Missouri anti-gay marriage const. amendment headed for victory

[Ben Kenobi]

Awfully tough now with PA gone, eh?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Care to back that up with anything remotely resembling logic?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


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

Yeah, I didn't think so.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Awfully tough now with PA gone, eh?

Owshucks. He got himself banned again.

I'll see if I can get an answer juiced out from him when he comes back.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah, I didn't think so.

It goes like this.

Marriage is supposed to be a union for life. People who are not ready and opposed to children when they are in their twenties may feel their biological clock ticking by the time they are in their late thirties, particularly for the woman. Then she will want to change her earlier mind about children. Now, if her husband is adamant about not having children, what are her options? She's stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Best to avoid this conflict if you can.

Another way one could argue this, is that if you are so determined to not have children, it would be best not to marry out of respect for your partner, so that she would not feel deprived. I don't know if this makes sense to you, but a married woman without children often feels deprived, even if that's what she wanted in the first place.

Let her find someone willing to have children with her, so that she can find this satisfaction.

[ixnay]

Suppose a gay couple wants to adopt children in order to provide a stable household for them? Surely that should be encouraged, right?

And don't give me any crap about how having homosexual parents will screw up children, since the American Medical Association has stated that "all the scientific evidence points to no differences among children raised in heterosexual or homosexual families."

[Ben Kenobi]

Suppose a gay couple wants to adopt children in order to provide a stable household for them? Surely that should be encouraged, right?

There are plenty of families out there who want to adopt. Why should they get preferential treatment?

And don't give me any crap about how having homosexual parents will screw up children, since the American Medical Association has stated that "all the scientific evidence points to no differences among children raised in heterosexual or homosexual families."

"has endorsed policy that supports adoption of children by a same-sex partner or an opposite-sex partner who functions as a second parent in a non-married family structure."

Funny how you left this out. Do you believe that a child in a home with a single parent, and a 'non-married' parent will do just as well as a family with two parents who are married?

As for homosexual adoption, where is the evidence for this? Just because they say so doesn't mean they cite studies. This is just as much as a BAM as anything else.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It goes like this.

Marriage is supposed to be a union for life. People who are not ready and opposed to children when they are in their twenties may feel their biological clock ticking by the time they are in their late thirties, particularly for the woman. Then she will want to change her earlier mind about children. Now, if her husband is adamant about not having children, what are her options? She's stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Best to avoid this conflict if you can.

Another way one could argue this, is that if you are so determined to not have children, it would be best not to marry out of respect for your partner, so that she would not feel deprived. I don't know if this makes sense to you, but a married woman without children often feels deprived, even if that's what she wanted in the first place.

Let her find someone willing to have children with her, so that she can find this satisfaction.

Still waiting.

Here's a hint, Ben. It's not logical to discourage marriage because only one spouse might, at some point in the indefinite future, change their mind about wanting children and if this happens, it might lead to marital problems.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


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

Not at all. One of the questions would be, have you spoken with your fiancee about children?

That seems reasonable to me.

It's not me reducing marriage to the state of salmon spawning grounds- it's you!

Hello Pot, it's me, Kettle, still not noticed your dark colouration?

I'm just taking your line of thought to its logical extreme-

whether people choose to have children or not, is no one else's business- unless they mistreat the children, in which case there are already mechanisms in place for dealing with that.


Good grief, why not ask them which position they like, how many times they plan to copulate a week- you're really tripping out on this totalitarian faith initiative ain't ya?



'The Handmaid's Tale' is only a novel and a film, you know, it's not a template for future living.

Couples' reasons for getting married are private and personal- and none of your damned business either.

As for this 'marriage being for life' nonsense- no one can predict the future, and only the Catholic Church expects abused men and women to stay in relationships no matter what. I fail to see why ordinary men and women should be held to your impossible idealistic notions of behaviour. Now let me see- Islam and Judaism have divorce provisions, as does Protestantism. Do you reckon those brands of faith know something about human nature you don't?

Clearly when it comes to personal privacy and outside influence we have different definitions of the word 'reasonable'.

'There are plenty of 'families' out there who want to adopt. Why should they get preferential treatment? '

Obi Gyn


Why is it preferential? Funny how your types always produce that- 'ner, you want preferential treatment' schtick- err, no 'we' don't.

'We' would like the same treatment. 'We're' only human after all.


'Funny how you left this out. Do you believe that a child in a home with a single parent, and a 'non-married' parent will do just as well as a family with two parents who are married?'

Obi Gyn

This is just an opinion or an assertion. Again based on antiquated notions of what constitutes a nuclear family, and which in many societies has never existed other than in the realms of fantasy.

Are you stuck in some 1950s' time warp?

What's next- separate single beds for married couples, one foot each kept on the floor at all times?

[Kontiki]

Ben, are you sure that you don't still live in a religious commune? Because your views of reality are so distorted it's amazing.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


There are plenty of families out there who want to adopt. Why should they get preferential treatment?

There are far, far more children waiting to be adopted than there are couples wanting to adopt in North America alone. Once you expand that worldwide, the difference is even greater.

And where the hell do you get preferential treatment from?

"has endorsed policy that supports adoption of children by a same-sex partner or an opposite-sex partner who functions as a second parent in a non-married family structure."

Funny how you left this out. Do you believe that a child in a home with a single parent, and a 'non-married' parent will do just as well as a family with two parents who are married?

What? This doesn't even make sense. Are you saying that a child with no parents at all is better off than in a home with a single parent and a 'non-married' parent?

As for homosexual adoption, where is the evidence for this? Just because they say so doesn't mean they cite studies. This is just as much as a BAM as anything else.

Yes, the AMA is known for making completely baseless statements in regards to health issues.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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 what exactly is the difference of old people with a decline in fertility through no fault of the their own, and two gay guys who can't have children through no fault of their own.... Is it only because one couple is a male and female and the other is two guys? You're not making much sense. Again... it's not about the children for you, it's about the couple.

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.

And again... all you talk about is enforcement... and that's not the issue. You are the one trying to change the subject. Your whole point is the kids... not the enforcement. It could be enforced by signing a legal contract, that if they don't have kids, the marriage will be annuled or auto divorce... and that's just silly... so enough with the enforcement crap and just state your view honestly instead of the smoke and mirrors.

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.

Again... it's only one benefit, and you aren't limiting straight couples who don't plan on having kids or can't. You are the one with 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.

How can your "challenge" be addressed with the all the holes in it. Again... a couple not planning on having children will give society the same benifits as a gay couple will... You want to allow one, but not the other.
Both older couples and gays "THROUGH NO CHOICE OF THEIR OWN" can't have children... so again, what's the difference?

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.

A childless marriage also provides benefits to the state... stability, and happier people... a good thing.
A gay marriage provides THE SAME BENEFITS as when older people get married... So yes, you are discriminating.

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.

However... if a gay couple doesn't adopt or have children in some other fashion, that is NOT AN ISSUE.
So are you saying you will allow gay marriages only if they don't raise children? Oh, that's right, you don't want to allow it under any circumstances, and straight couples don't have to follow the same restrictions...

Every one of your arguments and challenges have been addressed. You hide behind a smoke screen of "enforcement"... which would be harder, but could still be done... you claim exceptions should be made for straight couples because it's not their fault, but no exceptions can be made for gay people... you claim all these wonderful benefits to society for married couples, but the big difference is the children... yet MANY married couples never will have children or plan to, but that's ok for them, but not for gays....

Everybody here can see what you are really saying, so you might as well stop wasting your time spinning your wheels trying to defend your illogical arguments. Just admit you are against it because it's against your moral code, and that all your stated reasons don't stand up to the test of logic. Be honest... that's ok... but stop trying to make it out like it's anything more than just your opinion. You have no facts to back up anything you are saying.

[Ben Kenobi]

There are far, far more children waiting to be adopted than there are couples wanting to adopt in North America alone. Once you expand that worldwide, the difference is even greater.

No, I'm sorry, that's just not true.

Some agencies require individuals to wait for at least a year before they may be studied while others will not accept applications after a certain number of applicants have registered and until they believe they will be able to do a home study and place a child with the applicant within a reasonable length of time.

Virtually all agencies maintain waiting lists of people who have been approved to adopt. Most agencies consider a group of approved families for the next child to be adopted. Many of these agencies also offer the birthmother the opportunity to choose the adopting family from a group of nonidentifying resumés of previously approved families.

Most prospective adoptive parents do not like the prospect of spending several years' time on a waiting list, even if they understand the main reason for the wait to be an imbalance in numbers. Social workers believe that one good by-product of waiting lists is they may give applicants time that is often needed to seriously reflect on adoption and to work through any final infertility conflicts the family may have.

http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/entry/waiting-lists/370/1.html

http://www.americanadoptions.com/adopt/how_long

And where the hell do you get preferential treatment from?

"That should be encouraged," implies that preferential treatment will be given in order to encourage such action.

What? This doesn't even make sense. Are you saying that a child with no parents at all is better off than in a home with a single parent and a 'non-married' parent?

No, I'm saying that a child will be best off having two married parents, of which there are many willing to adopt the child. AMA is engaged in social activism here, and not in the best interests of the child.

Yes, the AMA is known for making completely baseless statements in regards to health issues.

It's still a bald faced assertion if they lack studies to confirm their statement that science supports them.

[Ben Kenobi]

Here's a hint, Ben. It's not logical to discourage marriage because only one spouse might, at some point in the indefinite future, change their mind about wanting children and if this happens, it might lead to marital problems.

Only one spouse? What happens to one affects the other and vice versa. Just because one changes her mind does not rule her opinion irrelevant.

Many couples have problems with this sort of thing which is why they should go over this in counselling. Many divorces could be prevented.

All of my statement I have given is a plausible reason why the wife might change her mind as her situation changes.

Marriage counselling is not just about preparing for problems that exist, but also about anticipating ones that may arise in the future.

I agree that this is not sufficient justification to prevent two people from marrying, but it is sufficient justification to offer a warning.

Smoking may not lead to lung cancer in all cases, yet the manufacturers are required to label their product. The same logic applies here.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Many couples have problems with this sort of thing which is why they should go over this in counselling. Many divorces could be prevented.

And that's only A SINGLE PROBLEM... there are many more that come up far more frequently than this one... Money, drug or booze, affairs... all far more frequent than this situation... The simple fact is, there are many dangers for a married couple, and for you to pick on this one point as a reason for not allowing gays to get married is absurd. This has nothing to do with the basic fact that you just don't think it's right... so you hide behind these silly smoke screens. Just be honest to yourself and everybody else, and admit it... you are preaching discrimination... because that's what you are doing when you strip away all the meaningless arguments you are poorly attempting to make. You have not raised a single solid or logical point to support your point of view... or that's right, it's the children... which is an argument that just doesn't hold any water, an you know it.

[Ben Kenobi]

molly:

It's not me reducing marriage to the state of salmon spawning grounds- it's you!

Where have I said that the only purpose of marriage, and the only benefit that society recieves from marriage comes from procreation? Procreation is an important part of how society benefits from marriage, but there are many other benefits that I also mentioned in my opening statement in this thread.

Perhaps if you cared to read this, you would refrain from weaving baseless strawmen.

I'm just taking your line of thought to its logical extreme-

Which is why I temper my statement in the opening post, to prevent such extremes.

whether people choose to have children or not, is no one else's business- unless they mistreat the children, in which case there are already mechanisms in place for dealing with that.

Whether people use contraception or not is no one else's business, yet that comes up in marriage counselling. The business of a marriage counsellor is to deal with these issues before they arise, and so, they do have authority, as the couple themselves have requested such counselling.

Good grief, why not ask them which position they like, how many times they plan to copulate a week- you're really tripping out on this totalitarian faith initiative ain't ya?

A totalitarian faith that encourages marriage counselling. Horrors! Next thing we'll know we'll have nazi jackboots storming the Riechstag.

Couples' reasons for getting married are private and personal- and none of your damned business either.

But they are the business of a marriage counsellor.

As for this 'marriage being for life' nonsense- no one can predict the future, and only the Catholic Church expects abused men and women to stay in relationships no matter what.

I suggest you look at that again. They don't.

I fail to see why ordinary men and women should be held to your impossible idealistic notions of behaviour.

What impossible ideals? That they be asked these questions before getting married? That they get married because they want love and companionship as well as children?

That's not an impossible ideal, and if it is, then I weep for our times.

Now let me see- Islam and Judaism have divorce provisions, as does Protestantism. Do you reckon those brands of faith know something about human nature you don't?

Considering that I'm a protestant, I find this approach laughable. Christians allow divorce, but consider it to be like severing off a limb rather than ending a contract. So they treat the issue of divorce with much greater concern, than the rest of society.

Why is it preferential? Funny how your types always produce that- 'ner, you want preferential treatment' schtick- err, no 'we' don't.

To encourage a behaviour implies preferential treatment.

This is just an opinion or an assertion. Again based on antiquated notions of what constitutes a nuclear family, and which in many societies has never existed other than in the realms of fantasy.

I suggest then you study some sociology. Broken families do not work as well as ones intact. Divorce rips families apart rather than healing wounds.

I have to go now, but I have plenty of studies that back me up on this one.

What's next- separate single beds for married couples, one foot each kept on the floor at all times?

I can't wait to be married, so I can enjoy making love to my wife. Why would I care for separate beds?

[Berzerker]

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

I hereby discourage you from getting married!

But why should they be discouraged?

Sure I can. One of the biggest benefits society derives from marriage are children.

Umm...that isn't where babies come from. Furthermore, we don't exist to benefit society, society exists to benefit us. Society is an agreement between multiple parties who see it in their own interest to cooperate. Putting society ahead of the parties that make up society gets the carriage ahead of the horse...

"The good of society must prevail over the good of the individual" - Benito Mussolini

Lacking any such argument from the side supporting gay marriage, I am forced to conclude that they have no case.

Many homosexuals do have children, but marriage is not just about children, it's arguably about the most important commitment people can make... And trust me, kids are usually not the first priority when people make that commitment...