He didn’t say anything about better (although it is). He was pointing out that it doesn’t matter what the religious traditions of a dead culture from thousands of miles away were.
It’s been “dealt” improvement after improvement. I don’t want to go back to women being treated as male property, to marital rape and abuse being legal, to interracial marriage being illegal, to people being trapped in marriages against their will.
There certainly is an agenda. Are you saying that gays aren’t trying to normalize gay marriage and force a cultural shift in our concept of marriage. They are.
Is my view invalid because it is popular? I hold the view that teaching kids gay is good is wrong. Let them figure those things out when it naturally occurs to them.
Is anyone here not thinking he maybe ought to give it another try?
I’m not arguing that it’s better because it’s modern, I’m arguing that because it’s modern, its different from what is ancient, and therefore, the reasoning used to support its ancient form does not apply to its modern incarnation.
Furthermore, that’s a pretty laughable post coming from someone who posted this:
If “It’s better because it’s modern” isn’t a good argument, then neither is, “It’s better because it’s old.”
Right. But gays are a tiny part of the problem. Yet your focus (and the focus of people who think like you) is entirely on gays, and never on infertile couples, elderly couples, or deliberately child-free couples. It’s always about gays. Which, again, indicates that the problem isn’t couples who can’t have kids, the problem is couples who are gay, and the who fertility thing a smoke screen to make your prejudices sound reasonable.
You “speculated” that they had some sort of plot to destroy marriage.
Your view is invalid because it is irrational, baseless and destructive. And considering the amount of bigotry, abuse and violence gay kids and for that matter gay adults put up with, refusing to tell kids that being gay is "good’ is barbaric. I suppose you’d prefer that we tell it to their graves after they suicide or are murdered.
This isn’t the first time I’ve seen you use the phrase “self-gratification” as a way of denigrating gay relationships. Why do you insist on portraying gay relationships as selfish? In what way are gay relationships more selfish than heterosexual relationships?
Notice that David42 still hasn’t explained exactly how SSM will harm heterosexual marriages? Despite repeated requests from multiple people?
It’s hard not to think of that.
Arguing “we have to do it because its modern” is the same thing, regardless of whether it actually is better. It is still the fallacy.
When you argue that man has never centered marriage around child rearing it is entirely relevant for me to point out a culture that did. And they are far from alone, and generations throughout gobs of nations followed suit and do it to this day in many cultures.
Your claim is basically history has no relevancy. Good one. Your argument was about history.
yeah I see plainly where I see evil you see good and vice versa. But your following list isn’t against any of what I said.
Women have been shown a whole lot more respect traditionally than you believe. There have always been huge distinctions between property and wives. There are certainly bad examples of husbands, but the worngdoing of some does not the standard make.
Any husband commits a serious offense against his wife has been taken seriously for some time in most anglo-american jurisdictions. There were some holdouts in the south notoriously. But rape is wrong and so are beatings. But there is no need to make a little shoving or a broken dish a mandatory arrest, or throw one person out with no notice and no evidence. I guess your value system does not recognize disruptions like that to be harm. I do. Kids need stability, but they also need to see some arguments and how to resolve them afterwards.
If your marriage is obtained by fraud that was always grounds for divorce. Otherwise, you exercise your will when you say the vows. Take it seriously.
Following lust after the fact causes more harm than good to the kids, stick to your word.
Are you against people sticking to their word in other contracts? Or is any frivolous reason good to not honor any other kind of contract?
I’m largely arguing that to der trihs who earlier conceded the purpose of marriage is self-gratification in furtherance of his pro-gay argument stance. I didn’t mean it to put gays down but to make a showing against it as a fundamental basis for marriage. But there’s a lot of self gratifying people out there of all persuasions. Most, probably, but I try not to take such a dim view of humanity.
Nevertheless, if two heterosexuals base their relationship on nothing but self-gratification, I’m against that too.
Except that’s not what Miller was arguing; he was pointing out that it isn’t about having children, now. And hasn’t been for a long time. And what a bunch of barbarians did a few thousand years ago is irrelevant.
Yes it is; you oppose no fault divorce, which means you support people being forced to stay marry regardless of how much they hate each other.
Please. Until fairly recently, abuse was generally ignored and raping your wife was perfectly legal.
Oh, please. A home run by two people who hate each other and are utterly miserable is not some sort of noble example for kids to to live up to.
It depends on the contract.
That’s because you think it is good to let people abandon their responsibilities for frivolous reasons and I don’t. What I call damage you call good, and what you call damage I call good.
When you have concerns for our people’s traditonal views so that we have some common ground, maybe we could have a debate but you’re speaking a foreign language to me.
We’d first have to agree on a definition of damage, I see. Take some lessons from Bill Clinton’s book, did ya? Personally I liked him for a lot of reasons but that one was way dumb…“Define ‘IS.’” Some people use obstructionist nitpicking debate strategies and debate is not possible with them, its just a song and dance around any meaningful dialog.
I suspect some legislators approve it just cause they are sick of this constant nonsense.
Agreeing on the meaning of the words you are using is kind of important in a debate. Otherwise you end up talking past everyone.
It actually worked, but it’s not worth getting into. That was Clinton being a lawyer in court.
For the most part, they approved it because they decided that was the correct strategy politically. That’s the first and foremost concern for politicians. By the way, I saw earlier that you said every state that has legalized gay marriage (before New York) did it through the courts. That’s incorrect. Vermont and New Hampshire both legalized civil unions through laws, and court decisions later changed these to full marriages, and Washington DC did it through a law as well. This list is going to get longer, as you can tell.
Let’s stick to calling them Hebrews unless you wanna define barbarian and prove they were it. Colorful words don’t really have any purpose but to inflame passion. Debate is about getting around that. And it was entirely relevant to your claim no one ever based marriage on child rearing, even if your its worng cause its old argument were valid.
And guess what? That was a grounds for divorce before no fault divorce came along. I am against utter hatred. But no fault divorce makes it too easy, and it gets abused. The abusers receive society’s blessing and never learn what a good quality it is to do what you say, that your word is good. You should have to prove your marriage is in a very bad way and can’t be fixed.
I know of murder convictions and other punishments for wicked husbands that are pretty old. Many of the northern states immediately made raping or seriously abusing your wife illegal, as it was in england before. It is minor stuff that was largely ignored as it should be. Invaluable to teach kids about conflict and resolution.
Never said it was.
How about the one an individual makes with the state when he buys a lottery ticket? Should that be enforced, or can the state say, i dunno i just don’t feel like it cause my coffee was weak this morning?
If I didn’t say through legislators and courts I meant to. Sorry. Yes, you are correct, its not just the courts.
You lost me. Isn’t your whole argument that gays shouldn’t be allowed to enter into a marriage contract? Isn’t the other side effectively arguing that we should make it harder for people to abandon such responsibilities?
I have read this entire thread with great interest. But I don’t understand this answer… if I’m reading correctly, Der Trihs and many others have asked you to explain exactly how SSM will harm heterosexual marriages.
Your answer is that he/she thinks it is good to let people abandon their responsibilities for frivolous reasons and you don’t?
Aside from fact that it appears you are pretending to know Der Trihs’ motivation, (which upset you greatly a few pages back), I don’t understand how that answers the question. Could you perhaps rephrase it?
I’d really like to address this because you’ve said it twice now. The first US laws against raping your wife were in the mid 1970’s.
My argument is that marriage is in such a state of disrepair after seventy years of consistent systematic legislation making it frivilous that we cannot afford to do anything else that might harm it.
It was against common law and rape was a crime irrelevant of your relationship with the woman. Some states wrote statutes changing that, so a husband could rape his wife, because they took a different view. Some states didn’t need to write statutes because they held the other view and probably wrote them in the seventies to look good to women’s libbers and to show how different they were from other states. You don’t need a statute where there isn’t a problem.
Because you apparently have no concern for the happiness or desires of others. Or the elimination of racism or the rights of women.
I’m not interested in traditional values like racism, sexism, or religious dogma.
I don’t recall ever claiming that.
No you shouldn’t. It’s not your right to torment two people just so you can impose your fantasy of what marriage is supposed to be like on them.
Yeah, like raping your wife. She should just shut up and spread her legs like a good slave, right?