Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Married and non-married relationships are capable of bringing up children to an equal degree, the only variable is stability (and consequentially the effects of that on upbringing).

Your entire argument depends upon this statement. The problem with your statement is that it flies in the face of millenia of experience.

[chequita guevara]

Not really.

[Whaleboy]

Your entire argument depends upon this statement. The problem with your statement is that it flies in the face of millenia of experience.

No, my argument depends on several on the consequential side, and many more on the intentional side. Furthermore, it allows for the fact that marriage and non-marriage in terms of benefit to society is an increasingly academic distinction, as marriage itself becomes largely irrelevant to social stability, unless people complain (and rightly so) because their basic rights are denied to them.

[Ned]

I have posted the following thought in another thread, but I will repeat it here.

Relationships are entirely a private matter. The US Supreme Court has by decision given private relationships constitutional protection. People can live together in any manner they choose and the state cannot interfere.

California law already recognizes rights of people who simply live together for a substantial time. These are equivalent to marriages under that law and accord similar rights on "divorce" or death. In other words, California law already recognizes full "marital" rights for people just living together without marriage.

The question then becomes, why do we have marriage licenses and civil marriages at all? They make no sense since people can simply live together and gain full rights and obligations.

Since the state cannot interfer in private relationships and sex, there should be no rules against gay relationships, incest or polygamy. These are private matters that beyond the reach of the state.

On the issue of children, though, I think we could and should legislate in favor of traditional single-man, single-woman relationships as the preferred household model for raising them.

[Whaleboy]

Since the state cannot interfer in private relationships and sex, there should be no rules against gay relationships, incest or polygamy. These are private matters that beyond the reach of the state.

Looking good so far

On the issue of children, though, I think we could and should legislate in favor of traditional single-man, single-woman relationships as the preferred household model for raising them.

I think each situation should be judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than having some inflexible principled systems whereby perfectly good and capable households are discriminated against because of some statistical proposition (for which I need more evidence anyway to even begin to use as part of an intentionally potent argument).

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Your entire argument depends upon this statement. The problem with your statement is that it flies in the face of millenia of experience.

Care to back this assertion?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor



Care to back this assertion?

Proposition:

Married couples stay together longer than unmarried couples.

Refute this by evidence if you can. The statement is true.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Spiffor



Care to back this assertion?

I think he's referring to Ug and Gragla, the well known Stone Age couple who started monogamy, somewhere in the Neolithic Rift Valley.

I think Richard Leakey may have found their wedding invitations inscribed on a baboon shoulder.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


No, my argument depends on several on the consequential side, and many more on the intentional side. Furthermore, it allows for the fact that marriage and non-marriage in terms of benefit to society is an increasingly academic distinction, as marriage itself becomes largely irrelevant to social stability, unless people complain (and rightly so) because their basic rights are denied to them.

Your point was that stability of a couple was critical to childern. I agree.

However, my point is that married couple have historically been more stable.

[Whaleboy]

Proposition:

Married couples stay together longer than unmarried couples.

Refute this by evidence if you can. The statement is true.

The problem there is that unmarrieds includes non serious relationships, or relationships between one or more people under that age of ~25 which tend imo to be more unstable and have less longevity than other relationships. Consider a hypothetical scenario of two identical couples, one married one not, the marriage would be irrelevant to them lasting, and rightly so because the reasons why in times past they would have lasted was the womans subservitude.

Two childbearing couples that have "settled down", one married, one not, it is reasonable to say that each has an equal chance of outlasting the other.

Your point was that stability of a couple was critical to childern. I agree.

However, my point is that married couple have historically been more stable.

See above.

As added weight to my argument, gay people the coolest people on Earth

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


I think he's referring to Ug and Gragla, the well known Stone Age couple who started monogamy, somewhere in the Neolithic Rift Valley.

I think Richard Leakey may have found their wedding invitations inscribed on a baboon shoulder.

No Molly, the formalities of marriage, support from the families and society, etc., have given marriages a lot more stability than just living together.

BTW, all us righties cannot think. We simply drag our knuckles and grunt like the troglydite we are.

[Whaleboy]

No Molly, the formalities of marriage, support from the families and society, etc., have given marriages a lot more stability than just living together.

No offence intended, but I have to laugh

BTW, all us righties cannot think. We simply drag our knuckles and grunt like the troglydite we are.

You got that off my Flame Warriors thread didn't you?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Proposition:

Married couples stay together longer than unmarried couples.

Refute this by evidence if you can. The statement is true.

My partner and I have been together for twenty years come November.

That's longer than the first marriages of his sister and his cousin put together.

We aren't married, we don't have children (adopted or otherwise) and we're both gay men.

Do I win?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ned

Your point was that stability of a couple was critical to childern. I agree.

However, my point is that married couple have historically been more stable.

Hm,
the Problem is of course,
that you always have to compare that within the Society where they lived.

For example you couldn´t compare Data gathered from the second half of the 20th century with Data from the 19th century, as with the Change in Society also the rate of Divorces and breakups has climbed.
Do you have any Statistics comparing the Stability of Relationships with or without marriage in several time periods?

[Whaleboy]

MB: You win

An early congratulations for November!!! :dance

You've been together longer than I've been alive!!

Anyways, I've made my point, I'm off to bed!