Do you deny that committed relationships will be there regardless?
toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
It confuses and slightly saddens me that you think children are the only reason to make this vow.
In your wedding vows, did you add "assuming we have children" at the end?
Do you subscribe to the understanding that locks mostly keep out honest people, if along the margin?
Else, why would I? Do you deny that there is a reason we congregate? Or that there is an added benefit in our congregation? We are creatures of ceremony. We respond to it. It enhances. A contract is a ceremony with bite. That bite is a bit like the old lock. It gives pause where pause might not come otherwise. That enhances stability in relationships, which benefits the compact.
I think you were already confused
and
what saddens me is that most here do not seem to appreciate the importance of bringing children into this world
and
providing them a decent home
It could, if only occasionally, and moreover, it would keep honest people from getting married if they didn't plan to have children, which seems to serve the supposed good that you've been pushing for all along. Why are you so hesitant to support such a measure? What harm does it do? It seems like it could only do good if your reason for marriage were right.
All you've done is demonstrate how determined you are to keep marriage from homosexuals. I don't think anyone here really believes that you are being sincere about the reasons for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, and the more you try to beat that broken drum about protecting the children, the more you resemble a parody.
No, of course not. I don't say that marriage is exclusively for the children that might come along. But I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you for consistency, which is why I push the question. But you've said now that you think marriage shouldn't be available to infertile couples, which I think places your perspective in the right situation to be judged fairly by all.
Because it is consistent with the view of marriage that you put forward. I would support it if I were going to adopt the notion that marriage is exclusively for child-raising. In adopting the call for a pro-child affidavit, you've adopted a more consistent view of marriage as an institution for raising children, and people can judge it on that fair and reasonable basis versus the view that myself and others have advanced.
I would say that you're more consistent than you were an hour ago, and I'm as consistent as I ever was. I think I'm still just as consistent as you are, but I'm open to persuasion otherwise.
okay
you have to admit couples with kids are special
so
how would you go about treating them in a special way?
Yes, certainly.
They receive tax subsidies and certain types of welfare that other people don't. They have insurance provisions allowing their children to be covered by the same policy as their parents. They have holidays dedicated to their parenthood. They have legal authority over and responsibility to their children recognized by law.
But ultimately, I think parenthood has rewards far greater than what the law offers.
do you think it is more important for couples with kids to stay together than those without?
In general, yes. I think it's always better to raise children as a team. But there are also cases where the marriage is too diseased to be a benefit to the children, in which case the separation is preferable to continuing as is.
People who've gone through divorces with and without children can attest that the children make it much more complicated.
do you think two reasonable adults should be able to figure out a way to stay together for the sake of the children?
Rather, your superlogical (well, it can't be explained rationally) conflation of protecting children with the both required and foundational purpose of marriage is at best a sorrowful posit--a point underscored by your willingness to deny people the marital estate absent the ability and/or desire to procreate, which would invite needless suffering to no purpose other than an elevation of the demented worldview that requires it to at least a semblance of that previously noted (in absence) rationality.
so who is taking care of your child now?
Who is taking care of *your* child now?
I didn't say that I had one
- Status