I looked for logic in your post and couldn’t find any.
Would you let it go if you were unable to get immigration approval for your significant other? Check out this thread for other reasons why they haven’t let this go: How did gay marriage (or lack thereof) affect you personally?
Is getting divorced 3 times normal?
It’s not about you.
No, it makes more sense to just fix marriage. Hospitals visits are only one of the many ways in which same-sex couples are denied equal protection.
Same-sex couples can and do have children all the time or adopt them or bring them into relationships from previous relationships. Why should those chidren be denied the same protection in their families that Charlie Sheen gets in his?
If you want about 300 pages on marriage. How Love Conquered Marriage
[quote=“Nava, post:19, topic:587381”]
“That one believes in weddings” has since become my family’s way of describing someone on a 3+ marriage.
You do not account for the person who is blameless in their divorce and it happened TO them rather than caused BY them. If she fulfilled all her duties and her husbands divorced her anyway, or she had to escape a dangerous situation, she may still validly believe in marriage.
Do we say that a 3 time rape victim believes in rape since it happens so much to her? Or a robbery victim believes in mugging if it happens more than once?
Due to the lowering of morals involving marriage, I have been divorced twice because my wives did not feel “fulfilled in the relationship.” (It got dull after a few years and they desired the excitement of new sexual partners) Both girls assured me they meant forever when they took their vows and I fulfilled all my duties in the marriage.
Do I have a right to complain of the destruction of marriage? I think so, I took it seriously and have endured mental and emotional anguish and possibly even a decline in physical health as a result.
I made another post concerning all the things in the last seventy years that have served to make marriage essentially meaningless over the last seventy years. Gay marriage is a contributor. My current gf will not marry because it is meaningless, specifically citing gay marriage. Its a boycott kind of thing. I’d dump her over this but I am not reasonably sure I will find a suitable woman instead.
Our attitude toward marriage is one of cynicism and derision.
We have to change all of that.
Ugh… Pretty much why I’m not Catholic anymore.
Okay, to your point. I think the difference is that a failed marriage is seen by the church as a lapse in judgement, while a gay relationship is seen as just sticking a thumb in God’s eye because God said pretty much not to do that.
Of course, God says to not do a lot of things- eat shrimp or pork (I’m going to hell for those egg rolls, but it was totally worth it… except for the sodium!) mix fabrics, etc.
The Church doesn’t make a big deal about those things.
Incidently, 35 years ago, my cousin had a kid out of wedlock with her boyfriend and they moved in together, and it was an absolute scandal to the family.
Today. Meh. Both of my neices lived with their fiances for years before tying the knot, and no one said boo about it.
My guess is most of the Churches, including the Catholics, will accept gay marriage and not say boo about it.
First you’d have to establish an equal protection violation. Equal protection violations arise when arbitrary differences are used to discriminate. In other words, you have to be in essentially the SAME situation. Gays by definition can NEVER produce a natural nuclear family and that is what the state has an interest in protecting.Since they cannot they are not in the same position.
We can recognize and be fair to gays without pretending that they are the equivalent of a child-bearing couple
I think you have missed the distinction between naturally producing children and artificially producing by third party assistance, which I clearly made.
There are verses in the N.T. that many interpret as repealing the dietary restrictions. Also, the bible never prohibited the mixing of fabrics, it was two specific fabrics. Many mixtures are ok, go ask the Jews who still observe this. For instance a polyester cotton blend is okay beacuase the bible never said don’t mix with polyester. I think it was wool and cotton which I think do not get mixed toady, anyway. Why don’t we do that? Hmmm, for the same reasons it was prohibited in the bible?
But I’m no fabric expert and could be wrong.
I do not eat pork or shellfish–I think shellfish are disgusting, and pork is just plain bad for you. But I argue that shrimp have scales and do not give a hoot if some biologist thinks otherwise.
Plus, Diogenes, it is the original families that should have been protected.
As well, I did concede that gays who did not obtain kids on purpose for a social agenda are worthy of recognition of the hardships of child rearing. Did you miss that part?
You build a strawman if you ignore an important part of my argument!
Oh, do those artificial children have a tag somewhere I can’t see, like on a pillow? Does it say “This child contains artificial ingredients. Do not remove this tag until they are 18.”?
In case it wasn’t obvious, I reject your portrait of a perfect family. There always have been and always will be plenty of different versions of a family, open your eyes and your mind.
“Judicial” in this since refers to ecclesiastical courts, not the civil courts, and they have had those powers for a very long time.
Please define “child bearing years” and establish proof that there is an age cutoff past which pregnancy cannot occur. It may not be wise and it may be dangerous, but there are post-menopausl women have conceived before.
I think if you check into you will find there is no such thing as child-bearing years, unless you mean years they aren’t dead.
Huh, what? Do you even know what post-menopausal means? Please explain how someone whose ovaries are no longer producing eggs can conceive a child, naturally of course, since you don’t approve of “artificial” methods of creating a family.
As I said, they can make whatever rules they like for their own rituals, but why should anyone else give a rip? Using a word taken from the real world legal system is a transparent way to claim legitimacy that is not merited - which is why I flagged it.
Another point you’re missing - the claim that marriage is to support child-rearing in a family environment has no such basis. The fact that there are no such cutoffs is evidence of the claim’s falsity.
You build a strawman when you calim artificial ingredients. I am talking about non-natural child reproduction which demands the assistance of a third party.
You are free to deny it all you want, but you are living in a fantasy world. It is the natural production of children society has an interest in protecting.
Plus your argument ignores my concession that we ought to protect homosexual couples raising children so long as they did not simply obtain a child to further a social agenda. That’s akin to foster child mills where the foster parents have little interest in the child but want something else instead, namely money in the foster child situation. There have been calls in the gay literature for all gay couples to adopt so that they can prove their value as families. This is wrong. No one should ever adopt a child for any reason other than the child’s best interest. Shoving kids around on a social chessboard as pawns pisses me the hell off.
They have called church judges judges for a long time, we all know they aren’t civil judges and they aren’t trying to fool anyone. What is your issue?
There are no cutoffs because they would be artificial. It is possible for heterosexual couples to have children at any age, Period. It is impossible for gays to have children, PERIOD. I’m sorry you do not value that or understand it, whichever it is, but your comment made no sense.
[quote=“ElvisL1ves, post:114, topic:587381”]
real world legal system is a transparent way to claim legitimacy that is not merited - which is why I flagged it.
QUOTE]
The first civilizations known to man were God-King states and theocratic. If anything ecclesiastical judges came first and it is civil courts who took the terms from the ecclesiastical courts, not the other way around. Your idea that this is not the “real world” is ludicrous.
It was sarcasm actually. So the tag says “Property of Joe and Bob and Mary. Inspected by #11.”?
Wrong, I’m living in the real world where families come in 31 different flavours. What you’ve been describing is a fantasy world.
Menopause represents the stage in a women’s life cycle in which the ovaries stop producing eggs, menses cease and fertility ends. Women most certainly have child bearing years- the years between the onset of menses and the cessation of menses. That range varies dramatically among women, and menopause can be artificially induced either chemically or surgically, by removal of the ovaries.
Your facts are summarily incorrect. Women who are infertile, either due to congenital defect, due to illness or surgery, or due to being post menopausal are not denied the right to marry and the rights that come from being married.
ETA: And of course Gay people can have children- if gay men produce sperm and gay women produce eggs and have a uterus they can produce children. They may not produce children as a couple, or may require other means to do (such as infertile heterosexual couples may need), but to suggest that the need for long-term commitment welcomed and sanctioned by the larger society is dependent on being able to have children is wrong.
Why is civil union not enough? If it gives the same rights to inheritance, etc. Civil union is what we have around here and nobody seems to be clamoring for anything else.