Exactly.
Justice Kennedy needs a reminder about his own fear of harm from gay marriage
- Thread starter GFR7
- Start date
Exactly.
I appreciate you setting out your position on each of these with simple clarity.
No fault divorce isn't the problem, people entering into the relationship without preparation or a foundational commitment is the problem. No faults may grease the skids, but they also make it possible for people in horribly embarrassing and difficult circumstances to end the union without airing their private linen publicly, protecting themselves and often enough the children of that failed union from additional ridicule and/or intrusion. Because a divorce is a matter of public record and its particulars are subject to public scrutiny.
People willfully enter into this contract formalized by the state, there's no real justification for disallowing the undoing of it by the same mechanism and for no necessarily stronger reason.
Gay marriage, you've heard me on and it's really as simple as justifying or failing to justify a denial of right.
Third party reproduction sounds more like you worrying about homosexuals being able to respond to the "can't reproduce" argument, which never had any legs to begin with since marriage isn't predicated legally upon reproduction. And denying this would work a real and senseless harm against barren couples.
GFR7
New member
Why are we speaking of adoption, when we all know gays have gone beyond this: They broke their promise about helping needy children, and like Elton John (who couldn't trouble himself to adopt the needy) go in for third party reproduction, surrogate wombs (paying the poor) and sperm donors. It is a sinister alienation.
GFR7
New member
Much obliged. :e4e:
It makes it easier to enter such ridiculous unions, knowing one has an easy exit.
Go on...... :think:
If this were merely an empirical and legal world, perhaps I'd go along with all. As things stand, however, I cannot.
GFR7
New member
I cannot respond to something so blatantly false and insulting.
WizardofOz
New member
GFR7 linked a quality article. Sadly, once again, I doubt anyone read it :sigh:
| As the brief demonstrates, based on data from nations and US states that have adopted same-sex marriage, it is reasonable to predict that, over a generation, a forced redefinition of marriage would produce at least a 5 percent reduction in heterosexual marriage rates. That would result in an increase of nearly 1.3 million never-married women, and an increase of nearly 600,000 functionally fatherless children. But why would redefining marriage reduce heterosexual marriage rates? Is it really plausible that the marriage of a lesbian couple might cause a heterosexual young adult next door to forgo marriage altogether? According to the marriage scholars’ brief, mandatory same-sex marriage would create a substantial risk of reduced heterosexual marriage rates—not because of individual same-sex marriages, but because the institutionalization of same-sex marriage necessarily requires replacing the gendered “man-woman” definition with a genderless “any qualified persons” definition. And that change from a gendered to a genderless understanding would undermine some of the key, secular norms that, among other things, encourage heterosexuals to marry. That is why states have traditionally supported man-woman marriage, an institution that has historically and universally been linked to procreation, marking the boundaries where sexual reproduction is socially commended. This underlying message helps achieve a principal purpose of marriage: any children born will have a known mother and father who have the responsibility to care for them. Even ancient Greek and Roman societies understood this. Despite encouraging same-sex intimate relations, they limited marriage to man-woman unions. Of course, marriage provides benefits to adults as well. But these are secondary to the main purpose of an institution that, in the words of revered psychologist Bronislaw Malinowski, is “primarily designed by the needs of offspring, by the dependence of the children upon their parents.” Indeed, as the religious skeptic Bertrand Russell candidly observed, “But for children, there would be no need for any institution concerned with sex.” |
GFR7
New member
You mean you will not. Okay, so noted.
So feel free to tell us what a spouse should have to deal with before being granted a divorce?
GFR7
New member
Death.
Oh. I see. Which works quite well insomuch as that having one spouse beat the other to death would still negate a divorce.
I guess dad or mom abusing one another or the children falls under the "get over it".
Cheating also not a consideration. So you believe when a woman openly cheats on her husband, he should accept it and everything that goes with it? What about a man who cheats on his wife?
Because you painted yourself into a corner and are too mule-stubborn to admit you made a mistake. Like always.
Let's stop talking about all this. It's depressing.
You're a cheap, shallow, shabby piece of work.:down::nono:
GFR7
New member
No, I'm just depressed.
Let's stop talking about all this. It's depressing.
IF your depression is due to the responses you are receiving, then it is of your own making. You made a comment that death is the ONLY reason a married couple should permanently separate.
How did that work out for Phil Hartman? Or Nancy Benoit and her 7 year old son, Daniel?
GFR7
New member
I get depressed posting on TOL:
- Because no one reads the OP articles and debates them.
- Because I get liberals firing questions not in earnest, but to derail the conversation.
A very intelligent poster messaged me and said that he noticed no one had bothered to read the linked article, nor to address it's points. In the past, other posters have noted this. Deeply disturbing, but typical of liberals: All talk, no listening or reflection.
lain: