Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Mia · Mar 30, 2004, 02:01 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Suburbanite,)

I’m sorry but seeing as 50% of women don’t work, whereas 5% of men don’t I can’t see how I am wrong. Marriage under government has become a relational crutch for women to feel comfortable in the home.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I'm not sure that 50% is even correct, but I don't have any info to counter. However, the women who are at home raising children are definitely working.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I don't know where you got those numbers, but according to the 2002 US Census, 60% of women and 74% of men are in the work force. Factor in that a greater % of the "non-working" women are taking care of children than men, I'd wager men are the "lazier" group here!

Mia · Mar 30, 2004, 02:16 am

Pale Rider,

I don't have any kind of agenda, but I have pretty much made up my mind on this, I will admit. That is not to say that information contradicting my opinion would not change it, I just haven't seen any, or enough.

The percentage of non-traditional families you mentioned were not all homosexual, I would presume. When I asked you to cite I was not being sarcastic.

Statistics have to be looked at very carefully and all of the context considered before establishing any conclusions.

I don't see anything in what you posted that indicated homosexual marriage's affect on anything.

The issue angers me because we spend way too much time worrying about things that are not bothering us at all instead of on real issues. Not to mention the argument against is largely religious.

Last time I checked, premarital sex and adultary are also sins, but we're not prosecuting anyone over it. Homosexuality is more like these two than pedopilia in that they are all acts between two consenting adults. But people prefer to compare it to pedophilia because that's where their opinion about it ranks.

Also, last time I checked, religion is not supposed to play a role in our laws.

Suburbanite · Mar 30, 2004, 03:40 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)

I don't know where you got those numbers, but according to the 2002 US Census, 60% of women and 74% of men are in the work force. Factor in that a greater % of the "non-working" women are taking care of children than men, I'd wager men are the "lazier" group here!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Like I explained raising children is a temporary and extremely simple Job. Don't make it out to be more than it is. Second, you show again, women are working far less. The only source I could find was the 2000 census though, relocate me to your source though.

Mia · Mar 30, 2004, 03:57 am

The 2000 census didn't show near 50%, unless you mean 50% of mothers with children under age one.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-544.pdf

The job of raising children (well) is anything but simple.

Mia · Mar 30, 2004, 05:49 am

There's only a 14% difference. More than 14% of the population has children. Let's reduce it to economics. In those families (most, I bet) where the wife would earn the same or LESS than what day-care would cost, how does it make sense for her to work and have someone else raise her kids?

I really don't understand your argument.

Pale RIder · Mar 30, 2004, 06:04 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Suburbanite,)

We don't know that. That is speculative bullshit. It isn't degrading it, that is hardly factual, that is just your homophobic feelings rearing there ugly head. Seeing as states WITHOUT bans on homosexual marriages have an over all lower divorce rate to states with it, I don't think homosexuals will degrade anything. You can't simply say it is a problem because of your own bigotry without proof. Even if you express heterosexual couples as more capable of raising children it has no bearing. I am sure there are statistics showing one race is better at parenting than another, should they not reproduce or adopt? Should the poor not reproduce because wealthier families raise more successful children?
Say what you're thinking, the act of a man sticking his penis in another man's asshole makes you want to punch something. Either that or you’re just bandwagoning with the Christian Right’s last ditch attempts at the third great awakening.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

We do know it, and there is nothing speculative about it, and by definition, anything that reduces the importance of a thing degrades it. Furhtermore, getting defensive and calling me names doesn't bolster your position. I am about as unhomophobic as an individual can be. In fact, I don't think that homosexuals (true homosexuals) have any choice in their prefrence. It is my firm belief that the condition is comletely organic. I don't hate homosexuals any more than I hate people with sicle cell anemia or downs syndrome.

Children are the entire focus of marriage. Since the dawn of our history, marriage has been the means of raising the next generation. Individually, we have all sorts of reasons for marrying but as a society, there is only one reason, that is, to form a long term bond in order to raise children to adulthood. It is best to look at marriage from a cultural standpoint.

The big picture is what is important. If you want to start redefining marriage based upon individual reasons for getting married, then you get into all possible reasons that individuals may want to get married. Can you give me a legal reason to allow homosexuals to marry, but not a trio?, or two couples or any of the other permutations that couples or trios, or larger groups may desire?

And actually suburbanine, I have not found a set of statistics that show that families of one race are better than another. Family is the thing. True, financial situation has an effect, but among all groups and all races, family is the single most important factor.

And I won't answer your last paragraph. It was nothing but an attack on me, and not my position. In fact, most of your statement was an attack on me. If you want to help me change my mind, then develop a more powerful argument than my own. Attacking me only exposes the weakness of your own position.

Pale RIder · Mar 30, 2004, 06:07 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
If you want to help out heterosexual marriages, why don't we get a ban on adultary?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I would not have any problem at all with having a punishment attached to adultry. Not stoning or anything like that, but adultry is a most grevious breech of contract and does warrant some form of punishment. As I said, thinking people should be trying to bring marriage back to its cultural importance rather than diminishing that importance by redefining it.

Pale RIder · Mar 30, 2004, 06:12 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
Pale Rider,
Look at the teen suicide and depression statistics in the Scandanavian countries. The numbers don't lie. Now take those little numbers move them to the US and multiply them by an order of magnitude. The problems that the welfare state has created will be small time compared to the new crop of social ills we will have created.

So you attribute the increase in suicides and depression stats to be 'proof' of the evils that changing the requirements for marriage participation cause? are not scandanavian countries extremely socialist n general when compared to the US, including total national medical care and retirement care? You are correct - numbers don't lie - but liars use numbers...
michael<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I don't have time to answer your entire post this morning, but I suggest that if you are really interested, look at the teen suicide and depression numbers prior to the institutionalization of homosexual marriage. Watch the numbers climb in proportion to the reduction of heterosexual marriage.

I don't argue that it is the homosexual marriages that are hurting the children of heterosexuals. It is the overall fewer number of marriages that are damaging the kids. Kids born outside of a mom dad family are simply more likely to have emotional problems. This fact can not be denied.

If you want to ignore fact and simply blame the problems that kids are having on socialism, then isn't the introduction of homosexual marriage to our culture a giant step towards socialism and is there a reason we would not expect the same problems here?

Leopard · Mar 30, 2004, 12:15 pm

I don't argue that it is the homosexual marriages that are hurting the children of heterosexuals. It is the overall fewer number of marriages that are damaging the kids. Kids born outside of a mom dad family are simply more likely to have emotional problems. This fact can not be denied.

I don't argue that there are MANY factors that may or may not contribute to potentially 'damaging' children. I argue that it is simply not the place of government to 'try' and determine what is 'best' (this is QUITE a subjective term) and then force, by law or decree, everyone to capitulate. People in 'society' will (and do) determine for themselves which is the 'best' way according to their own morals & values - it is wrong to force your (or my) values/morals upon everyone else as if we were omnicient<sp?>.

michael

damnrad · Mar 30, 2004, 03:23 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pale RIder,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Suburbanite,)

We don't know that. That is speculative bullshit. It isn't degrading it, that is hardly factual, that is just your homophobic feelings rearing there ugly head. Seeing as states WITHOUT bans on homosexual marriages have an over all lower divorce rate to states with it, I don't think homosexuals will degrade anything. You can't simply say it is a problem because of your own bigotry without proof. Even if you express heterosexual couples as more capable of raising children it has no bearing. I am sure there are statistics showing one race is better at parenting than another, should they not reproduce or adopt? Should the poor not reproduce because wealthier families raise more successful children?
Say what you're thinking, the act of a man sticking his penis in another man's asshole makes you want to punch something. Either that or you’re just bandwagoning with the Christian Right’s last ditch attempts at the third great awakening.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

We do know it, and there is nothing speculative about it, and by definition, anything that reduces the importance of a thing degrades it. Furhtermore, getting defensive and calling me names doesn't bolster your position. I am about as unhomophobic as an individual can be. In fact, I don't think that homosexuals (true homosexuals) have any choice in their prefrence. It is my firm belief that the condition is comletely organic. I don't hate homosexuals any more than I hate people with sicle cell anemia or downs syndrome.

Children are the entire focus of marriage. Since the dawn of our history, marriage has been the means of raising the next generation. Individually, we have all sorts of reasons for marrying but as a society, there is only one reason, that is, to form a long term bond in order to raise children to adulthood. It is best to look at marriage from a cultural standpoint.

The big picture is what is important. If you want to start redefining marriage based upon individual reasons for getting married, then you get into all possible reasons that individuals may want to get married. Can you give me a legal reason to allow homosexuals to marry, but not a trio?, or two couples or any of the other permutations that couples or trios, or larger groups may desire?

And actually suburbanine, I have not found a set of statistics that show that families of one race are better than another. Family is the thing. True, financial situation has an effect, but among all groups and all races, family is the single most important factor.

And I won't answer your last paragraph. It was nothing but an attack on me, and not my position. In fact, most of your statement was an attack on me. If you want to help me change my mind, then develop a more powerful argument than my own. Attacking me only exposes the weakness of your own position.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Children the sole reason for marriage, from 'the dawn of our history'? Nonsense! The raising of children has been a major function of family systems, yes -- a great variety of family systems. Our current system, the nuclear family, most often with a broken nucleus, is not the form of family system that has been most-prominent, nor most-successful, in raising children. Neither is it the system of OUR history, which emphasized extended families. Whether the capitalist nuclear family can survive, and whether human society can survive it -- those are open questions. But varied family systems co-exist even in the U.S., some of them do quite well in raising children, and the successful ones do not necessarily rely upon a nucleus of a single woman plus a single man.

But marriage, what have been it's functions 'since the dawn of our history'? There have been many. True, taking responsibility for the upbringing of children has sometimes been one such function -- most often, the taking of responsibility by extended family systems, whether that involved their being united by a marriage or involved their apportioning the responsibility to one extended family or another. Note further, that marriage very often signalled an extended family's taking responsibility for, and/or control over, a spouse, in addition to any children that would ensue. But what other functions were played by marriage? Most often, the disposition of property, sometimes political alliance of tribes, clans, or families. But all of the anthropological and historical discussion (the 'since the dawn of our history stuff) is irrelevant to our current concerns. What is the role of marriage today in the U.S.? Several roles can be noted: formal acknowledgement of a relationship with a significant other; taking responsibility, largely economic, for a spouse; taking responsibility for children, to raise them as well as to provide for them economically; disposition of property at the creation of a new household; disposition of, and allocation of rights to, benefits; and so on. In none of these cases is it important what the sexes of the participants are, other than indirectly: in the conception of children. The connection is indirect because taking responsibility for children does not necessarily mean participants' taking responsibility for those that the participants have themselves conceived -- witness adoption.

The problem is not degredation of the role of raising of children -- it is that for many religious people, marriage also has a religious meaning that excludes certain types of relationships. Most deny the meaning to gay unions; but historically (and not so far back in history), other denials were prominent: particularly religious 'mixed marriages,' not to mention inter-racial marriages. And the big problem is that marriage has been an institution of the state as well as an institution of religions in a country that is supposed to observe a separation of church and state. That has created major problems.

I have suggested that the best ultimate approach may be for the state to get out of the marriage business altogether. Let 'marriage' be the province of religion and culture (and some of marriage has always been a cultural property divisible from religion). Let the state sanction civil unions. Such an approach could be nondiscriminatory, because it would apply to all unions, heterosexual or homosexual. Would it go currently? No, because people are used to marriage. But the cultural changes the country is undergoing, including greater numbers of civil unions of gay partners, may change that.

Mia · Mar 30, 2004, 05:46 pm

In defense of Pale Rider's position: it has absoulutely been proven that children of broken homes and single-parent homes have more of the problems mentioned. I have not read this about children of homosexual homes and I cannot think right now of other "non-traditional" homes, but the first two I know have been shown to be counter-productive to children.

And I've seen it myself. I babysat all through high school and part of college. The children of intact, two-parent homes are better adjusted, have higher self-esteem, and less personality problems.

Pale RIder · Mar 30, 2004, 06:22 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,)
Children the sole reason for marriage, from 'the dawn of our history'? Nonsense! The raising of children has been a major function of family systems, yes -- a great variety of family systems. Our current system, the nuclear family, most often with a broken nucleus, is not the form of family system that has been most-prominent, nor most-successful, in raising children. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I don’t know if you mischaracterized what I said right off the bat on purpose, or if it was inadvertent. Since I don’t know you, I will assume that it was unintentional. I never said that children were the sole reason for marriage. I said that marriage has been the means of raising the next generation. I am aware, that marriage has happened for political reasons, and economical reasons, and numerous other reasons. BUT, those marriages were not typical of any society. The fact is, that for the vast, vast, overwhelming majority of all of the people that have ever existed, marriage served the purpose of creating a long term stable relationship for the raising of a family. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,)

Our current system, the nuclear family, most often with a broken nucleus, is not the form of family system that has been most-prominent, nor most-successful, in raising children.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

For all of your wordy rebuttal, you zipped right by the nexus of your argument; the one statement that the rest hinges upon. Please describe for me the most prominent and successful means of raising children. I am not unlearned in the field of cultural anthropology and my studies haven’t revealed a preferred method of raising children.

Since the rest of your argument hinges upon the truth of this statement, I will hold off answering the rest until you have demonstrated that the 1 man, 1 woman relationship has not been the dominant, and most successful means of raising children for most of humanity for the period of recorded history.

NORMLperson · Mar 31, 2004, 04:01 pm

If I could chime in,
I think there is obviously an overwhelming pull to recognize gay marriages (media term). I'm one of those pulling that they do get recognized. Perhaps we can remember or perhaps learn more values from this current movement of queer (academic term) couples demanding that their committments to their partners be recognized. Look at the state of our teen pregnancy rate and high divorce rates among heterosexual partners.
Thank You

Mar 30, 2004, 02:01 am	#241 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Suburbanite,) I’m sorry but seeing as 50% of women don’t work, whereas 5% of men don’t I can’t see how I am wrong. Marriage under government has become a relational crutch for women to feel comfortable in the home.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I'm not sure that 50% is even correct, but I don't have any info to counter. However, the women who are at home raising children are definitely working.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I don't know where you got those numbers, but according to the 2002 US Census, 60% of women and 74% of men are in the work force. Factor in that a greater % of the "non-working" women are taking care of children than men, I'd wager men are the "lazier" group here! "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 30, 2004, 02:16 am	#242 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Pale Rider, I don't have any kind of agenda, but I have pretty much made up my mind on this, I will admit. That is not to say that information contradicting my opinion would not change it, I just haven't seen any, or enough. The percentage of non-traditional families you mentioned were not all homosexual, I would presume. When I asked you to cite I was not being sarcastic. Statistics have to be looked at very carefully and all of the context considered before establishing any conclusions. I don't see anything in what you posted that indicated homosexual marriage's affect on anything. The issue angers me because we spend way too much time worrying about things that are not bothering us at all instead of on real issues. Not to mention the argument against is largely religious. Last time I checked, premarital sex and adultary are also sins, but we're not prosecuting anyone over it. Homosexuality is more like these two than pedopilia in that they are all acts between two consenting adults. But people prefer to compare it to pedophilia because that's where their opinion about it ranks. Also, last time I checked, religion is not supposed to play a role in our laws. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 30, 2004, 03:40 am	#243 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) I don't know where you got those numbers, but according to the 2002 US Census, 60% of women and 74% of men are in the work force. Factor in that a greater % of the "non-working" women are taking care of children than men, I'd wager men are the "lazier" group here!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Like I explained raising children is a temporary and extremely simple Job. Don't make it out to be more than it is. Second, you show again, women are working far less. The only source I could find was the 2000 census though, relocate me to your source though.

Mar 30, 2004, 03:57 am	#244 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	The 2000 census didn't show near 50%, unless you mean 50% of mothers with children under age one. http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-544.pdf The job of raising children (well) is anything but simple. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 30, 2004, 05:49 am	#245 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	There's only a 14% difference. More than 14% of the population has children. Let's reduce it to economics. In those families (most, I bet) where the wife would earn the same or LESS than what day-care would cost, how does it make sense for her to work and have someone else raise her kids? I really don't understand your argument. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 30, 2004, 06:04 am	#246 (permalink) (top)
Pale RIder Hot Lava Posts: 1,023	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Suburbanite,) We don't know that. That is speculative bullshit. It isn't degrading it, that is hardly factual, that is just your homophobic feelings rearing there ugly head. Seeing as states WITHOUT bans on homosexual marriages have an over all lower divorce rate to states with it, I don't think homosexuals will degrade anything. You can't simply say it is a problem because of your own bigotry without proof. Even if you express heterosexual couples as more capable of raising children it has no bearing. I am sure there are statistics showing one race is better at parenting than another, should they not reproduce or adopt? Should the poor not reproduce because wealthier families raise more successful children? Say what you're thinking, the act of a man sticking his penis in another man's asshole makes you want to punch something. Either that or you’re just bandwagoning with the Christian Right’s last ditch attempts at the third great awakening.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> We do know it, and there is nothing speculative about it, and by definition, anything that reduces the importance of a thing degrades it. Furhtermore, getting defensive and calling me names doesn't bolster your position. I am about as unhomophobic as an individual can be. In fact, I don't think that homosexuals (true homosexuals) have any choice in their prefrence. It is my firm belief that the condition is comletely organic. I don't hate homosexuals any more than I hate people with sicle cell anemia or downs syndrome. Children are the entire focus of marriage. Since the dawn of our history, marriage has been the means of raising the next generation. Individually, we have all sorts of reasons for marrying but as a society, there is only one reason, that is, to form a long term bond in order to raise children to adulthood. It is best to look at marriage from a cultural standpoint. The big picture is what is important. If you want to start redefining marriage based upon individual reasons for getting married, then you get into all possible reasons that individuals may want to get married. Can you give me a legal reason to allow homosexuals to marry, but not a trio?, or two couples or any of the other permutations that couples or trios, or larger groups may desire? And actually suburbanine, I have not found a set of statistics that show that families of one race are better than another. Family is the thing. True, financial situation has an effect, but among all groups and all races, family is the single most important factor. And I won't answer your last paragraph. It was nothing but an attack on me, and not my position. In fact, most of your statement was an attack on me. If you want to help me change my mind, then develop a more powerful argument than my own. Attacking me only exposes the weakness of your own position. It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

Mar 30, 2004, 06:07 am	#247 (permalink) (top)
Pale RIder Hot Lava Posts: 1,023	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) If you want to help out heterosexual marriages, why don't we get a ban on adultary?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I would not have any problem at all with having a punishment attached to adultry. Not stoning or anything like that, but adultry is a most grevious breech of contract and does warrant some form of punishment. As I said, thinking people should be trying to bring marriage back to its cultural importance rather than diminishing that importance by redefining it. It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

Mar 30, 2004, 06:12 am	#248 (permalink) (top)
Pale RIder Hot Lava Posts: 1,023	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,) Pale Rider, Look at the teen suicide and depression statistics in the Scandanavian countries. The numbers don't lie. Now take those little numbers move them to the US and multiply them by an order of magnitude. The problems that the welfare state has created will be small time compared to the new crop of social ills we will have created. So you attribute the increase in suicides and depression stats to be 'proof' of the evils that changing the requirements for marriage participation cause? are not scandanavian countries extremely socialist n general when compared to the US, including total national medical care and retirement care? You are correct - numbers don't lie - but liars use numbers... michael<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I don't have time to answer your entire post this morning, but I suggest that if you are really interested, look at the teen suicide and depression numbers prior to the institutionalization of homosexual marriage. Watch the numbers climb in proportion to the reduction of heterosexual marriage. I don't argue that it is the homosexual marriages that are hurting the children of heterosexuals. It is the overall fewer number of marriages that are damaging the kids. Kids born outside of a mom dad family are simply more likely to have emotional problems. This fact can not be denied. If you want to ignore fact and simply blame the problems that kids are having on socialism, then isn't the introduction of homosexual marriage to our culture a giant step towards socialism and is there a reason we would not expect the same problems here? It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

Mar 30, 2004, 12:15 pm	#249 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	I don't argue that it is the homosexual marriages that are hurting the children of heterosexuals. It is the overall fewer number of marriages that are damaging the kids. Kids born outside of a mom dad family are simply more likely to have emotional problems. This fact can not be denied. I don't argue that there are MANY factors that may or may not contribute to potentially 'damaging' children. I argue that it is simply not the place of government to 'try' and determine what is 'best' (this is QUITE a subjective term) and then force, by law or decree, everyone to capitulate. People in 'society' will (and do) determine for themselves which is the 'best' way according to their own morals & values - it is wrong to force your (or my) values/morals upon everyone else as if we were omnicient<sp?>. michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Mar 30, 2004, 03:23 pm	#250 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pale RIder,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Suburbanite,) We don't know that. That is speculative bullshit. It isn't degrading it, that is hardly factual, that is just your homophobic feelings rearing there ugly head. Seeing as states WITHOUT bans on homosexual marriages have an over all lower divorce rate to states with it, I don't think homosexuals will degrade anything. You can't simply say it is a problem because of your own bigotry without proof. Even if you express heterosexual couples as more capable of raising children it has no bearing. I am sure there are statistics showing one race is better at parenting than another, should they not reproduce or adopt? Should the poor not reproduce because wealthier families raise more successful children? Say what you're thinking, the act of a man sticking his penis in another man's asshole makes you want to punch something. Either that or you’re just bandwagoning with the Christian Right’s last ditch attempts at the third great awakening.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> We do know it, and there is nothing speculative about it, and by definition, anything that reduces the importance of a thing degrades it. Furhtermore, getting defensive and calling me names doesn't bolster your position. I am about as unhomophobic as an individual can be. In fact, I don't think that homosexuals (true homosexuals) have any choice in their prefrence. It is my firm belief that the condition is comletely organic. I don't hate homosexuals any more than I hate people with sicle cell anemia or downs syndrome. Children are the entire focus of marriage. Since the dawn of our history, marriage has been the means of raising the next generation. Individually, we have all sorts of reasons for marrying but as a society, there is only one reason, that is, to form a long term bond in order to raise children to adulthood. It is best to look at marriage from a cultural standpoint. The big picture is what is important. If you want to start redefining marriage based upon individual reasons for getting married, then you get into all possible reasons that individuals may want to get married. Can you give me a legal reason to allow homosexuals to marry, but not a trio?, or two couples or any of the other permutations that couples or trios, or larger groups may desire? And actually suburbanine, I have not found a set of statistics that show that families of one race are better than another. Family is the thing. True, financial situation has an effect, but among all groups and all races, family is the single most important factor. And I won't answer your last paragraph. It was nothing but an attack on me, and not my position. In fact, most of your statement was an attack on me. If you want to help me change my mind, then develop a more powerful argument than my own. Attacking me only exposes the weakness of your own position.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Children the sole reason for marriage, from 'the dawn of our history'? Nonsense! The raising of children has been a major function of family systems, yes -- a great variety of family systems. Our current system, the nuclear family, most often with a broken nucleus, is not the form of family system that has been most-prominent, nor most-successful, in raising children. Neither is it the system of OUR history, which emphasized extended families. Whether the capitalist nuclear family can survive, and whether human society can survive it -- those are open questions. But varied family systems co-exist even in the U.S., some of them do quite well in raising children, and the successful ones do not necessarily rely upon a nucleus of a single woman plus a single man. But marriage, what have been it's functions 'since the dawn of our history'? There have been many. True, taking responsibility for the upbringing of children has sometimes been one such function -- most often, the taking of responsibility by extended family systems, whether that involved their being united by a marriage or involved their apportioning the responsibility to one extended family or another. Note further, that marriage very often signalled an extended family's taking responsibility for, and/or control over, a spouse, in addition to any children that would ensue. But what other functions were played by marriage? Most often, the disposition of property, sometimes political alliance of tribes, clans, or families. But all of the anthropological and historical discussion (the 'since the dawn of our history stuff) is irrelevant to our current concerns. What is the role of marriage today in the U.S.? Several roles can be noted: formal acknowledgement of a relationship with a significant other; taking responsibility, largely economic, for a spouse; taking responsibility for children, to raise them as well as to provide for them economically; disposition of property at the creation of a new household; disposition of, and allocation of rights to, benefits; and so on. In none of these cases is it important what the sexes of the participants are, other than indirectly: in the conception of children. The connection is indirect because taking responsibility for children does not necessarily mean participants' taking responsibility for those that the participants have themselves conceived -- witness adoption. The problem is not degredation of the role of raising of children -- it is that for many religious people, marriage also has a religious meaning that excludes certain types of relationships. Most deny the meaning to gay unions; but historically (and not so far back in history), other denials were prominent: particularly religious 'mixed marriages,' not to mention inter-racial marriages. And the big problem is that marriage has been an institution of the state as well as an institution of religions in a country that is supposed to observe a separation of church and state. That has created major problems. I have suggested that the best ultimate approach may be for the state to get out of the marriage business altogether. Let 'marriage' be the province of religion and culture (and some of marriage has always been a cultural property divisible from religion). Let the state sanction civil unions. Such an approach could be nondiscriminatory, because it would apply to all unions, heterosexual or homosexual. Would it go currently? No, because people are used to marriage. But the cultural changes the country is undergoing, including greater numbers of civil unions of gay partners, may change that.

Mar 30, 2004, 05:46 pm	#251 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	In defense of Pale Rider's position: it has absoulutely been proven that children of broken homes and single-parent homes have more of the problems mentioned. I have not read this about children of homosexual homes and I cannot think right now of other "non-traditional" homes, but the first two I know have been shown to be counter-productive to children. And I've seen it myself. I babysat all through high school and part of college. The children of intact, two-parent homes are better adjusted, have higher self-esteem, and less personality problems. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 30, 2004, 06:22 pm	#252 (permalink) (top)
Pale RIder Hot Lava Posts: 1,023	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,) Children the sole reason for marriage, from 'the dawn of our history'? Nonsense! The raising of children has been a major function of family systems, yes -- a great variety of family systems. Our current system, the nuclear family, most often with a broken nucleus, is not the form of family system that has been most-prominent, nor most-successful, in raising children. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I don’t know if you mischaracterized what I said right off the bat on purpose, or if it was inadvertent. Since I don’t know you, I will assume that it was unintentional. I never said that children were the sole reason for marriage. I said that marriage has been the means of raising the next generation. I am aware, that marriage has happened for political reasons, and economical reasons, and numerous other reasons. BUT, those marriages were not typical of any society. The fact is, that for the vast, vast, overwhelming majority of all of the people that have ever existed, marriage served the purpose of creating a long term stable relationship for the raising of a family. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,) Our current system, the nuclear family, most often with a broken nucleus, is not the form of family system that has been most-prominent, nor most-successful, in raising children.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> For all of your wordy rebuttal, you zipped right by the nexus of your argument; the one statement that the rest hinges upon. Please describe for me the most prominent and successful means of raising children. I am not unlearned in the field of cultural anthropology and my studies haven’t revealed a preferred method of raising children. Since the rest of your argument hinges upon the truth of this statement, I will hold off answering the rest until you have demonstrated that the 1 man, 1 woman relationship has not been the dominant, and most successful means of raising children for most of humanity for the period of recorded history. It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

Mar 31, 2004, 04:01 pm	#253 (permalink) (top)
NORMLperson Molten Ash Posts: 31	If I could chime in, I think there is obviously an overwhelming pull to recognize gay marriages (media term). I'm one of those pulling that they do get recognized. Perhaps we can remember or perhaps learn more values from this current movement of queer (academic term) couples demanding that their committments to their partners be recognized. Look at the state of our teen pregnancy rate and high divorce rates among heterosexual partners. Thank You