Same Gender Marriage


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Same Gender Marriage

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · Next
Author Message
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,631,059
RAC: 12
United States
Message 1320806 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 14:44:36 UTC

I understand both view points. And I will say that parents far too often turn their children into pawns of hate during their divorces. I cry for the children.

And having those parents still together is even worse for them.




____________

Janice

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,804,733
RAC: 2,874
United States
Message 1320821 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 16:15:24 UTC - in response to Message 1319890.
Last modified: 28 Dec 2012, 16:16:18 UTC

Now here's a seasonal conundrum for supporters of the thread title.

A 'dad' is tenth most popular Christmas list request for children

Which when, I would guess, about 70% of kids live in a home with a "Dad", means that a lot of those that don't have one, must have asked for a "Dad"

A request for a "mum" reached number 23 on the list.

Hmm, seems this post started an anecdote fest, a report on a survey conducted at two shopping centres, with confusing references as to who was asked (there's an implication that it was the parents who provide the answers). The report indicates that there were at least 50 different requests, and a survey population of 2000, so the average number of requests for a given item was at most 40 (2% of 2000). Whether 10th place was above this average is not in the linked article. The circumstances of the respondents is not in the article (how many requests were from families where the requested parent had died?). To be frank, aside from generating debate the report on the survey is somewhat less than useful.

Can we get back on topic?
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8943
Credit: 252,831
RAC: 119
Canada
Message 1320945 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 20:26:23 UTC - in response to Message 1320706.

...

Es, you seem to have the attitude that men are emotionless goons with no feelings for their kids. You ignore the emotional strain that is put on them by only having limited access to them. i.e. One day per week, per fortnight, per month or sometimes less when they really want to be a full time father. Fathers Day

What you say I think and feel is your assumption. It bears no connection with reality. I've been to court multiple times with my current partner as he fought to keep contact with his children. I watched his ex wife lie repeatedly to the judge. I heard how she told the children that she would cut them off completely from her life if they tried to live with their dad. It was the most disgusting display of selfish behaviour I have ever seen. Well her youngest son now lives with us and will have very little to do with his mother. She did that herself.

Some men just can't handle the stress this puts on them so they cut themselves off all together in order to survive.

Boo bloody hoo. Being a parent is hard. It also means putting your kids first. The need to grow up and get over it. It's just as hard for the mother, but they don't get the option to just walk away.

The problem is parents, who when they split, are so full of hate to the other they use the kids as a weapon against the other party, ignoring the effect this has on the children themselves. To hear one person you love bad mouthing another person you love and demanding that you take sides is traumatic for them.

Children are not dumb, they know what is going on. My Mother used to give my Father a quite unjustified hard time, even at 10 years old I could see this. One day I asked him why he didn't leave. His reply was "Because I have four very good reasons to stay". I have never forgotten that and many years later when my wife and I broke up, the kids were all given the option as to which parent they lived with and no questions asked.

That is one thing I have always been grateful for. Despite the situation between us, my ex and I had the maturity not to drag the kids into it.

Edit: Part of the problem is the sexism of the Divorce/Family courts that in almost all cases give custody to the mother even though there are many cases where the children would be better off with the father.

T.A.

I totally agree with this...and tried to follow this when I split up with my kids father. I expected him to look after the kids half time and see them as often as the kids wanted to.

Unfortunately TA, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8943
Credit: 252,831
RAC: 119
Canada
Message 1320946 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 20:27:00 UTC - in response to Message 1320821.

Now here's a seasonal conundrum for supporters of the thread title.

A 'dad' is tenth most popular Christmas list request for children

Which when, I would guess, about 70% of kids live in a home with a "Dad", means that a lot of those that don't have one, must have asked for a "Dad"

A request for a "mum" reached number 23 on the list.

Hmm, seems this post started an anecdote fest, a report on a survey conducted at two shopping centres, with confusing references as to who was asked (there's an implication that it was the parents who provide the answers). The report indicates that there were at least 50 different requests, and a survey population of 2000, so the average number of requests for a given item was at most 40 (2% of 2000). Whether 10th place was above this average is not in the linked article. The circumstances of the respondents is not in the article (how many requests were from families where the requested parent had died?). To be frank, aside from generating debate the report on the survey is somewhat less than useful.

Can we get back on topic?

The mods are welcome to move this current conversation to my gender bias thread if they so wish.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321349 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 16:31:21 UTC

The best of Fred Hutchison Intelligent design vs. gay marriage

Terror Australis
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1711
Credit: 204,858,138
RAC: 24,401
Australia
Message 1321559 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 19:07:09 UTC - in response to Message 1321349.
Last modified: 29 Dec 2012, 19:07:57 UTC

The best of Fred Hutchison Intelligent design vs. gay marriage

Thanks for posting this ID. After reading the article in the link, I read several more of Fred Hutchinson's essays.

While I might not have agreed with everything he was saying, it was a pleasure to read such well thought out, well written and logically presented articles. While I am pro-choice, his essay on Saving the crumbling liberal world view was a very interesting read.

He seems like a man I would have dearly loved to invite around for a barbeque and a few quiet ports on a Sunday afternoon.

T.A.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321581 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 19:34:49 UTC - in response to Message 1321559.

The best of Fred Hutchison Intelligent design vs. gay marriage

Thanks for posting this ID. After reading the article in the link, I read several more of Fred Hutchinson's essays.

While I might not have agreed with everything he was saying, it was a pleasure to read such well thought out, well written and logically presented articles. While I am pro-choice, his essay on Saving the crumbling liberal world view was a very interesting read.

He seems like a man I would have dearly loved to invite around for a barbeque and a few quiet ports on a Sunday afternoon.

T.A.

Never met him in person. However, I dearly miss him. Taken from us too soon. I recommend the book.

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,804,733
RAC: 2,874
United States
Message 1321598 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 20:13:42 UTC - in response to Message 1321559.
Last modified: 29 Dec 2012, 20:14:39 UTC

The best of Fred Hutchison Intelligent design vs. gay marriage

Thanks for posting this ID. After reading the article in the link, I read several more of Fred Hutchinson's essays.

While I might not have agreed with everything he was saying, it was a pleasure to read such well thought out, well written and logically presented articles. While I am pro-choice, his essay on Saving the crumbling liberal world view was a very interesting read.

He seems like a man I would have dearly loved to invite around for a barbeque and a few quiet ports on a Sunday afternoon.

T.A.

Well thought out and logically presented? Seems we were reading different articles, take, for instance, the following (from the linked article):

The liberals might argue that the first principles of their opponents are grounded in faith and therefore are not admissible in public debate on the grounds of the separation of church and state. The answer to this idea is elementary:
Faith in first principles for philosophical reasoning is not the same thing as a creed or a formal confession of faith.

All first principles in philosophy are embraced by a kind of faith, but not necessarily a religious faith. One can trust a first principle to be true without having personal faith in God. One can trust God without having first principles. Self-evident truths and presuppositions that are unthinkable to question are often received by intuition, a kind of quasi-faith or an inspiration of reason.

French Rationalist philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) called the mystical flashes of light that brought him first principles "intuitions of pure reason." Who is to say whether such eureka moments come from God or are from our own minds and intuitions? Who is to say that God cannot give an unbeliever a eureka moment so that he might have a first principle? Obviously, such questions are way beyond the scope of issues of church and state.

Without first principles, there can be no reason or rational discourse, and therefore it is absurd to ban first principles from public discussion.
If first principles are excluded from public discourse because they are grounded in faith, the foundations for reason will be destroyed. If reason is washed away, the logic of moral principles will go with it. "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3) When we drive God out of the public square, we also drive man out. Without reason and morality, we are no longer men, but beasts — like barbarians, nihilists, and rock stars.


Note how the original objection to first principles grounded in faith becomes a rejection of all first principles? Or how faith in first principles starts out as not a confession of faith, though the rejection of first principles is equated to driving God out of the public square?

In other parts of the article cognitive dissonance appears to be on display, how else could we have free will and not be programmed automatons while at the same time have a true destiny and an innate nature?
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12520
Credit: 6,816,702
RAC: 5,267
United States
Message 1321608 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 20:28:50 UTC - in response to Message 1321598.

+1 bobby

I find the Rene Descartes mystical flashes very interesting, almost like hearing voices. He had to come up with something, otherwise his logic left him at: I think, therefore there is thinking. He couldn't get to I am without invoking that which he just disproved.

I also find his quotes about human heart telling that there is no logic here

The advocates for traditional marriage have the advantage in the debate over first principles. It is easy to persuade a man that he has an innate nature because the idea is simple and clear and is naturally agreeable to the instincts of the human heart. In contrast, telling a man that he is a construct of myriad external factors reduces him to a programmed automaton, an idea that diminishes man and is repellant to the human heart.

the entire piece exists on emotion and nothing else.

____________

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321614 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 20:41:04 UTC

No marriage equality law ever proposed in the United States would, nor ever will, force unwilling churches to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, contrary to dishonest Catholic and Mormon propaganda, for example, about California's Proposition 8 in 2008. And if you object to same sex couples for religious reasons, then I'm sure you belong to a church that won't be performing them. State recognition of contracts between or among consenting adults is entirely a secular matter. You have no grounds to object, much less any legal standing.
____________

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321624 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 20:59:22 UTC

To redefine marriage after more then 230 years of prescendance is wrong on the surface. To redefine the word itself is more then wrong after more then 6,000 years of prescendance. A marriage is between one man and one woman.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321625 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 21:00:42 UTC

California's Proposition 8 was voted on by the people and "We the People" make law, not Judges by decree.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12520
Credit: 6,816,702
RAC: 5,267
United States
Message 1321653 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 21:34:29 UTC - in response to Message 1321614.

No marriage equality law ever proposed in the United States would, nor ever will, force unwilling churches to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, contrary to dishonest Catholic and Mormon propaganda, for example, about California's Proposition 8 in 2008. And if you object to same sex couples for religious reasons, then I'm sure you belong to a church that won't be performing them. State recognition of contracts between or among consenting adults is entirely a secular matter. You have no grounds to object, much less any legal standing.

Quite true. If they want some mumbling by an appointed enlightened one, they can have that. If they want to be able to check the married box on the tax return and have anyone recognize it to be a marriage, they better head to the government and get the license. Maybe it is time to change the law so priests can't be officiants at weddings. After all the church and state should be separate.


____________


Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 41,558,908
RAC: 148,260
Message 1321686 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 21:56:51 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 19:02:31 UTC

--

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8943
Credit: 252,831
RAC: 119
Canada
Message 1321768 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 22:46:57 UTC - in response to Message 1321349.

The best of Fred Hutchison Intelligent design vs. gay marriage

It's a very nicely written , but fundamentally flawed straw man argument.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,153,179
RAC: 2,717
United States
Message 1321772 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 22:50:41 UTC - in response to Message 1320482.

and trust me..work places are actually LESS sympathetic to women who take time off for kids. Surprising I know, but sadly true.

A female manager who shall remain nameless ...
"What do you mean you have to take you kid to the doctor, that's what your wife is supposed to do. I'm not giving it to you."
"I'm going to fire her for getting pregnant."
A male manager had to countermand in each case.

You cite one extreme example.

Do you want me to cite all the times I've gotten crap from pretty much every job I've ever had for needing to take time off when the kids are sick? One job was so bad I ended up walking out...and it was a woman manager.

Do you want me to cite how many times I dosed my kids up with medicine and sent them to school sick because I knew I couldn't take anymore time off work?

Do you want me to cite all the times I looked at a promotion I would have loved to do and had to say no because I knew that as a mother I would have to choose between being there for my kids or for my job?

Shall I tell you how many times I had to miss school plays because I wasn't allowed the time off work?

How many times I had to let my kids walk home alone? How about the time I had to stay late at work, and my then 12 year old son had to walk his little brother home from school. He got mugged by two men who took the money I had given him to buy the dinner I couldn't cook because I couldn't get the time off work. While he was trying to protect his little brother, they punched him in the face so he would be too scared to go get help.

Yes, us women clearly have it so much easier.

I'm sorry. You clearly don't have a clue.

==========================================================
First if you dosed up your kid and sent him to school that was highly

irresponsible, second if your boss would not let you have time off for a truly

sick child you should have taken him to work. If your boss objects point out

that it was his decision that necessitated bringing the child to work.

If the boss still take's exception remind him that a judge might find a work

ethic that requires a sick possibly vary sick child to be sent to school

a little odd.

If the boss is still a problem get another job for god sake the kid comes first.

better two crappy jobs that let you be with your child than 1 good one that does not.

____________

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8943
Credit: 252,831
RAC: 119
Canada
Message 1321787 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 22:57:44 UTC - in response to Message 1321772.



First if you dosed up your kid and sent him to school that was highly

irresponsible,

Letting my children go without because I lost my job would be more irresponsible. Of course I could have gone on welfare, but we all know how much people look down on that.

second if your boss would not let you have time off for a truly

sick child you should have taken him to work.

If your boss objects point out

that it was his decision that necessitated bringing the child to work

Not every workplace is suitable for a child to be in.


If the boss still take's exception remind him that a judge might find a work

ethic that requires a sick possibly vary sick child to be sent to school

a little odd.

Have you any idea how often children get small virus and colds? No, they shouldn't really be at school, but when you have more than one kid, you simply can't take all the time off work they need.

If the boss is still a problem get another job for god sake the kid comes first.

better two crappy jobs that let you be with your child than 1 good one that does not.

Not if it means that I can't pay the rent...or buy what they need...and two crappy jobs means more time away and more money spent on childcare. Have you any idea how much childcare costs?
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,153,179
RAC: 2,717
United States
Message 1321800 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 23:03:38 UTC

And just so you do not think me heartless, I think any company that can should

provide day care and flex time. Study's show repeatedly that this makes for

better happier workers and saves money lost to unplanned days off and overtime.

Any business that is as inflexible as the one you describe should not be able

to find good employees. If you want to fix this vote with your feet and get a

better job. I think from reading your posts below that you are talented enough

to make a better way for your self that includes time for your children, It can't

hurt to look around for one.
____________

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321802 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 23:07:34 UTC - in response to Message 1321653.
Last modified: 29 Dec 2012, 23:08:27 UTC

Maybe it is time to change the law so priests can't be officiants at weddings.

Unnecessary. The religious marriage ceremonies in which priests perform are already separate from the civil paperwork which defines marriage, legally. Same word ("marriage"), totally different beasts.
____________

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8644
Credit: 24,134,179
RAC: 21,551
United Kingdom
Message 1321809 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 23:17:30 UTC
Last modified: 29 Dec 2012, 23:19:17 UTC

A lot of the Laws in the USA are based on the Common law of England.

There never has been any law on marriage in English common law. In England it was the Church of England canon law that applied.

So you have to look for any marriage laws in canon law, but isn't the church and state separate in the US, so if you don't belong to a church were there any marriage laws in 1776.

The UK marriage act of 1753, might be applied but Jews and Quakers were exempt, and so probably one could argue other religions are as well. The Royal Family is also exempt.

So far all I have found on marriage laws before 1776 and shortly after is things like banning interracial marriage.

So at this stage I feel like doing an I.D. and suggest you revert to the laws applying in 1776.

As there is no mention of marriage laws in the Constitution then presumably you should be able to do what you want.

(N.B. You might like to question the age at which people could get married, canon law in England stated you had to be over 21.)

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Same Gender Marriage

Copyright © 2014 University of California