Anyone want to talk about this?

[Merrida]

Originally Posted by TomG

No, I'm only talking words, sounds, not beliefs. Words will evolve, but I want them to do so over a long time. For example, the word veggies - I hate it - it's baby-talk (next we'll be saying dindin for dinner).....

As for your oxymoron question, there is nothing mathematically equivalent in peoples' relationships or proclivities, so don't expect it to be. I have heard a reasonable explanation of your question, but don't want to put it on this thread as it could drag things in the wrong direction.

I agree,...and the example you used makes sense because it's taking a word and bastardizing it. With regards to marriage among gay couples, no word is being bastardized. It is still called "marriage," -- not marriage-poo, mahwwidge, or anything similar to the other verbal short cuts you mentioned (which I agree with, more than you know, more than I've expressed).

You realize your comment just begs for continuation, don't you? Besides, I'm sure the Mods will be keeping their eyes peeled.


.

[Maxgain]

Originally Posted by MAURER

i think that the state should just stay out of marriage and divorce as much as possible. let it be a religious thing. that way the whole gay/lesbian thing wouldn't even be an issue.

That is true as it would never be allowed to happen.

I agree with gay people allowed to enter legal partnerships where they get the same legal recognitions as married people. And for this benefit it should be just as hard for them to get out of it as a divorce.

Marriage can be seen as a legal or religous act depending on your own views and neither is wrong. To me it is religous ad it cannot exist for gay people.

[MAURER]

i just don't like how people try to make government the moral authority. look at what goes on in washington. do we really want that? i think our government should be here to protect people's rights. and i think that the government has an obligation to recognize the rights of gays equally as straight people. now, like i said earlier, i think marriage should be a religious thing. and i have no problem with a church turning gays away because they are a private enterprise with rights of their own. but merrida don't you see that your opinion about gay marriage and the whole reproduction license are kind of contradictory. its the same logic that says the government should control reproduction that says the government should control marriage. you either recognize the rights of people to live their lives freely or you don't. otherwise, you just have factions of society all trying to impose their values and beliefs onto others.

[Merrida]

Mauer, I think I mentioned it twice already, making comparisons ahead of time re: the right to gay marriage, and my opinion about people being licensed to have children. I did that because I knew people would draw the parallel.

Straight or gay: I still believe both should be licensed to show they have the capacity to be in a relationship, especially if they plan to have children (things like no previous convictions for assault & battery, spousal abuse, child abuse, previous marriages where the party doesn't maintain child support). I agree both gay and straight couples need to prove they can take care of children (this isn't about money, it's about capacity). You've obviously not seen any or many situations where children are very poorly taken care of (ketchup soup is not a meal), food stamps being used for cigarettes and liquor, questionable behavior like drug abuse, etc.) Another good example: I, for one, would like to know if the man I'm dating is still married (separated or not, he's still married),....and he (woops), forgot to tell me. How about (woops forgot to mention) I have a wife in Utah (because heck, I travel a lot). While in a perfect world, couples in love (gay or straight) would reveal these things, I'd like to know if I'm dating a man who has demonstrated that he can't take care of his previous kids (especially if I enter this relationship wanting children of my own). Would you like to know your beloved stole from ex-spouses or his or her kids to support a drug habit? With religion, if that's important to me, I want the blessing of my church (and how does that go about?) Are your financial views the same? Child rearing beliefs? (Think of the nightmare that could have been avoided with Britney and K-Fed).....(eeek!)

I am without a doubt blowing off some extremes here,....and not all may even be relevent. But I'm trying to state just a myriad of situations where I'm willing to bet, some people wish they knew. If problems can be resolved or corrected, then great, get married, have babies, you're not being denied. I'm just trying to find a way to establish responsibility in a qualtifiable manner, even if you don't like my methods. Some methods can be modified, but the intent is still sound.

I believe BOTH that straight people and gay people should be able to prove their motive for marriage (this may help, even a small percentage, from getting married by grifters and con artists). I am not suggesting have lives ripped apart, but I am suggesting the things that involve marriage, committment, and children, all be brought into question,...that includes making it very hard to get divorced as well, gay or straight (because I think too many people view marriage like "going steady" and if it doesn't work out, no problem divorce city).

Straight and gay people need to show they have the capacity to raise children in a healthy environment.

And straight or gay, I'm still against the baby machines who get paid through welfare to reproduce over and over at our expense (let's nip that in the bud as well, gay or straight,....because as long as they are "single" they get these benefits that we working class people never have at our disposal: Stipends because we're incubators, procreating repeatedly, get our house paid for, our education paid for, our food paid for....) It's time to come to an end.

I keep hitting the rewind button because I have already explained my idea about "proof of ability" regardless of if a couple is gay or straight, and licensure for both.


....I am STILL waiting (after about the 3rd time I've asked),....why do the homophobic people feel so threatened when a gay couple wants to be married? What's it to you? It has NO bearing on YOUR value of marriage, how you conduct your marriage, how you educate your children with your value system, and the importance of the wedding and marriage as it stands for you and your spouse.

Are you afraid all the gay couples will get married and stalk you and camp out on your lawn and try to convert you? I sincerely, genuinely, and honestly do not understand.

At least my thoughts re: licensure, I have the lives of innocent children at the cornerstone of my thinking. I never said "no kids," but I did say for welfare baby factories, after 2, all financial assistance is severed (this they will be informed about when they are pregnant with child number one,....so no sudden shocking surprise there).

There are many religions that involve testing prior to marriage where an outside person determines your compatibility. My sister in law went through it before her marriage, to ensure their value systems coincided.

Gay or straight, same thing.

And for the bazillionth time, I've repeated myself in explaining my thoughts on licensure to protect over-reproduction, marriage, welfare, and gay rights,....and I'm still waiting for one of you who is afraid of gay people getting married to explain to me why you're afraid this will impact your life and how you choose to believe in marriage within the confines of your own marriage,....and the value of marriage you devote yourself to, in your life.

How does someone else's marriage affect the value you and your spouse place on your own marriage?

Still waiting for an answer that involves more than regurgitating the same words: Just cuz,....I don't believe in it,.....it shouldn't be allowed,..... Give me something substantial that shows you've put thought into expressing opinions that haven't been repeated here over and over with the same little 4 or 5 words, over and over......


.

[TomG]

The question of licenses for gay or straight couples to have babies might be problematic in some cases. You see, Grasshopper (pull up a chair, it's time we had this talk), unlike what goes on here amongst some of the monks here on Shaolin mountain, with straight couples, uh, well, uh, you get little grasshoppers for some reason (I donwanna talk about it - now go back and balance on that stump).

" Whatta we gonna tell your mama
Whatta we gonna tell your pa
Whatta we gonna tell our friends when they say “ooh-la-la”
Wake up little Susie . . ."

How could Brittany and F-Ked have been avoided? What law could have prevented that? Who was going to patrol that situation? And what kind of digital camcorder were they going to use?

On the other hand, there is the whole adoption procedure, which in most cases is the same for straights, singles, and gays. It's not a perfect system but it's evolving for the better.

As for your question to those who are afraid of whatever, I haven't seen any fear expressed here, so whom are you asking?

[Merrida]

I think external objective influences that required time, not jumping the gun, may have (even if it was remote) had someone help Brittany see she was marrying a man who had a habit of making babies all over the place (his GF when he met her was pregnant), and maybe counseling would have helped.

To people who support "Intervention" - then view it similarly.

My example of Brit-Brit and K-Fed was half tongue in cheek, (but I do think those kids, and now her 3rd child,....should be taken away from both parents, put in foster home, until they, as a couple, show committment to raising their children together, despite being divorced)....and no one's going to convince me you need $75,000/month to raise 2 kids, regardless of where they live. (That's another thing that needs looking at). But I think when people abuse the institution of marriage, each subsequent marriage should force the couple to more stringent guidelines as to if they're ready (barring things like spousal death, etc.). Again, I think the institution is taken too lightly.

Gays and straight people adopt. A gay man may fertilize an egg. A lesbian may opt for IVF. Or, they may adopt. Same for straight couples. I also think the same thing should be true: Can they provide a healthy environment for a child.

My comment still continues about people afraid of gay marriage, and still no one has answered. So again I ask: Why do any of you care if a gay couple get married? What does that have to do with you?

My attitude about licensure is to protect children and their healthy environment and raising. It has a logical point. Being afraid some couple somewhere in the country will get married, and you're afraid of it,....I don't get it, I don't get why anyone gives a damn. So while my previously expressed viewpoints were founded on the protection of innocent lives,.....what is the founding of the belief system of those are so paranoid of gay people getting married?

Still,...no one answers.


.

Originally Posted by Merrida

So again I ask: Why do any of you care if a gay couple get married? What does that have to do with you?

It is simple: A gay couple cannot be allowed to marry because marriage is a union between a man and a woman, others need not apply. They need to come up with a Plan B arrangement or move to Massachussetts, Canada or other countries/states where legislators have fooled themselves in believing they can rewrite natural law. You can't fool Mother Nature.

The covenant of marriage is ordered towards natural procreation and education of offspring. That's what our parents did for us and it worked. I see no compelling reason to change this institution or violate natural law to accomodate a misguided minority.

The way you can test the reasonableness of a proposition is to visualize it in its extreme. Imagine a world where all females were in union with other females and all males were in union with all males (note my deliberate exclusion of the word marriage as marriage is not possible in this scenario). In this scenario there would be no marriage and no natural procreation. Call this scenario A.

Now flip it around and visualize a scenario where all females were in union with all males (the world as we have traditionally known it). Call this scenario B.

Now fast forward and visualize what the world would be like in 50, 100, 150 and more years.

If something is no good in the extreme then it is no good at all.

I'm not a betting person, but I'm putting my money on scenario B.

[MAURER]

unfortunately, merrida, even though i agree with you that people shouldn't be so homophobic, im starting to feel as though you are a bit myopic in yourr thinking. you can't seem to get it into your head that not everybody thinks the way you do. even though you probably think the world would be a better place if you could manipulate socoiety to your every desire, not everybody agrees with you. for example, your view that the licensing of reproduction "has the interests of innocent children at heart." it is the same exact reasoning that some people have for wanting to make sure gays can't marry. they feel as though that if society does not negatively sanction homosexuality, that their impressionable children might be affected by increased exposure to gays. unfortunately, you have to realize that a great segment of society, very likely the majority of society, feels as though homosexuality is a sin. you may not like that, you may see it as ignorance or intolerance. however thats YOUR opinion. your inability to see things this way, i think, is the reason that you feel that controlling society in a fashion you think would better it, is somehow a good idea. telling people they can't have children doesn't help society any more than banning gay marriage helps society. basically what im saying is that laws and restrictions don't make better people. people becoming more enlightened and intelligent does.

[TomG]

Gays and straight people adopt. A gay man may fertilize an egg. A lesbian may opt for IVF. Or, they may adopt. Same for straight couples. I also think the same thing should be true: Can they provide a healthy environment for a child.

Gay men do not fertilize an egg, and lesbians do not get IVF after a romantic night of dancing and maybe having a little too much to drink: "Heyy, shweety, whatsay we leave this joint and find an OBGYN . . . hic . . . I lub lub lub you, baby." There is a limit to how much human nature can be controlled.

I guess we're still waiting for a fearful, paranoid person to answer.

As for us knowing or opining that B & F's children should be taken away from their parents until the parents are qualified, that's a rather godlike or Orwellian approach. Experts do not take children away from less than desirable parents unless there is extreme or imminent danger.

Making marriage harder legally will just have more people living unmarried, and somehow the babies will keep popping out.

[MAURER]

yes but merrida fails to see this because when she has the "good of children at heart"... the same thing that politicians have when they make all the laws which disrput the natural flow of things.

[Merrida]

Mauer, once again, as I keep stating, I am not trying to convince, coerce or manipulate or convert anyone. Not only is that impossible (since people make choices for themselves), but it is not what I'm doing here. I am here sharing my opinions the same way everyone else is sharing opinions. Sure I'd like to see the world more tolerant of gay marriages (because it doesn't hurt or negatively impact anyone, any straight married couples, in any way). That's the part that eludes me: Sticking to a belief that denies other people the right to marriage because you don't like it (and again, a gay marriage has no impact on heterosexual marriages).

Also, again, my views on having children being a priviledge, not a right, maintains, gay or straight. No child should be born into an environment where the parents cannot care for them,....and when you've seen for yourself children brought up in poor housing conditions (poor meaning inadequate and dangerous), kids coming into the ER with obvious signs of abuse and neglect, women coming in who have been beaten up by their husband,...if this can be headed off, what is wrong with that? If that's not even a factor, then.....no worries.

My ideas still are for the protection of all children, their right to education, health, nutrition,....and not living in fear.

Pierini's examples of extremes are inadmissable since the world does not live in extremes. You do realize gay people have existed in history since we roamed the earth.

If you're going to place your bets on procreation, you might as well kick to the curb the women who have productive disorders, hysterectomies, whose husbands' sperm do not have the required motility, impotence,....couples who can't have children. Might as well tell them they cannot donate sperm, use a relatives eggs, get a surrogate woman to carry the child, or adopt any children because if they cannot reproduce exclusively through the union of a man and woman being married, then they have no right to have children.

Well, in my betting world, if a couple, gay or straight, can provide a loving home for a child, and this includes quality time, education, love, socialization, nutrition, companionship,.....(and so forth),....then they should be able to either adopt, or utilize technology which would permit one of the couple to partake in the reproduction or adoption. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with being qualified to providing a stable and healthy environment to children.

Sharing my ideas and beliefs of, for example, adults not having a "right" to bear children, but rather that it is a priviledge,.....that isn't legal, it's my opinion. And we've done a bang up job so far as we see the money skyrocket to pay our babyfactoring welfare moms play incubators (and I'll bet most are heterosexual), our money paying for their food, housing (and they actually CAN end up OWNING a house while many of us who have worked since we were 13,--tobacco, cucumbers anyone?--never get external financial aid)....and actually get paid to stay pregnant. Yeah, that's working out real well, isn't it? Indulging people's right to abuse the welfare system.

All this going on around you, and you're worried about gay couples getting married hurting you? I STILL do not understand (and I am being sincere) how it can hurt anyone.

Fighting for the right for gays to marry is also not a reality, (just like my ideas to drastically modify,-- not eliminate, -- welfare)....but it is about expressing ideas, we're here discussing.

Again, I am expressing my opinions. Again, I do not have an agenda of convincing anyone.

The primary "motive" behind my discussions is trying to understand why people are so threatened. It's illogical.

My opinions can be viewed with the same amount of passionate belief as those opinions expressed by someone who has a problem with gay people getting married.

Gay people do procreate, by the way. Just because it isn't a man and women in the missionary position doesn't mean they cannot be an active participant in reproduction, or in adoption.


.

[Merrida]

Originally Posted by MAURER

yes but merrida fails to see this because when she has the "good of children at heart"... the same thing that politicians have when they make all the laws which disrput the natural flow of things.

What am I missing, and what natural flow of thing? Please clarify?

And yes, a gay man CAN fertilize an egg (women who are surrogate mothers, who volunteer to carry the child). Yes lesbians get inseminated (sperm banks or donators).

I really feel like, whether you agree with my stance or not, you're not accepting the fact that gay people have in the past, present, and future, will always find a way to participate in having offspring,....they may adopt or may one of the partners may donate (sperm or egg). I just think many of you are not up on gay culture (and you may not wish to be, and that's fine, it's purely your option)....but knowing what goes on, for couples wanting children, would fortify your argument.


.

[Merrida]

Originally Posted by TomG

Gay men do not fertilize an egg, and lesbians do not get IVF after a romantic night of dancing and maybe having a little too much to drink: "Heyy, shweety, whatsay we leave this joint and find an OBGYN . . . hic . . . I lub lub lub you, baby." There is a limit to how much human nature can be controlled.


Making marriage harder legally will just have more people living unmarried, and somehow the babies will keep popping out.

YES, they do fertilize eggs, yes women can get their eggs fertilized,...and (gosh, imagine this),...it does not have to involve heterosexual sex. There ARE other ways to get pregnant. This is the straight mind at work not seeing alternatives.

People living together w/o being married,...happens all the time, doesn't it? Straight and gay. That doesn't stop social services from popping in when there are reports of child neglect or abuse (from a straight or gay couple). You don't have to be married to beat a child or your partner.

.

[MAURER]

not once did i, or anyone else, try to state that your motive in this or any other discussion was to convince others. on the other hand, you, not me or anyone else, has failed to adress what other people have said. you are the one who keeps reclaiming the same opinions over and over again. go back and actually read what other people have been saying and you might realize that.

for you, its fine for reproduction to take place in the manner you just alluded to. its fine for gays to raise children. but other people don't agree. so, if they were you, they'd say... lets ban it.

[Merrida]

Originally Posted by MAURER

not once did i, or anyone else, try to state that your motive in this or any other discussion was to convince others. on the other hand, you, not me or anyone else, has failed to adress what other people have said. you are the one who keeps reclaiming the same opinions over and over again. go back and actually read what other people have been saying and you might realize that.

for you, its fine for reproduction to take place in the manner you just alluded to. its fine for gays to raise children. but other people don't agree. so, if they were you, they'd say... lets ban it.

I'm getting repetitive because people keep repeating the same argument over and over and over. And still no one has yet to answer: Why does anyone even give a care if a gay couple gets married? It has no bearing on your marriage. I still wait for that reply.

I'm sorry if my posts seem repetitive, but so are the posts I reply to. Different words are used, but the message remains the same....and it still stonewalls the development of the discussion.

.