have comprehension problems. "
Clarification of first sentence - It is wrong that procreation is a basic requirement of marriage. This is your main point, correct? With the referenced double negative removed.
Clarification of second sentence, first clause - If you agree with me, with "you" indicating Nelson37 and "me" indicating phil.
Clarification of second sentence, second clause - you fail to understand what was written.
So, what you said is that anyone who thinks that procreation is NOT a basic requirement of marriage has failed to understand. I agree with this.
Requirement, purpose, reason for the institution - all applicable and different only in degree.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Do you suffer from a learning disability or a mental illness? I'm not asking that to be facetious or digging or to degrade your argument. I'm asking sincerely. If not, then you're merely flailing to defend a lost argument. I can have sympathy for the former, but I'll certainly attack the latter. Quote:
Here's your quote, phil.
"It is not wrong that procreation is not a basic requirement of marriage.
If you believe that, you have comprehension problems. "
Clarification of first sentence - It is wrong that procreation is a basic requirement of marriage. This is your main point, correct? With the referenced double negative removed.
I have stated as plain as day on at least three occasions on this thread that, yes, to state that procreation is a basic requirement of marriage is an incorrect statement.
Frankly, I don't see how anyone who is competent can believe otherwise.
Quote:
So, what you said is that anyone who thinks that procreation is NOT a basic requirement of marriage has failed to understand. I agree with this.
That is not at all what I said.
Again, I can't tell if you're flailing to avoid admitting you were wrong, or you have some form of learning disability or mental illness.
I've suspected mental illness in the past, but there really is no evidence of that here. So it's probably a learning disability or an inability to accept losing on a point of contention.
And I will point out yet again a fact which you continue to ignore - nothing you have said makes any logical sense in the realm of the legality of a homosexual couple getting married. There isn't a court in the land that wouldn't stop your argument two or three sentences in, and ask you what your point was. At which point, you would be pointed out that you're point has no point in the matter at hand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
A childless couple is still not common today, historically, quite rare. They still fulfill the basics, but as such a small percentage, can be ignored. Also quite different from a couple which under no circumstances could possible procreate.
As for the adopted versus biological, I disagree. Of course people will tell you that they feel the same about both. It's like your wife asking you if the dress makes her look fat. The answer is often not truthful. You will often hear an adoptive parent say such a thing. Why is that? Such a statement is never made about biological children. They are the standard against which the other condition is measured.
I believe it is you who are mistaken.
As for progeny, it means biological children. Offspring, descendants. Adopted children are not progeny. It is a specific term, with clear meaning. It is often used in wills, usually where the intent concerns keeping property within the bloodline.
As in I can give my father's house, which he willed to me, to my progeny, but not to my adopted children. If I have no progeny and only adopted children the house must be sold and the proceeds distributed as directed in his will.
Get a parent with both alone, and ask this question. Two children are trapped in a burning house. You can only rescue one. One of the children is your biological child, the other is adopted. Choose.
Forcing someone to make such a decision is not pleasant, and not a popular option. Most people don't like to face unpleasant reality, to realize that wishful thinking does not make it so. Blood is thicker than water. The truthful answer is your proof.
It is not a thinking, rational response. It is hard-coded and has been for millions of years. That which is of your blood is more important than that which is not. Nature has determined these rules, through no conscious thought process but by competition with other methods over countless generations. The others failed, this one won.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
phil, read it again and then tell me about a learning disability. You yourself used a double negative and failed to understand your own meaning.
Is it your thought that by leaving out the second sentence, people will forget about it? That works with a three-year-old when you steal his nose.
You agree with my analysis of the first sentence. The second sentence is fairly plain. It says that if you agree with the first sentence, you have comprehension problems. SO, the two together comprise you saying that if anyone agrees with YOUR main point, they have a learning disability, or something similar. Disagreeing with yourself could be a mental instability. Definitely not a good sign.
Far, far better minds than yours have had occasion to analyze my mental capabilities. No teacher, professor, or doctor has EVER found them anything but exceptional and extraordinary. 99th percentile on several tests. I've been top of the class and smartest guy in the room most of my life. According to Dr. Hung So Kim, Ohio U, "Super Genius". His words, not mine.
For someone who fails to understand their own statements, your comments are just rich. The leaving out of the second sentence in my quoted example quite possibly indicates a willful disassociation from reality. Not certain at all, I only finished 3rd year psychology in my second year of college.
The omission of that second sentence is an important clue, it is an obvious deception, whether an internal attempt to deceive yourself or an external attempt to deceive others, the obviousness of it does indicate some sort of issue.
You want to dissect what I have said, while you can't clearly understand your own words. Amazing.
Also, for a guy who complains about name calling, and failing to address specific points, you seem to do a lot of name calling and failing to address specific points.
Your last post is almost entirely name-calling and insulting.
I could respond with my own belief that I consider you less than human, on a similar level with pond scum, but I won't play your game.
I have spoken of blood ties, parental issues, property issues, numerous good reasons for my points, you have failed to respond to nearly all of them. You then proceed to do many of the things that you bitterly complain about others doing.
Some projection or transference going on here, me thinks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
You yourself used a double negative and failed to understand your own meaning.
I don't think you understand what a double negative is.
Here's my quote:
Quote:
It is not wrong that procreation is not a basic requirement of marriage.
If I wanted to improve the sentence grammatically, I should've inserted the words 'to say' between wrong and that.
But failing to do so doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, nor does it amount to a double negative.
It's just improper grammar. And I wouldn't even call it improper. Rudimentary, maybe.
Quote:
SO, the two together comprise you saying that if anyone agrees with YOUR main point, they have a learning disability, or something similar. Disagreeing with yourself could be a mental instability. Definitely not a good sign.
You are just twisting in the wind.
Yes, I believe that if you think that procreation is a basic requirement of marriage, then you probably have some mental issues.
Because it obviously isn't. Saying that it is is equivalent to arguing that grass isn't green.
Procreation IS NOT a basic requirement of marriage.
I find it baffling that you continue to argue this point.
Quote:
No teacher, professor, or doctor has EVER found them anything but exceptional and extraordinary. 99th percentile on several tests. I've been top of the class and smartest guy in the room most of my life. According to Dr. Hung So Kim, Ohio U, "Super Genius". His words, not mine.
I'll bet.
Quote:
Also, for a guy who complains about name calling, and failing to address specific points, you seem to do a lot of name calling and failing to address specific points.
Your last post is almost entirely name-calling and insulting.
Asking if someone has a learning disability or a mental disorder isn't an insult. I see where it could be perceived as such in the manner of a barb or a dig, but I made it clear that wasn't my intent. I'm not trying to insult you ... you just exhibit a lot of signs that point to some sort of mental illness or learning disability.
On top of all that ... I also speculated that it could just be worming while losing an argument. we all get a little nutty doing that sometimes.
Quote:
I could respond with my own belief that I consider you less than human, on a similar level with pond scum, but I won't play your game.
There's the mental illness issues I was referring to.
Quote:
.
I have spoken of blood ties, parental issues, property issues, numerous good reasons for my points, you have failed to respond to nearly all of them.
I've actually responded several times, and asked you every single time what any of that has to do with the legality of a homosexual couple being married.
You can't answer, because the answer is nothing. None of your long-winded jibberish even hints at a good example why homosexuals shouldn't have legally recognized marriages.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Daman, don't want to ignore your post but as for the following, "you be single and have kids, you can not engage in sex and still get preggers." I have no clue what you are trying to say here, other than it's not what you meant.
I have addressed adoption numerous times. Is it better than an orphanage, usually, yes. Can it be worse, yes. Is it almost automatically considered NOT AS GOOD as biological parents, yes. I referenced this specifically about court cases weighing custody by an adoptive parent versus a biological parent. Bio-parent wins almost every time. Even when their conditions and status would indicate less resources and less ideal environment for the child, bio-parent wins. Blood relative makes a better parent purely because they are a blood relative. The reasons of blood ties and biological bonding which several have dismissed as just not true are recognized by the courts as established fact, these ties are often the ONLY reason given for the ruling.
As for your own marriage, you yourself indicated you regret the choices you made. To turn this around for you, why didn't you adopt? You could still do it now. If you had a choice, right now, to adopt or have your own child, which would you choose?
Your option, right now, granted by magic. Yours or somebody else's? Which would you prefer?
There's a difference, isn't there?
I'll even take a stab at what you are thinking, right now. At your age, to adopt a child would be a tremendous challenge which you would be somewhat unwilling to undertake. However, if you could raise your own son or daughter, blood of your blood, flesh of your flesh, fruit of your loins, a piece of immortality for the genetic uniqueness that you and your wife represent, so that what you are would not die with you - thinking about it, aren't you?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
A childless couple is still not common today, historically, quite rare. They still fulfill the basics, but as such a small percentage, can be ignored.
If by "not common" you mean nearly half of married couples today do not have children.
Quote:
As for the adopted versus biological, I disagree. Of course people will tell you that they feel the same about both. It's like your wife asking you if the dress makes her look fat. The answer is often not truthful. You will often hear an adoptive parent say such a thing. Why is that? Such a statement is never made about biological children. They are the standard against which the other condition is measured.
I can tell you from personal experience this is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read and is not even in the realm of the truth.
Quote:
If I have no progeny and only adopted children the house must be sold and the proceeds distributed as directed in his will.
I worked at a law firm which almost exclusively dealt with trusts, wills, and estates. This statement is flat out wrong. The adopted child is treated by law as if he or she had been born to the adopting parents upon the entry of the final adoption decree.
Funny how the Administration for Children & Families could mess up such a basic concept. 
ALL THIS does nothing to prove your silly claim that "the purpose of marriage is children" which by now has been debunked several times over, but you cling tight to those straws.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 998 Likes: 3
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 998 Likes: 3 |
Wise words spoken by sages
From SkyTel to BlackBerry pagers
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... The Supreme Court & Gay
Marriage
|
|
