Missouri anti-gay marriage const. amendment headed for victory

[Solly]

Translation for Ming: I deleted a bunch of posts that weren't homophile enough for my tastes.

I still haven't seen a definition for marriage from the gays that doesn't discriminate or sound utterly ridiculous - can we have one.

[MrFun]

The "marrying a dog" statement is not only fallacious, but it dehumanizes gay men and women -- I was entitlted to react the way I did, Ming.

[Ming]

PA... you've been warned often enough about your crap in these kinds of threads... see ya in a week or more.

Mr. Fun... what part of chill are you not understanding.
I don't care who started it... it's over. Unless you want to join him.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ming:

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.

The majority do, and for those who do not have children, you also have to distinguish between those people who choose to marry, and not to have children, from those who marry and want children but can't have them.

The substantial majority of marriages fall into either one of these two categories for wanting children, so maybe there is some connection between marriage and wanting to have children?

That is all I'm trying to establish, the general norm, apart from the exceptions.

But you don't have a problem with them...

I make the distinction between those who want children and can't have them from those who can have them but don't want them. I agree with the former but not with the latter.

I've seen it in my own life, my aunt and uncle divorce over this issue, where her desire for children changed. I don't think it's a good idea to marry if you do not want children.

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...

Yes. Because if you were to prevent them from being married, they would lie and say that they wanted children. Ergo, it is impossible to regulate.

[Ben Kenobi]

Is it just me or have PA and BK the Reactionary laughing stock of 'Poly? Sorry, but your guy's social conservatism is dying, and their nothing you can do about it.

Well, we think that your side will eventually collapse without the support of others, and we look forward to being right.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes. Because if you were to prevent them from being married, they would lie and say that they wanted children. Ergo, it is impossible to regulate.

Again... you give the impossible to regulate excuse. Yet you don't really address the question.

For the record... do you think that couples who don't plan on having children, or couples who can't have children should be allowed the right to get married, or should they be treated in the same class as gay couples simply because they won't have kids. Again, this isn't about whether it can be regulated or not... this is about you using the children argument. Because if that's your reason for not alllowing gays to get married, then be consistent... or just admit you have a problem with it for other reasons.

[Ben Kenobi]

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

Having a willing and desireable partner has no effect on whether you have children?

I would argue that it plays a large effect.

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.

So, where do I say that society ought to discriminate against these children? They get a raw deal from the start without any intervention from society. Being born to a single mom is not going to enhance your prospect, just in lacking a father to provide for your and for your mom.

Even if you were to redress this balance, you would have to intervene positively in favour of supporting single moms, which may cause other problems.

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.

One of them would be to provide a stable home for children, which is not something you considered.

[Ben Kenobi]

For the record... do you think that couples who don't plan on having children, or couples who can't have children should be allowed the right to get married, or should they be treated in the same class as gay couples simply because they won't have kids.

I argue you have to separate the two, if you are going to make a distinction. First of all, a couple that is infertile is not likely to know this before they try to have children. So to fault them for something outside of their control is wrong.

How would you confirm that a couple who wanted to get married was fertile? The invasion of privacy that such confirmation would entail seems a powerful argument against making this assessment.

As for the couple that does not want to have children, they should be discouraged, but not barred from getting married.

Again, this isn't about whether it can be regulated or not... this is about you using the children argument. Because if that's your reason for not alllowing gays to get married, then be consistent... or just admit you have a problem with it for other reasons.

The difference is that this aspect can be easily regulated without infringing on the rights of either individual. I don't believe in laws that cannot easily be enforced, since such laws hurt all the rest.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

As for the couple that does not want to have children, they should be discouraged, but not barred from getting married.

Whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah! Care to back that up with anything remotely resembling logic?

And on a personal note for that statement, a big FU!

[Ming]

So... an older couple who have lost their partners in life and want to get married to enjoy each other company in the twilight of their lives "should be discouraged" from geting married, but not barred?

So... you aren't going to actually bar a couple from getting married because they don't or can't have children, but you use that as an excuse for why gays should be barred... So now it's out in the open... this doesn't have ANYTHING TO DO WITH CHILDREN. Since you won't ban couples that won't have children, you can't ever use that as an excuse against gays again.

Have a nice day. And thanks for trying to talk out of both sides of you mouth... You've been caught.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


As for the couple that does not want to have children, they should be discouraged, but not barred from getting married.


I don't believe in laws that cannot easily be enforced, since such laws hurt all the rest.

I'm sensing a kind of contradiction here.

You don't want 'laws' that cannot easily be enforced, but you want who, exactly, agents of the state? sectarian busybodies? 'discouraging' people who don't want to have children from getting married?


Hey, I've a great idea!

Let's have awards for most progeny spawned in a marriage, and perhaps televise it, you know, like a human equivalent of salmon spawning, and give medals to 'Mothers of the U.S.A.' or 'Canada' and have marital baby farms where couples are encouraged to have as many children as possible before the woman's pelvic floor collapses, or she dies worn out from repeated pregnancies.


Really, Obi Gyn, you are excelling ourself with this line of thought.

Marriage Counselling Kenobic Style-

' So you're not considering having children, you just want to get married for love, and companionship?

What are you, queer? Get out!'

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm sensing a kind of contradiction here.

You don't want 'laws' that cannot easily be enforced, but you want who, exactly, agents of the state? sectarian busybodies? 'discouraging' people who don't want to have children from getting married?

I'm thinking of marriage counsellors discouraging couples from this route because one of them may want to have children later, and then that would likely lead to divorce.

Let's have awards for most progeny spawned in a marriage, and perhaps televise it, you know, like a human equivalent of salmon spawning, and give medals to 'Mothers of the U.S.A.' or 'Canada' and have marital baby farms where couples are encouraged to have as many children as possible before the woman's pelvic floor collapses, or she dies worn out from repeated pregnancies.

Marital baby farms? Wow, you sure have respect for women who are pregnant.

I don't see why saying that most men and women who get married want to have children has anything to do with the state coercing them into doing so. No one forces them to get married.

' So you're not considering having children, you just want to get married for love, and companionship?

What are you, queer? Get out!'

Not at all. One of the questions would be, have you spoken with your fiancee about children? If so, do both of you have an agreement? Then, if they say, we don't want children, then warn them that it will make things more difficult later on should one person change her mind.

That seems reasonable to me.

[Ben Kenobi]

So... an older couple who have lost their partners in life and want to get married to enjoy each other company in the twilight of their lives "should be discouraged" from geting married, but not barred?

No. Their decline in fertility is through no fault of their own. That's why I make the distinction between couples that cannot conceive, and those who can, but chose not to.

So... you aren't going to actually bar a couple from getting married because they don't or can't have children, but you use that as an excuse for why gays should be barred...

Can't make a square a circle Ming, no matter how hard you try. I explained why one could be enforced while the other could not.

So now it's out in the open... this doesn't have ANYTHING TO DO WITH CHILDREN. Since you won't ban couples that won't have children, you can't ever use that as an excuse against gays again.

Sure I can. One of the biggest benefits society derives from marriage are children. Lacking any such argument from the side supporting gay marriage, I am forced to conclude that they have no case.

I have never heard a positive challenge to my argument, and I'm not surprised, since there is none. All I hear are attacks on my arguments, but none in favour as to why gay marriage will benefit society in the same way as society has come to expect from traditional marriage.

One can argue that it is discriminatory, but that does not provide a positive benefit to the state, as I have argued that marriage provides.

Now, note that I have other arguments as well, that also relate to children, but not to their conception. So even if you tackle this one, you are left to deal with raising children, and the need for the involvement of both genders in child rearing.

[Ben Kenobi]

Whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah! Care to back that up with anything remotely resembling logic?

Yes. If either spouse changes their mind, the marriage will likely be dissolved. Hence my comment on my aunt and uncle above.

And on a personal note for that statement, a big FU!

Well, if you want logic, I suggest you start first.

[RGBVideo]

Is it just me or have PA and BK the Reactionary laughing stock of 'Poly?

It's just you.

And I'm still waiting for that answer to my question which I asked from PA about 3 months ago: why he thinks adult males who **** other adult males 'on par' with middle-aged parents who rape their pre-teen kids. I don't get it. If you're too paranoid about evil homoist moderators, you can always use PM. I'm honestly curious about the reason (surely, there must be one, no matter how primitive, right?).