|
Post by firstlady on Feb 7, 2007 21:15:13 GMT -5
Yup. It's right up there with spanking. Personally, I just don't get it, but it really seems to be a popular kink with many men. ROFL....
|
|
|
Post by Affirmative Action Jackson on Feb 8, 2007 3:10:28 GMT -5
Inheritance is a derivative of heredity which means offspring, parents, children, genes, etc. But the bottom line was not the welfare of the children, it was the control of property. Children were viewed as a means of passing down stuff in a family but also as perfectly expendable. Hence the large families becusue so many died because they were not being protected by the family. Inheritance through marriage and adoption was equally acceptable. The bottom line was the motive behind marriage was not to protect the children but to protect the property. Technically that's probably right but it was at a time when alternatives to marriage (not to mention hetero marriage) were taboo and not even realistically considered in the equation. It's a semantic argument. The bottom line is that a hetero couple as natural heads of a family was an expected condition and a predicate. A given. Or, it's all moot beyond the existence of offspring. Homos can't produce offspring.
|
|
|
Post by heathenesque on Feb 8, 2007 3:55:46 GMT -5
Homos can't produce offspring. And yet, you -STILL- haven't addressed hetero couples who either cannot, or will not have children... If the primary purpose to marriage is to produce offspring, and your rationale about preventing homosexuals from marrying is -because- they cannot produce offspring in the "normal" manner... does it therefore mean you do not think heterosexuals who cannot or will not have children should be allowed to marry, either? If you believe that childless heterosexual couples should continue to be allowed to marry, then you need to come up with a new argument for banning same-sex marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Chevy on Feb 8, 2007 12:20:34 GMT -5
There is absolutely NOTHING stopping homosexual couples from having children. In vitro fertilization is completely available, as are surrogate mothers. Lots of lesbian couples have kids from previous straight marriages. So, that kinda shoots that whole argument in the foot.
NOW what rationale will you come up with?
*evil grin*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2007 12:41:16 GMT -5
There is absolutely NOTHING stopping homosexual couples from having children. In vitro fertilization is completely available, as are surrogate mothers. Lots of lesbian couples have kids from previous straight marriages. So, that kinda shoots that whole argument in the foot. NOW what rationale will you come up with? *evil grin* They're queers. *more evil grin*
|
|
|
Post by Chevy on Feb 8, 2007 13:04:03 GMT -5
I was actually talking to Rosh about his incessant banging of the procreation drum, Grumps. We already know what your argument is. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2007 13:44:28 GMT -5
I was actually talking to Rosh about his incessant banging of the procreation drum, Grumps. We already know what your argument is. ;D Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by diplomat on Feb 8, 2007 14:42:12 GMT -5
So leaving what you have worked for all your life to your children is "protecting your property"? You are DEAD, why would you care? Seems to me leaving it to your kids IS protecting your children. I agree. Why were out-of-wedlock babies taboo among the poor? If people had nothing to leave to their kids there should have been no reason to marry, according to the inheritance theory. Until this generation, unmarried pregnant girls & mothers were scorned.
|
|
|
Post by proudarmymom on Feb 8, 2007 18:37:02 GMT -5
Homos can't produce offspring. And yet, you -STILL- haven't addressed hetero couples who either cannot, or will not have children... If the primary purpose to marriage is to produce offspring, and your rationale about preventing homosexuals from marrying is -because- they cannot produce offspring in the "normal" manner... does it therefore mean you do not think heterosexuals who cannot or will not have children should be allowed to marry, either? If you believe that childless heterosexual couples should continue to be allowed to marry, then you need to come up with a new argument for banning same-sex marriage. Dangit You stoled my thunder. LOL. But exactly if the purpose of marriage is to procreate then those who can't or won't should not be allowed to marriage or another arguement againest gay marriage needs to be found. CONSTITUTIONALLY.... that pesky thing we live by in the US..... gives everyone the RIGHT TO PURSUE happiness. If marriage is about being happy then why shouldn't gays be allowed to pursue it too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2007 19:35:07 GMT -5
CONSTITUTIONALLY.... that pesky thing we live by in the US..... gives everyone the RIGHT TO PURSUE happiness. If marriage is about being happy then why shouldn't gays be allowed to pursue it too. Key word "Pursue". No one is guaranteed happiness. Some people get off and are most happy when they cut throats. So what?
|
|
|
Post by diplomat on Feb 9, 2007 9:15:15 GMT -5
Some people get off and are most happy when they cut throats. Or have sex with infants.
|
|
|
Post by mrsp on Feb 9, 2007 9:19:34 GMT -5
Some people get off and are most happy when they cut throats. Or have sex with infants. You and GOM don't strengthen your arguments by making ridiculous comparisions ya know. Stick to comparisons of legal behavior if you want to be taken seriously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2007 9:34:19 GMT -5
Or have sex with infants. You and GOM don't strengthen your arguments by making ridiculous comparisions ya know. Stick to comparisons of legal behavior if you want to be taken seriously. They were both made in response to an asinine claim that the Constitution gives queers a right to marry. Queers marrying IS against the law, it's certainly not guaranteed by the Constitution.Both are da*n good comparisons to a ridiculous claim, IMO. The fact that you don't happen to agree is your problem.
|
|
|
Post by mrsp on Feb 9, 2007 9:38:44 GMT -5
They were both made in response to an asinine claim that the Constitution gives queers a right to marry. Queers marrying IS against the law, it's certainly not guaranteed by the Constitution.Both are da*n good comparisons to a ridiculous claim, IMO. The fact that you don't happen to agree is your problem. Comparing apples and oranges never helps promote an argument. That is what you are doing. As to whether the Constituion says marriage should include homosexual marriage, it has never gotten to the Supremes, probably will sooner or later, and then we'll have a definitive determination. Personally I think the reguirements for equal protection under the law will eventually lead to some form of civil marriage/civil unions for homosexuals.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Meaner on Feb 9, 2007 9:47:56 GMT -5
Personally I think the reguirements for equal protection under the law will eventually lead to some form of civil marriage/civil unions for homosexuals. I think so, too. I also think that, instead of destroying the concept of marriage, it may help to strengthen it by focusing more on commitment to another person rather than focusing on genetalia.
|
|