Why don't people go to the source and ask homosexuals themselves if being gay is a choice? (business)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then how come we have "changed" those social contracts to allow unions between those incapable of having children themselves? If marriage is solely about procreation, then I trust you believe that any woman over the age of about 55 should be prohibited from getting married. Further, marriages should expire when a woman turns 55 or when their last child is an adult, whichever comes later, right? If a married couple does not conceive a child within a reasonable amount of time, say five years, the marriage should be annulled, right? After all, it's not achieving its purpose!
How about we ban the entire word "marriage" for the purposes of government, and any two consenting adults can enter into a civil union? You can keep the word and the weird attachment you have to it.
"Then how come we have "changed" those social contracts to allow unions between those incapable of having children themselves?"
Hmm, when did that happen?
A link would be nice.
"You can keep the word and the weird attachment you have to it."
Herein lies the real issue.
It's mostly women who find the institution of marriage so important to their personal happiness and self-esteem. Obviously there are biological imperatives involved with these highly female needs. One of those needs is that of being in a committed and assumed permanent relationship and to be recognized by society as a "respectable" married woman. Men derive a certain amount of respect from being married as well since it suggests a man is stable and reliable.
Today, homosexuals largely see the word "married" as the key to removing the stigma associated with homosexuality. They are desperate to gain respect and acceptance from the word "married". It means being the same without having to be the same, something they cannot do.
"Then how come we have "changed" those social contracts to allow unions between those incapable of having children themselves?"
Hmm, when did that happen?
A link would be nice.
Are you serious?
Here's a very, very basic example. Elizabeth Taylor married Larry Fortensky in October 1991. She was 59 at the time, very likely to be incapable of having children. Nobody stood in her way (except to try and tell the husband this might be a bad idea!).
Any woman over the age of about 60 is biologically incapable of having children, yet women over 60 get married or remarried all the time. I'm really not sure what you're trying to articulate here, but you argue that marriage is a contract to allow for pro-creation, yet there are many, many, many (three manys) marriages that began when one party or the other was incapable of having children.
Except that the federal government has constructed numerous programs, services and obligations around legal marriage, the word could disappear from all federal law and few outside of the gay community would care.
But let's not restrict civil unions to those in sexual relationships since that is discriminatory to those who choose to not be in any sexual relationship. I say we expand civil unions to include any two consenting adults with no questions asked about their sexuality or actual relationship.
But let's not restrict civil unions to those in sexual relationships since that is discriminatory to those who choose to not be in any sexual relationship. I say we expand civil unions to include any two consenting adults with no questions asked about their sexuality or actual relationship.
That's pretty much what we have today for marriage, except limited to men and women in most states. No state questions whether the couple is actually having sex or even lives together.
And I agree with you maja, I'm not sure where there's a First Amendment problem here. Just doing a CTRL+F and replacing "marriage" with "civil union" and defining civil union as being between any two consenting adults would pretty much do the trick. If people want to consider themselves married, that's between themselves and their own personal religious beliefs. I don't see it imposing any burden on a person's ability to freely exercise their religious beliefs about marriage, and I don't see it as respecting any establishment of religion, nor as restricting a couple's ability to personally call their civil union what they want.
"Then how come we have "changed" those social contracts to allow unions between those incapable of having children themselves?"
Hmm, when did that happen?
A link would be nice.
"You can keep the word and the weird attachment you have to it."
Herein lies the real issue.
It's mostly women who find the institution of marriage so important to their personal happiness and self-esteem. Obviously there are biological imperatives involved with these highly female needs. One of those needs is that of being in a committed and assumed permanent relationship and to be recognized by society as a "respectable" married woman. Men derive a certain amount of respect from being married as well since it suggests a man is stable and reliable.
Today, homosexuals largely see the word "married" as the key to removing the stigma associated with homosexuality. They are desperate to gain respect and acceptance from the word "married". It means being the same without having to be the same, something they cannot do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bc42gb43
Are you serious?
Here's a very, very basic example. Elizabeth Taylor married Larry Fortensky in October 1991. She was 59 at the time, very likely to be incapable of having children. Nobody stood in her way (except to try and tell the husband this might be a bad idea!).
Any woman over the age of about 60 is biologically incapable of having children, yet women over 60 get married or remarried all the time. I'm really not sure what you're trying to articulate here, but you argue that marriage is a contract to allow for pro-creation, yet there are many, many, many (three manys) marriages that began when one party or the other was incapable of having children.
Yes, but when was marriage changed such that one day only those capable of bearing children could be wed and the next day old farts like Liz could join in too?
Except that the federal government has constructed numerous programs, services and obligations around legal marriage, the word could disappear from all federal law and few outside of the gay community would care.
But let's not restrict civil unions to those in sexual relationships since that is discriminatory to those who choose to not be in any sexual relationship. I say we expand civil unions to include any two consenting adults with no questions asked about their sexuality or actual relationship.
That's what I thought the poster I gave the thumbs up to was saying. Leave marriage to the churches. Let government assign civil unions for legal matters to any two consenting adults.
That's what I thought the poster I gave the thumbs up to was saying. Leave marriage to the churches. Let government assign civil unions for legal matters to any two consenting adults.
That's basically what I am saying. Equal treatment under the law.
Quote:
Yes, but when was marriage changed such that one day only those capable of bearing children could be wed and the next day old farts like Liz could join in too?
I have to admit, I'm not aware of any age limit imposed on couples wishing to get married throughout Western history. If you know otherwise though, I'm happy to learn.
Because if you ask anyone with a mental issue they're likely to tell you they don't have one. Most alcoholics and drug addicts deny they have a problem.
And most stupid people deny that they're stupid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.