Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7987
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage
Referring to the "right" of children to be raised in a two parent family, displays a misunderstanding of the word "right" as well as the relationship between noting a better potential situation and the illogic of mandating such situations in the Real World.
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: April 5th, 2022, 7:52 pm
Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage
LuckyR's proclamation, and something that some have difficulty grasping??? " the primary purpose of the institution of marriage is NOT childrearing".LuckyR wrote: ↑April 21st, 2022, 1:57 pm What this thread is trying to address (and some have difficulty grasping) is that the primary purpose of the institution of marriage is NOT childrearing.
Referring to the "right" of children to be raised in a two parent family, displays a misunderstanding of the word "right" as well as the relationship between noting a better potential situation and the illogic of mandating such situations in the Real World.
Which of course tells us that it will be a 50/50 split who gets the house and the kids as marriage ending in divorce is "NOT' to do with childrearing.
A right is a right, it is not a piece of legislation. A child could be raised in a cage if a child does not have rights. The correlation between fatherless families and the impact it has on children has been documented. It's even suggested that young men getting shot by police is because of them not having fathers around when growing up.
The mandating of notification of a child welfare agency whenever a child is born out of wedlock, of what would need to be a male-female union, is a hot potato that the Left 'have difficulty grasping'.
The conservative proclaims the primary purpose of marriage is to give a stable secure environment for the raising of children. Its 'no-fault' divorce that is destroying families, the mortgage established, the children fathered, time to send the old man on his way.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage
As far as I know people of different "ethnicities" are free to marry at any age they like. And so should it be. So I cannot answer that they "be allowed" since they are not proscribed.
I am given to understand that in civilized countries people of the same sex, including women are perfectly a liberty to marry, and so should they.
But the main thing I think absurd in the design of the threat heading: In what way are these two things to be understood in a state of Vice Versa??
My general reaction of questions of morality is always; what has that got to do with me. And the only way these two things could impede on my consciousness is the thought that others think they are the right to allow or not allow people making these choices.
It is immoral to object to these forms of marriage.
The only box I would tick in such a quiz would be "Do you think it wrong that people have the right to restrict others marriage arrangements" Yes it is wrong.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7987
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage
Thank you for making all of my points so nicely.Gregory A wrote: ↑April 22nd, 2022, 3:17 amLuckyR's proclamation, and something that some have difficulty grasping??? " the primary purpose of the institution of marriage is NOT childrearing".LuckyR wrote: ↑April 21st, 2022, 1:57 pm What this thread is trying to address (and some have difficulty grasping) is that the primary purpose of the institution of marriage is NOT childrearing.
Referring to the "right" of children to be raised in a two parent family, displays a misunderstanding of the word "right" as well as the relationship between noting a better potential situation and the illogic of mandating such situations in the Real World.
Which of course tells us that it will be a 50/50 split who gets the house and the kids as marriage ending in divorce is "NOT' to do with childrearing.
A right is a right, it is not a piece of legislation. A child could be raised in a cage if a child does not have rights. The correlation between fatherless families and the impact it has on children has been documented. It's even suggested that young men getting shot by police is because of them not having fathers around when growing up.
The mandating of notification of a child welfare agency whenever a child is born out of wedlock, of what would need to be a male-female union, is a hot potato that the Left 'have difficulty grasping'.
The conservative proclaims the primary purpose of marriage is to give a stable secure environment for the raising of children. Its 'no-fault' divorce that is destroying families, the mortgage established, the children fathered, time to send the old man on his way.
As I mentioned, while you correctly pointed out the potential benefit of certain "correlations" and "suggestions" (which is, of course perfectly fine), there is a world of difference between noting them and mandating them. Most would demand more certainty than a suggestion before taking that step.
As to the primary (not the exclusive) purpose of marriage, it may suprise you, but it involves the interaction of those getting married. Having children is neither required for those who are married nor is marriage required for those who have children. Having children is one of the numerous secondary (or perhaps tertiary) purposes of marriage. I'm not saying there is no relationship between the two, but it is clearly not the primary purpose.
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: April 5th, 2022, 7:52 pm
Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage
Homosexual marriage sets legal precedent as it is in effect the legislation of homosexuality. That's without the advice of any expert whatever of the impact it might have on society. That great assembled group of non-experts, the UN, deciding these people with their personality-related conditions deserve special rights. Besides, it's Leftism's favorite citizen, the single parent, that is more to blame for the violation of child rights than any type of couple anyhow.LuckyR wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2022, 4:16 amThank you for making all of my points so nicely.Gregory A wrote: ↑April 22nd, 2022, 3:17 amLuckyR's proclamation, and something that some have difficulty grasping??? " the primary purpose of the institution of marriage is NOT childrearing".LuckyR wrote: ↑April 21st, 2022, 1:57 pm What this thread is trying to address (and some have difficulty grasping) is that the primary purpose of the institution of marriage is NOT childrearing.
Referring to the "right" of children to be raised in a two parent family, displays a misunderstanding of the word "right" as well as the relationship between noting a better potential situation and the illogic of mandating such situations in the Real World.
Which of course tells us that it will be a 50/50 split who gets the house and the kids as marriage ending in divorce is "NOT' to do with childrearing.
A right is a right, it is not a piece of legislation. A child could be raised in a cage if a child does not have rights. The correlation between fatherless families and the impact it has on children has been documented. It's even suggested that young men getting shot by police is because of them not having fathers around when growing up.
The mandating of notification of a child welfare agency whenever a child is born out of wedlock, of what would need to be a male-female union, is a hot potato that the Left 'have difficulty grasping'.
The conservative proclaims the primary purpose of marriage is to give a stable secure environment for the raising of children. Its 'no-fault' divorce that is destroying families, the mortgage established, the children fathered, time to send the old man on his way.
As I mentioned, while you correctly pointed out the potential benefit of certain "correlations" and "suggestions" (which is, of course perfectly fine), there is a world of difference between noting them and mandating them. Most would demand more certainty than a suggestion before taking that step.
As to the primary (not the exclusive) purpose of marriage, it may surprise you, but it involves the interaction of those getting married. Having children is neither required for those who are married nor is marriage required for those who have children. Having children is one of the numerous secondary (or perhaps tertiary) purposes of marriage. I'm not saying there is no relationship between the two, but it is clearly not the primary purpose.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15148
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage
As opposed to the right's favourite citizen, the man who impregnated the single mother and disappeared to avoid paying child support?
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: April 5th, 2022, 7:52 pm
Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage
Marriage would decide the man's intent to have children. Whereas a woman getting pregnant when there are contraceptives and then having a child while abortion is available is clearly intentional of bringing a child into existence. It's a legal expectation only that men should pay for a child that they probably never expected and no longer have a part in its family as a father. Shotgun weddings are not traditionally the Left's way of hitching two people together. The Left pushed for free-love in the sixties and then gave single mothers an income so as to avoid partnership with a 'bread-winner. Lesbian marriage allows the couple to have around 2.5 children per year, gay male marriages, zero children.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15148
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage
It's not important what you imagine that "the left" thinks.Gregory A wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2022, 10:00 pmIt's a legal expectation only that men should pay for a child that they probably never expected and no longer have a part in its family as a father. Shotgun weddings are not traditionally the Left's way of hitching two people together.
What matters is the physical reality, not meaningless, abstract labels. The physical reality is that there are numerous single mothers whose children receive no contribution from their genetic father; the women do all the work and pay all the bills. There are also father who are unfairly denies access to their children by vindictive spouses. There are husbands who beat their wives and former wives that fleece their ex-husbands for all they've got.
Man's inhumanity to man or, rather, humanity's inhumanity to itself. Whatever, none of it should be other people's business. It seems to me that humanity has forgotten how to mind its own business.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7987
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage
Okay, now I get it. The problem is "these people" especially with their personality related conditions. You could have saved a lot of bother and just opened with your most profound argument.Gregory A wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2022, 5:35 amHomosexual marriage sets legal precedent as it is in effect the legislation of homosexuality. That's without the advice of any expert whatever of the impact it might have on society. That great assembled group of non-experts, the UN, deciding these people with their personality-related conditions deserve special rights. Besides, it's Leftism's favorite citizen, the single parent, that is more to blame for the violation of child rights than any type of couple anyhow.LuckyR wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2022, 4:16 amThank you for making all of my points so nicely.Gregory A wrote: ↑April 22nd, 2022, 3:17 amLuckyR's proclamation, and something that some have difficulty grasping??? " the primary purpose of the institution of marriage is NOT childrearing".LuckyR wrote: ↑April 21st, 2022, 1:57 pm What this thread is trying to address (and some have difficulty grasping) is that the primary purpose of the institution of marriage is NOT childrearing.
Referring to the "right" of children to be raised in a two parent family, displays a misunderstanding of the word "right" as well as the relationship between noting a better potential situation and the illogic of mandating such situations in the Real World.
Which of course tells us that it will be a 50/50 split who gets the house and the kids as marriage ending in divorce is "NOT' to do with childrearing.
A right is a right, it is not a piece of legislation. A child could be raised in a cage if a child does not have rights. The correlation between fatherless families and the impact it has on children has been documented. It's even suggested that young men getting shot by police is because of them not having fathers around when growing up.
The mandating of notification of a child welfare agency whenever a child is born out of wedlock, of what would need to be a male-female union, is a hot potato that the Left 'have difficulty grasping'.
The conservative proclaims the primary purpose of marriage is to give a stable secure environment for the raising of children. Its 'no-fault' divorce that is destroying families, the mortgage established, the children fathered, time to send the old man on his way.
As I mentioned, while you correctly pointed out the potential benefit of certain "correlations" and "suggestions" (which is, of course perfectly fine), there is a world of difference between noting them and mandating them. Most would demand more certainty than a suggestion before taking that step.
As to the primary (not the exclusive) purpose of marriage, it may surprise you, but it involves the interaction of those getting married. Having children is neither required for those who are married nor is marriage required for those who have children. Having children is one of the numerous secondary (or perhaps tertiary) purposes of marriage. I'm not saying there is no relationship between the two, but it is clearly not the primary purpose.
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: April 5th, 2022, 7:52 pm
Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage
The UN was the problem. Homosexuality could become a problem but not so much the homosexuals themselves.LuckyR wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 3:41 amOkay, now I get it. The problem is "these people" especially with their personality related conditions. You could have saved a lot of bother and just opened with your most profound argument.Gregory A wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2022, 5:35 amHomosexual marriage sets legal precedent as it is in effect the legislation of homosexuality. That's without the advice of any expert whatever of the impact it might have on society. That great assembled group of non-experts, the UN, deciding these people with their personality-related conditions deserve special rights. Besides, it's Leftism's favorite citizen, the single parent, that is more to blame for the violation of child rights than any type of couple anyhow.LuckyR wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2022, 4:16 amThank you for making all of my points so nicely.Gregory A wrote: ↑April 22nd, 2022, 3:17 am
LuckyR's proclamation, and something that some have difficulty grasping??? " the primary purpose of the institution of marriage is NOT childrearing".
Which of course tells us that it will be a 50/50 split who gets the house and the kids as marriage ending in divorce is "NOT' to do with childrearing.
A right is a right, it is not a piece of legislation. A child could be raised in a cage if a child does not have rights. The correlation between fatherless families and the impact it has on children has been documented. It's even suggested that young men getting shot by police is because of them not having fathers around when growing up.
The mandating of notification of a child welfare agency whenever a child is born out of wedlock, of what would need to be a male-female union, is a hot potato that the Left 'have difficulty grasping'.
The conservative proclaims the primary purpose of marriage is to give a stable secure environment for the raising of children. Its 'no-fault' divorce that is destroying families, the mortgage established, the children fathered, time to send the old man on his way.
As I mentioned, while you correctly pointed out the potential benefit of certain "correlations" and "suggestions" (which is, of course perfectly fine), there is a world of difference between noting them and mandating them. Most would demand more certainty than a suggestion before taking that step.
As to the primary (not the exclusive) purpose of marriage, it may surprise you, but it involves the interaction of those getting married. Having children is neither required for those who are married nor is marriage required for those who have children. Having children is one of the numerous secondary (or perhaps tertiary) purposes of marriage. I'm not saying there is no relationship between the two, but it is clearly not the primary purpose.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage
"The Left" is an abstraction.Gregory A wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2022, 10:00 pmMarriage would decide the man's intent to have children. Whereas a woman getting pregnant when there are contraceptives and then having a child while abortion is available is clearly intentional of bringing a child into existence. It's a legal expectation only that men should pay for a child that they probably never expected and no longer have a part in its family as a father. Shotgun weddings are not traditionally the Left's way of hitching two people together. The Left pushed for free-love in the sixties and then gave single mothers an income so as to avoid partnership with a 'bread-winner. Lesbian marriage allows the couple to have around 2.5 children per year, gay male marriages, zero children.
You are attributing an abstraction volition, intent and purpose.
This can only lead to a complete misunderstanding of the world about you.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage
Gay men make some of the best parents on the planet.
There are good reasons for that, as gay men have to be especially well committed to pass the rigorous vetting process of adoption agencies, or to achieve legal parental responsibility in a "mother" prejudiced legal system.
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: April 5th, 2022, 7:52 pm
Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage
The Left, the socio-political representation of our soft-side, itself a manifestation of the 'X' chromosome's desire to eliminate the mutant 'Y", is a very real force. It interacts with life in strange ways for example it uses the homosexual marriage that it itself had created in the first place, again in three different ways. 1. As a demolition charge designed to help further destroy what was once a foundation stone of conservative values, the conventional marriage. 2. It allows our future leaders the legitimacy of lesbian marriage. 3. To a lesser degree it creates a dead end for some males in that gay men can not have children.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 7:17 am"The Left" is an abstraction.Gregory A wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2022, 10:00 pmMarriage would decide the man's intent to have children. Whereas a woman getting pregnant when there are contraceptives and then having a child while abortion is available is clearly intentional of bringing a child into existence. It's a legal expectation only that men should pay for a child that they probably never expected and no longer have a part in its family as a father. Shotgun weddings are not traditionally the Left's way of hitching two people together. The Left pushed for free-love in the sixties and then gave single mothers an income so as to avoid partnership with a 'bread-winner. Lesbian marriage allows the couple to have around 2.5 children per year, gay male marriages, zero children.
You are attributing an abstraction volition, intent and purpose.
This can only lead to a complete misunderstanding of the world about you.
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: April 5th, 2022, 7:52 pm
Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage
I'm sure they do. But regardless a gay man does not a mother make.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 7:20 amGay men make some of the best parents on the planet.
There are good reasons for that, as gay men have to be especially well committed to pass the rigorous vetting process of adoption agencies, or to achieve legal parental responsibility in a "mother" prejudiced legal system.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7987
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage
Please clarify your second sentence.Gregory A wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 4:02 amThe UN was the problem. Homosexuality could become a problem but not so much the homosexuals themselves.LuckyR wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 3:41 amOkay, now I get it. The problem is "these people" especially with their personality related conditions. You could have saved a lot of bother and just opened with your most profound argument.Gregory A wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2022, 5:35 amHomosexual marriage sets legal precedent as it is in effect the legislation of homosexuality. That's without the advice of any expert whatever of the impact it might have on society. That great assembled group of non-experts, the UN, deciding these people with their personality-related conditions deserve special rights. Besides, it's Leftism's favorite citizen, the single parent, that is more to blame for the violation of child rights than any type of couple anyhow.LuckyR wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2022, 4:16 am
Thank you for making all of my points so nicely.
As I mentioned, while you correctly pointed out the potential benefit of certain "correlations" and "suggestions" (which is, of course perfectly fine), there is a world of difference between noting them and mandating them. Most would demand more certainty than a suggestion before taking that step.
As to the primary (not the exclusive) purpose of marriage, it may surprise you, but it involves the interaction of those getting married. Having children is neither required for those who are married nor is marriage required for those who have children. Having children is one of the numerous secondary (or perhaps tertiary) purposes of marriage. I'm not saying there is no relationship between the two, but it is clearly not the primary purpose.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023