Illinois citizens to sue for equal marriage rights

[Bluefox]

Originally Posted by ChicagoMeO

I think everyone is forgetting something - this is what i heard when people on tv were discussing it.. so correct me if im wrong -

marriage between man and woman was originally set up - for the benefit of the children they would probably have. (because gay people cannot naturally have children (two men or two women). And also something that i cant quite explain but i will try - marriage with children in mind - and their protection (legally) would be like this - a long time ago, ideally a man and a woman woudl have a child and it be theirs and they woudl have the bond that parents have unlike when step mothers or step fathers come into the marriage and the bond is not there unless each partner works on it. i knkow many step parents are more loving than a kids' natural parent, but oftentimes, the step parent is not considered best for the child as the natural parents were thought of.. (ok i know this is old time thinking but thats waht they thought back in the old days, to my understanding. so again its to protect the kids. ok it may be archaic, but this is what i heard on tv. you might agree or disagree and its not necessarily my opinion, but i think theres a kernal of truth in there somewhere. ok modern day people might not agree with this old time way of thinking. Basically that a natural father and mother make the best and safest parent for a kid born to them. (((which is why people didn't get divorced and stayed together for the sake of the children)).

In my line of work I see plenty of dead beat "natural" parents. Natural parents that don't give a **** about their children. Natural parents who are completely unfit to reproduce and noxious malignancies to society. But natural parents nonetheless because they have the physical ability to reproduce and are irresponsible.
OTOH I see a lot of loving and caring adoptive/step parents who provide 1000x more for the child than their "natural" parents ever could or would. So I don't buy the "natural parent is always better" argument at all. It's extremely arbitrary IMO.

[linicx]

My great-grandparents and their siblings married for "better or worse, in sickness and health" for an average of 64 years. His father outlived four wives, but had all of his many children by his first wife and her sister, his second wife. Some parents were really good at parenting and others should have been sterilized.

I have a grandson who thinks having a joint with his little kids that have lung issues should have been clipped and so should his father. He had one wife and kids by six girlfriends and thought is was way too cool.

Originally Posted by ChicagoMeO

I think everyone is forgetting something - this is what i heard when people on tv were discussing it.. so correct me if im wrong -

marriage between man and woman was originally set up - for the benefit of the children they would probably have. (because gay people cannot naturally have children (two men or two women). And also something that i cant quite explain but i will try - marriage with children in mind - and their protection (legally) would be like this - a long time ago, ideally a man and a woman woudl have a child and it be theirs and they woudl have the bond that parents have unlike when step mothers or step fathers come into the marriage and the bond is not there unless each partner works on it. i knkow many step parents are more loving than a kids' natural parent, but oftentimes, the step parent is not considered best for the child as the natural parents were thought of.. (ok i know this is old time thinking but thats waht they thought back in the old days, to my understanding. so again its to protect the kids. ok it may be archaic, but this is what i heard on tv. you might agree or disagree and its not necessarily my opinion, but i think theres a kernal of truth in there somewhere. ok modern day people might not agree with this old time way of thinking. Basically that a natural father and mother make the best and safest parent for a kid born to them. (((which is why people didn't get divorced and stayed together for the sake of the children)).

[waccamatt]

Originally Posted by ChicagoMeO

I think everyone is forgetting something - this is what i heard when people on tv were discussing it.. so correct me if im wrong -

marriage between man and woman was originally set up - for the benefit of the children they would probably have. (because gay people cannot naturally have children (two men or two women). And also something that i cant quite explain but i will try - marriage with children in mind - and their protection (legally) would be like this - a long time ago, ideally a man and a woman woudl have a child and it be theirs and they woudl have the bond that parents have unlike when step mothers or step fathers come into the marriage and the bond is not there unless each partner works on it. i knkow many step parents are more loving than a kids' natural parent, but oftentimes, the step parent is not considered best for the child as the natural parents were thought of.. (ok i know this is old time thinking but thats waht they thought back in the old days, to my understanding. so again its to protect the kids. ok it may be archaic, but this is what i heard on tv. you might agree or disagree and its not necessarily my opinion, but i think theres a kernal of truth in there somewhere. ok modern day people might not agree with this old time way of thinking. Basically that a natural father and mother make the best and safest parent for a kid born to them. (((which is why people didn't get divorced and stayed together for the sake of the children)).

Marriage was invented to form alliances between families and to grow wealth - it had nothing to do with kids or love.

[linicx]

If you want to split-hairs, marriage is also a form of male dominance.

Originally Posted by waccamatt

Marriage was invented to form alliances between families and to grow wealth - it had nothing to do with kids or love.

[ChicagoMeO]

Originally Posted by Bluefox

In my line of work I see plenty of dead beat "natural" parents. Natural parents that don't give a **** about their children. Natural parents who are completely unfit to reproduce and noxious malignancies to society. But natural parents nonetheless because they have the physical ability to reproduce and are irresponsible.
OTOH I see a lot of loving and caring adoptive/step parents who provide 1000x more for the child than their "natural" parents ever could or would. So I don't buy the "natural parent is always better" argument at all. It's extremely arbitrary IMO.

yes true, however, I was speaking of biology and physiology (sp?). oh yes, my gay bff treats my kids better than their own dad. i wish my gay bff would have been their dad instead of that jerk that i unfortunately married when i was stupid and didn't want much out of life i guess.