View Poll Results: Marriages without children should be dissolved

Voters
62. You may not vote on this poll
  • Agreed, dissolve them!

    2 3.23%
  • Disagree, marriage ain't just about children

    60 96.77%
Page 11 of 21 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 203

Thread: Marriages without children should be dissolved

  1. #101
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,774

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    The change has already occurred.
    Conservatives can refuse to acknowledge that it has, but they only make themselves appear more and more anachronistic, obsolete, and out of step by refusing to acknowledge the reality of what's going on around them.
    These changes have happened gradually over the past fifty years, which is longer than anyone here has even been alive.
    Conservatives have had plenty of time- their entire lives, in fact- to get used to the fact that society is in flux.
    You have to remember that these people are not conservatives, no matter what they call themselves. They are not acting in a manner characteristic of historic conservatism. These are typically religious zealots who came from a Democratic background, but escaped the Democratic party back in the 50s and 60s over issues such as race and abortion. Much of the modern day so-called conservatives, or neo-cons, are really a mutant mix of liberal ideas and religious zealotry.

    It's no wonder they're so screwed up.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  2. #102
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    So, the reason why old people, who have no intention of having children, get married is what? I don't even need to answer the question to point out two facts: One - Their getting married does no harm to marriages of those people who get married who do intend to have children. And Two - That the reason they get married is the same reason as anyone who wants to get married who doesn't intend to have children, including many gay couples.

    This particular argument that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry is disingenuous.
    You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.

  3. #103
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,540

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    So, the reason why old people, who have no intention of having children, get married is what? I don't even need to answer the question to point out two facts: One - Their getting married does no harm to marriages of those people who get married who do intend to have children. And Two - That the reason they get married is the same reason as anyone who wants to get married who doesn't intend to have children, including many gay couples.

    This particular argument that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry is disingenuous.
    It is an argument for exactly the opposite.

    Marriage is about more than just procreation, as shown by the fact that seniors are allowed to marry. If seniors who are beyond child bearing age can marry, then gays should be able to marry as well. That is the point I've been making: marriage is about more than just having children.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  4. #104
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    06-29-10 @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,801

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    Where would you like to draw the line after this one is moved?
    And would you not be a bigot for denying anyone the ability to be married?
    If there's a practical reason for it, then it's not "bigotry". If the reason is just "ew I don't like gay sex" then, yes that's just blind prejudice. I don't see any practical reason not to give same sex couples marriage licenses, so that slippery slope argument doesn't sway me. There are plenty of practical reasons not to, say, let a man and a horse get married, so that's an apples to oranges comparison.

  5. #105
    Professor
    Layla_Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Last Seen
    05-31-17 @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,440
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    1: Show me where I said one ****ing thing about religion

    2: Show me a 'merital' relationship between anything other than one man and one woman that best fits the 'general' welfare needs of the nation and provides for the child both a male and a female role model.

    As far as the divorce rates and all the other noise about it,.... I don't think you understand the differences between making policy and laws based on an "ideal" as opposed to an "idea."

    The "ideal" for the general welfare needs of the nation,... is that familys (the basic unit of a society) have a solid nucleus, a means of reproducing itself (much like an organism) and a self contained model that can be followed for generations to come.

    The one man one woman marriage fits that template.

    Religion doesn't have a ****ing thing to do with it.
    1. It looks silly to put "****ing". Either use the word or not, but I think if you have to resort to cursing you must be really upset.


    2. Do you mean marital when you say merital? If so, why don't you show me why two men or two women can't make a good home for a child. This nonsense about needing a role model of both genders is silly. Children have so many adults in their lives to be role models that they have plenty of opportunity to build relationships with people of both genders.

    Finally, I completely understand the difference between an ideal and an idea. I don't want the government in the position in limiting what can be a family. If a child has a good loving home where they are loved, protected, nurtured, and all the other things they should be, then I could not care less about the gender of the parents. I've seen way too many kids who don't have this kind of life, many who are in that kind of home that you describe as ideal. Also, as an adoptive parent, I find this idea that has been hinted at and sometimes stated out right, that my family is someone how less stupendously insulting. Implying that a child who is being cared for by someone who is not biologically
    related is not as well off for solely that reason is insane. My ideal is doing what's best for the child. My idea is that bigots who have a problem with homosexuals should mind their own business.
    ~Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.
    ~I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it.
    ~If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?
    George Carlin

  6. #106
    Professor
    Layla_Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Last Seen
    05-31-17 @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,440
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    We don't need 'gay marriage' for our society to survive in the same way that we 'generally' need one man one woman marriages.

    Sorry if it offends,... but it's true. We don't.
    You do realize that by your "logic" we don't need marriage at all. We can continue the species without marriage, if that is your only goal.

    Gee, why would anyone be offended to be told that their marriage is worthless to society. Those gay people can be so sensitive.
    ~Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.
    ~I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it.
    ~If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?
    George Carlin

  7. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Layla_Z View Post
    You do realize that by your "logic" we don't need marriage at all. We can continue the species without marriage, if that is your only goal.

    Gee, why would anyone be offended to be told that their marriage is worthless to society. Those gay people can be so sensitive.
    By defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, and by providing incentives and benefits to those who marry using that criteria,.... the government is cementing into place the basic foundation for our society.

    I have no problem with the government doing as it is charged to do by article 1, section 8.

    I also do not have a problem with the government remaining indifferent towards all other variations of 'marriage' that the people can come up with.

  8. #108
    Professor
    Layla_Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Last Seen
    05-31-17 @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,440
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    By defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, and by providing incentives and benefits to those who marry using that criteria,.... the government is cementing into place the basic foundation for our society.

    I have no problem with the government doing as it is charged to do by article 1, section 8.

    I also do not have a problem with the government remaining indifferent towards all other variations of 'marriage' that the people can come up with.
    Here's my problem. My daughter looked much like the baby in the picture in you signature. She looked like that and spent the first 4 months of her life in the hospital because her married to a man biological mother used drugs and in other ways didn't take care of herself so she went into labor 4 months early. Why in the world would we think that this married woman is a better place for that baby than a gay couple who could and would take excellent care of her. I know I am getting off topic here, but I have a very low tolerance for bigotry and denying gay couples any of the rights allowed for straight couples is nothing more than bigotry. You can state whatever reason you wish but we all know what the real reason is. If a person can't be fair and tolerant they should at least be truthful.
    ~Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.
    ~I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it.
    ~If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?
    George Carlin

  9. #109
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    By defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, and by providing incentives and benefits to those who marry using that criteria,.... the government is cementing into place the basic foundation for our society.

    I have no problem with the government doing as it is charged to do by article 1, section 8.

    I also do not have a problem with the government remaining indifferent towards all other variations of 'marriage' that the people can come up with.
    You make the mistake of assuming that the government actually decided that it should have a say in marriage because it saw marriage as a benefit to society due to procreation and the best interest of children. This simply isn't true. The government initially got involved in marriages mainly to restrict it. That is generally believed to be the reason for the marriage license. The more ideal reason would be for the benefit of the general welfare, but it really isn't what history suggests the reason was.

    Now, presently, we do realize that there are good reasons for the government to be involved in marriage and issue licenses for it. This helps to protect those people who do decide to "marry" in a legal manner and provide written documentation of the couple's wishes to be made legal family. The benefits of marriage can also be viewed as important in just promoting marriage, which is considered a more stable family unit, with or without children, and gives the government someone to essentially hold responsible for financial and burial issues after death. It is also for providing a stable home to raise children in, whether biologically the couple's or not, but nowdays, several kinds of couples who couldn't previously have children now can and providing homes for children with no parents/family for whatever reason is important, so we are able to include more types of couples into those who will be raising children.

    The argument seems to be that the government decided that it's main interest in marriage should be children and promoting relationships that provide children with a stable family with both their biological mom and dad. This is just not really the government's philosophy. There are at least 6 states that in fact limit marriage to only be legal if a first cousin couple cannot procreate their own children, due to the chance of possible birth defects. And these marriages are required, by the full faith and credit clause to be recognized in every state and by the federal government.

    The main issue is that there is no real stated reason by the government for why it is involved in marriage now. The marriage laws of the states and the federal government have too much contradiction to infer why exactly government is involved in marriage. As I've stated, it isn't a bad thing that the government is involved in marriage, but since it is involved, the rules governing marriage must be equally applied and there must be reasoning behind why it is in the government's interests to promote one type of relationship over another, when both are legal relationships and both provide benefits to society.
    Last edited by roguenuke; 06-21-10 at 02:20 AM.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  10. #110
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    By defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, and by providing incentives and benefits to those who marry using that criteria,.... the government is cementing into place the basic foundation for our society.

    I have no problem with the government doing as it is charged to do by article 1, section 8.

    I also do not have a problem with the government remaining indifferent towards all other variations of 'marriage' that the people can come up with.
    If the government has the duty to provide incentives for opposite marriages, does that mean that the government has the power to take away such incentives to prevent opposite marriages should the need to arise?

Page 11 of 21 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •