Missouri anti-gay marriage const. amendment headed for victory

[Snowflake]

There wasn't marriage at all one time in the human history. I think we should disband marriage.

[Whaleboy]

I believe there is a husband and a wife in a marriage. I'm not sure if there is such things in a gay union. Or do we need to redefine that also? What if a child is involved? Do we need to redefine what mother and father means? If we have to redefine everything, why couldn't we simply use another name and recognize that it is just not the same thing?

See that is where we disagree. 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. My definition rests upon that thus. Using your premises, your definition is very true, however I am not using your premises and furthermore I like mine more because they account primarily for the people that marriage primarily concerns. The two people engaged to be.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Elok
Hmm. Why not, this seems like a fun stupid argument to get into. For starters, what do you think the purpose of marriage is, PA and opponents? Seems like the best place to begin is to decide what it's all for and why it should or shouldn't be exclusive to specific combinations of genitalia...

Marriage basically serves two purposes:

1) Getting tax deductions, inheritance, etc, from the state.

2) Getting the sanction of God/society/the tooth fairy for screwing your significant other.

Personally, I'd like these two functions separated.

As for specific combinations of genitalia, and don't see why it should matter for the first one. For the second, well, God/society/the tooth fairy might object to certain combos. Take it up with Him/they/her.

[Last Conformist]

I believe there is a husband and a wife in a marriage. I'm not sure if there is such things in a gay union. Or do we need to redefine that also? What if a child is involved? Do we need to redefine what mother and father means? If we have to redefine everything, why couldn't we simply use another name and recognize that it is just not the same thing?

"Marriage", "husband" and "wife" are societal concepts. "Mother" and "father" are biological ones. Redefining them isn't the same thing.

[Snowflake]

Well we have redefined the mother and father definitions so that they are not strictly biological. You can still be a daddy to an adopted child even if you don't have biological relations to them. But currently fathers are male in general. I am not sure if gay marriage is legal would we then need to redefine father and mother so that they don't have to be exactly male and female. Or do we redefine "family" so that there could be two fathers and no mothers in a family or vice versa.

[ajbera]

Originally posted by Snowflake
What is marriage any way? The key to the argument is why we are arguing it.

Actually, the first question is: what situation is there that calls for some kind of policy/law/institution? The second is: what policy/law/institution shall we enact to remedy/improve this situation?

The situation is that families need as stable a foundation as possible so the children have the greatest chance of becoming constructive and positive members of society. While individual effort will always be important, we recognize that humanity (& human society) must continue into the future, so families are a must.

Given that we don't have huge communal tribe-families, but more discreet family units, what policy shall we put in place that gives the family the strongest base from which to start & grow? Since children come from male/female pairings, and, since it takes a lot of effort to raise children, it is best for this pairing to be very stable & sustained, let us enact a policy whereby a male and a female can swear an oath to each other to commit their lives together for the purpose of having and raising children. And if the male and female make each other happy, well, that's nice too.

Hence, marriage, defined as the sanctioned union between a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family.

Bear in mind, my wife & I do not have children and have no intention of doing so (I've seriously considered a vasectomy just to make sure), and since I believe my wife and I should be allowed to have a legal, state-sanctioned union so we can share our worldly belongings, entitlements and responsibilities in a ddition to our love, I believe any 2 people, whether they want a family or not, should be allowed to marry.

But the reason why the State has an interest in a male/female pairing is because of families. Even the religious dictates for heterosexual bonding are family-oriented.

I think that should society should either come out and say it's okay for 2 people to wed even if they don't want children, and thus allow gay marriage, or say family is all important and you can't marry at all (even hetero couples) unless you intend on reproducing.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by ajbera
Hence, marriage, defined as the sanctioned union between a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family.

Intention is a very difficult thing to judge, and base laws upon. While whether a person is male or female, is relatively easy to decide.

[Edit] Just noticed that I wasn't speaking complete sentences.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

See that is where we disagree. 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. My definition rests upon that thus. Using your premises, your definition is very true, however I am not using your premises and furthermore I like mine more because they account primarily for the people that marriage primarily concerns. The two people engaged to be.

You don't have to be married to love each other. Marriage is not a result of love, nor a garantee of it.

Your wide definition of "marriage of two objects" is dangerous, but I don't really have to tell you that.

[Whaleboy]

Two mutually consenting beings with the mental capacity to decide to get married. Eliminates children and (most ) animals nicely while all adults are included!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Snowflake
There wasn't marriage at all one time in the human history. I think we should disband marriage.

How many shields do you think we'll get from it?

[Fake Boris]

Hello Kuciwalker. Glad to see your new name.

[Kuciwalker]

Welcome back!

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


How many shields do you think we'll get from it?

Er, we'll have no shields whatsoever I think, after marriage is disbanded. But who knows population growth rate may increase.

[Ben Kenobi]

So ummm Park Avenue, Ben Kenobi (respectively) what are your actual arguments against gay marriage and for this amendment (again respectively) so that we can actually have a proper conversation?

For the amendment?

If the courts are going to assert authority over the definition of marriage, than the states have the right to decide their definition through amendments that cannot be overruled by the courts.

If the courts stop abusing their authority than amendments like these are not necessary.

For the preservation of marriage between one man and one woman? I think society benefits in having a stable environment to bear and raise children, both for the children, and for the parents. Other unions lack these benefits. Homosexual unions lack the gender roles supplied by parents of the opposite sex, necessary for the development of boys and girls.

[Ben Kenobi]

Marriage basically serves two purposes:

1) Getting tax deductions, inheritance, etc, from the state.

2) Getting the sanction of God/society/the tooth fairy for screwing your significant other.

No children?

I find your analysis deficient.