Missouri anti-gay marriage const. amendment headed for victory

[Ben Kenobi]

Marriage may historically be an advanced form of prostitution come baby-farm but I think most people today that get into it do it on the basis solely of love.

Which is why divorce rates are spiralling, eh?

One falls in and out of love all the time.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No children?

I find your analysis deficient.

Not at all, since not all married couples have children - and marriage isn't contingent upon it.

[Ben Kenobi]

But it hasn't always been that way, as various cultures have had same-sex marriages. There are even records of such marriages being performed in the Middle Ages under the auspices of Catholicism.

Nice to see that you agree with the Catholics when they happen to agree with you.

It was "always" about an unequal power arrangement where the man dominated the woman. It was "always" prohibitive of interracial couplings. It was "always" prohibitive of cross-class couplings. It was "always" this that and the other. But those things changed, but it was still marriage.

Classes have always intermarried, so have races. The difference between the two, and this, is that it did not change the fundamental nature of the union between a man and a woman. Homsexual unions are biologically different, in that no matter how you dross them socially, they still don't work the same way. Therefore, you have a false analogy.

[Kuciwalker]

Nice to see that you agree with the Catholics when they happen to agree with you.

Uh, well... duh!

[Ben Kenobi]

Not at all, since not all married couples have children - and marriage isn't contingent upon it.

There is a big difference between all, and a significant proportion.

Not all marriages are about love, as Last Conformist asserts, since he seems concerned more about the economic advantages of the collaboration in marriage. Does this mean that love is not an important part of marriage?

[Kuciwalker]

For legal purposes... well, yes!

[Ben Kenobi]

Uh, well... duh!

He neglects to mention that these actions are totally contradictory to the beliefs of the Catholic church.

[Ben Kenobi]

For legal purposes... well, yes!

So do you think that treating marriage as a legal contract is the antithesis of marriage done for love?

[Ben Kenobi]

And others have the right to call them phony, so the question becomes: are they living up to the teachings of their God? We've gone through that already and the answer is a resounding NO!

So who is right? The "Christian" who continually violates the principles of Christianity or the person who sees these violations? Remember, even Jesus said there will be many who come to him on judgement day saying, "Lord, Lord, look at what we have done in your name"... And Jesus will say, "I never knew you"...

I have nothing to more to add.

[Elok]

Gah, only one person answered me. Not that that's an unusual occurence. Anyway, the SC anti-antisodomy ruling is extremely significant, I think. In effect, they said the gov't. has no business nosing into what its constituents are shoving into each other where. So the government sponsoring sexuality in general doesn't fit the current precedent. Even if it did, being the inconsiderate blaggards they are, I bet those naughty homosexuals would keep having sex with each other even without our permission, if you can believe it.

Given how screwed up families have become, ensuring a healthy upbringing for children doesn't make sense either. There's tons of adoption, IVF from sperm banks (which I oppose, but that's another story), successful single parents, living-in-sin parents, and married parents who aren't competent to take care of a puppy, let alone a child. There's not much traditional family left to protect, on the extreme outside chance that anybody who wants to marry another person of the same sex could be convinced to form a "traditional family" instead without the use of thumb screws.

Social dynamics have changed. If anyone is gonna change them back, it won't be the government.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No children?

I find your analysis deficient.

Being married has no effect on your ability to get children.

If the state discriminates against children born out of wedlock, avoiding that for your future children by marrying falls under my first point. Similarly, if societal norms or religious doctrines condemn extra-marital procreation, avoiding that condemnation falls under the second point.

You being you, you're gonna bringing up encouraging good homes for children to grow up in. Well, that's a reason the state might want to recognize marriage - I was listing the reasons why a couple would seek marriage.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
There is a big difference between all, and a significant proportion.

Yep... there is. However, you seem to be playing the "children" card yet again, ignoring the fact that MANY, MANY, MANY marriages don't involve, and will NEVER involve children. But you don't have a problem with them... So why don't you drop the children stuff... because you have NEVER said that a man and woman who aren't planning or can't have children shouldn't be allowed to get married. Your typical response is, it would be hard to regulate or some such nonsense...

The no children argument applies to those types of couples as well, so unless you want to denounce them and state publicly that they shouldn't be allowed to get married either... because marriage is all about "children"... stop bringing it up. Because you aren't applying it equally across the board...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




I have nothing to more to add.

thank you

[Solly]

BK

[Snowflake]

Remember, even Jesus said there will be many who come to him on judgement day saying, "Lord, Lord, look at what we have done in your name"... And Jesus will say, "I never knew you"...

It struck me that being open-minded may not be something that is encouraged by God or Jesus.