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

Starboy · Jan 23, 2005, 11:14 pm

Quote:

Quote by: mr.perfecto

Today, people get married because they will have joint custody of a child and want legal rights with reguard to the relationship that produced the child.

So why do old people who will never be able to have children get married?

Starboy

mr.perfecto · Jan 23, 2005, 11:17 pm

How old is too old to have kids? There seems to be a new record every decade or so.

Starboy · Jan 23, 2005, 11:27 pm

People old enough to have their uterus or testis removed because of one kind of cancer or anther. Why do these people get married? They are not going to have kids. And if they are that old they don't want kids. Nobody relishes the idea of having to deal with a teenager when they are ninety. So why would they get married?

Starboy

mr.perfecto · Jan 24, 2005, 12:26 am

A person can get cancer at any age.

I have never heard of a person ninety years old getting married, but asking that question is a bit like asking why a person applies for welfare when they don't need it. At any rate I suspect old folks get married to reinforce the idea in young peoples' minds that you have to get married before you have sex.

The real question isn't why a certain individual gets married, but why does society have marriage in the first place.

Starboy · Jan 24, 2005, 12:40 am

Quote:

Quote by: mr.perfecto

The real question isn't why a certain individual gets married, but why does society have marriage in the first place.

Fine. Why does society allow people who cannot and or will not have children to get married?

Starboy

mr.perfecto · Jan 24, 2005, 03:41 am

We don't, that's what all the complaining is about. Isn't it?

Starboy · Jan 24, 2005, 09:00 am

mr.perfecto it is now clear. You are a troll.

Starboy

tinybear · Jan 24, 2005, 09:03 am

It's equally clear that, if he is, you've been feeding him a banquet. :)

Starboy · Jan 24, 2005, 09:05 am

That was my goal. But he is such a big troll it took a great deal to get him to choke on it.

Starboy

tinybear · Jan 24, 2005, 09:08 am

So it seems (we're on page 35 now).

mr.perfecto · Jan 24, 2005, 11:29 am

Any trolling skills I possess are merely reflections of your own skill, O master of the perfect insult.

Actually, guess it shows how ignorant I am about board slang, I had to look up "troll." Can you even be a troll on a discussion forum? I certainly don't see how I am one. I didn't start this topic, and I haven't insulted anyone. I haven't thrown out ridiculous opinions that completely disreguard common knowledge and I have backed up my assertions with testable facts.

You based your position on the idea that marriage is simply society's way of recognizing a family, but when that assumption is challenged you can't defend it. It's pretty low to call me a troll after you find that your position is indefensible.

Starboy · Jan 24, 2005, 11:35 am

No, I base my observation that you will make the stupidest replies to avoid acknowledging that which is obvious. I suspect you would cut off you own nose to avoid admitting it. That is what makes you a troll. You know you don’t have a leg to stand on so rather than being honest about it you will resort to any sort of absurdity to avoid it.

Starboy

mr.perfecto · Jan 24, 2005, 12:49 pm

It may be obvious to you that marriage is some sort of recognition of a family, but there is good evidence (all of it actually) that it is not. I provided it.

As far as I know, there hasn't been a need for a "recognition of a family" license. Anyone with third grade understanding of biology can understand what the words "mother," "father," and "child" mean.

Starboy · Jan 24, 2005, 01:09 pm

The thing you do not appear to understand perfecto is that marriage does indeed include the things you have been talking about, but it is also bigger than that. Every couple that society does recognize as married adds to what society tries to accomplish when it recognizes that marriage.

Starboy

mr.perfecto · Jan 24, 2005, 05:05 pm

If there was only one married couple in the nation, what society was trying to accomplish would not change. Only changing the rules for marriage could do that.

Starboy · Jan 24, 2005, 05:08 pm

And if your aunt had balls she would be your uncle. So what? There is not one couple in the nation. Get over it.

Starboy

mr.perfecto · Jan 24, 2005, 05:30 pm

It doesn't matter how many married couples there are in the nation. The number of people who are married does not change the purpose of marriage.

RickSp · Jan 24, 2005, 06:20 pm

Quote:

Quote by: mr.perfecto

It doesn't matter how many married couples there are in the nation. The number of people who are married does not change the purpose of marriage.

When your ideals get that divorced, so to speak, from practical reality, don't you think it might be time to reconsider them?

fogus · Jan 24, 2005, 06:36 pm

For all those who say that same-sex couples will not interfere with the religious beliefs of some people who want nothing to do with homosexuals:

A lesbian couple will appear today before BC's Human Rights Tribunal to argue they were discriminated against by a Catholic men's group that refused to rent its Coquitlam hall to the couple for their wedding reception.
...Under the Human Rights Code, a service or facility that is normally available to the public must be available to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

fogus · Jan 24, 2005, 06:50 pm

When someone tells me that the are being indoctrinated it tells me that they are being taught something.

Billy: "I sat in class all day and listened to indoctrination. I have been brain washed into believing what my teachers believe. They don’t let me make up my own mind."
Billy's mom: "What kind of horrible things have the agenda pushing teachers been teaching you?!?"
Billy: "That I have to look both ways before I cross the street"

Quote:

It's ok to shove an agenda down children's throats just so long as it's the right agenda?

Yeah, just like I can teach that 1+1=2.

View Poll Results: In my opinion, homosexual marriage is
A civil rights issue. Anyone should be able to marry anyone	321	43.73%
A distraction from the real issues of government	90	12.26%
An unacceptable redefinition of a traditional concept	77	10.49%
Morally wrong since homosexuality is morally wrong	98	13.35%
A private matter between the couple and their minister	64	8.72%
Other-I will explain below	59	8.04%
A celebration of diversity	25	3.41%
Voters: 734. You may not vote

Jan 24, 2005, 06:36 pm	#359 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	For all those who say that same-sex couples will not interfere with the religious beliefs of some people who want nothing to do with homosexuals: A lesbian couple will appear today before BC's Human Rights Tribunal to argue they were discriminated against by a Catholic men's group that refused to rent its Coquitlam hall to the couple for their wedding reception. ...Under the Human Rights Code, a service or facility that is normally available to the public must be available to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. ~Fogus

Jan 23, 2005, 11:17 pm	#342 (permalink) (top)
mr.perfecto Igneous Magma Posts: 632	How old is too old to have kids? There seems to be a new record every decade or so.

Jan 23, 2005, 11:27 pm	#343 (permalink) (top)
Starboy BANNED: Repeated insults Posts: 4,828	People old enough to have their uterus or testis removed because of one kind of cancer or anther. Why do these people get married? They are not going to have kids. And if they are that old they don't want kids. Nobody relishes the idea of having to deal with a teenager when they are ninety. So why would they get married? Starboy

Jan 24, 2005, 12:26 am	#344 (permalink) (top)
mr.perfecto Igneous Magma Posts: 632	A person can get cancer at any age. I have never heard of a person ninety years old getting married, but asking that question is a bit like asking why a person applies for welfare when they don't need it. At any rate I suspect old folks get married to reinforce the idea in young peoples' minds that you have to get married before you have sex. The real question isn't why a certain individual gets married, but why does society have marriage in the first place.

Jan 24, 2005, 03:41 am	#346 (permalink) (top)
mr.perfecto Igneous Magma Posts: 632	We don't, that's what all the complaining is about. Isn't it?

Jan 24, 2005, 09:00 am	#347 (permalink) (top)
Starboy BANNED: Repeated insults Posts: 4,828	mr.perfecto it is now clear. You are a troll. Starboy

Jan 24, 2005, 09:03 am	#348 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,017	It's equally clear that, if he is, you've been feeding him a banquet. :)

Jan 24, 2005, 09:05 am	#349 (permalink) (top)
Starboy BANNED: Repeated insults Posts: 4,828	That was my goal. But he is such a big troll it took a great deal to get him to choke on it. Starboy

Jan 24, 2005, 09:08 am	#350 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,017	So it seems (we're on page 35 now).

Jan 24, 2005, 11:29 am	#351 (permalink) (top)
mr.perfecto Igneous Magma Posts: 632	Any trolling skills I possess are merely reflections of your own skill, O master of the perfect insult. Actually, guess it shows how ignorant I am about board slang, I had to look up "troll." Can you even be a troll on a discussion forum? I certainly don't see how I am one. I didn't start this topic, and I haven't insulted anyone. I haven't thrown out ridiculous opinions that completely disreguard common knowledge and I have backed up my assertions with testable facts. You based your position on the idea that marriage is simply society's way of recognizing a family, but when that assumption is challenged you can't defend it. It's pretty low to call me a troll after you find that your position is indefensible.

Jan 24, 2005, 11:35 am	#352 (permalink) (top)
Starboy BANNED: Repeated insults Posts: 4,828	No, I base my observation that you will make the stupidest replies to avoid acknowledging that which is obvious. I suspect you would cut off you own nose to avoid admitting it. That is what makes you a troll. You know you don’t have a leg to stand on so rather than being honest about it you will resort to any sort of absurdity to avoid it. Starboy

Jan 24, 2005, 12:49 pm	#353 (permalink) (top)
mr.perfecto Igneous Magma Posts: 632	It may be obvious to you that marriage is some sort of recognition of a family, but there is good evidence (all of it actually) that it is not. I provided it. As far as I know, there hasn't been a need for a "recognition of a family" license. Anyone with third grade understanding of biology can understand what the words "mother," "father," and "child" mean.

Jan 24, 2005, 01:09 pm	#354 (permalink) (top)
Starboy BANNED: Repeated insults Posts: 4,828	The thing you do not appear to understand perfecto is that marriage does indeed include the things you have been talking about, but it is also bigger than that. Every couple that society does recognize as married adds to what society tries to accomplish when it recognizes that marriage. Starboy

Jan 24, 2005, 05:05 pm	#355 (permalink) (top)
mr.perfecto Igneous Magma Posts: 632	If there was only one married couple in the nation, what society was trying to accomplish would not change. Only changing the rules for marriage could do that.

Jan 24, 2005, 05:08 pm	#356 (permalink) (top)
Starboy BANNED: Repeated insults Posts: 4,828	And if your aunt had balls she would be your uncle. So what? There is not one couple in the nation. Get over it. Starboy

Jan 24, 2005, 05:30 pm	#357 (permalink) (top)
mr.perfecto Igneous Magma Posts: 632	It doesn't matter how many married couples there are in the nation. The number of people who are married does not change the purpose of marriage.