Mandatory Marriage - Why Not?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by smilingsarah82
jsobecky,
(the bold is my reply to your questions)

Originally posted by jsobecky

******************** flag the beginning of my responses

smilingsarah82
Marriage is for two adults that love each other. How about two women?
thats why i said ADULTS that love each other, if two women want to get married, why not. they can adopt a kid, if they really want kids.

___________________________________________
*****************************
I totally agree with you on this one.
___________________________________________
True that there are many kids put up for adoption. Try to find a healthy blue-eyed blonde baby with blonde hair to adopt. Then try to find a minority child to adopt. You know where you'll have the most luck.
but your missing the point on this one here. your soooo worried about the kids not having ONE parent, i was making a statement about kids having NO parents. who cares if the kid is a blonde hair blue eyed or a minority, that dosn't matter, what matters is that they are parentless.
__________________________________________
***********************************
My comments on adoption were in response to you, who brought it up.

I'm not sooo worried about kids with just one parent. But -trying to be tactful here- there are many more minority kids that will go unadopted, will be parentless.

___________________________________________



What about the baby produced from the drunken one-night stand? Or the single mother with 5 kids by 5 different fathers. Or the single man with a half-dozen offspring?
what about them? these people need to learn birthcontrol. yeah so the father dosn't give a flying * but its the mothers who are taking care of the child. like i said before it is a TWO way street. if the father runs out, then its solely up to the mother to raise the child (or the other way around) just because he ran out, dosn't mean that the child is going to grow up a thug. that has to do by the way the child was raised

Take the guy to court for child support. He makes $200/week. Split that up 5 ways - on paper, of course - because he'll probably never pay it anyway. How can you raise a kid on that?
you can't really, but so you think manditory marriage is better.
__________________________________________
************************************
So what if he says, too bad, I'm gonna father a dozen kids and not worry about what happens to them. They become a drain on society, and we end up dealing with it.

I say, let's put real consequences on those who enjoy reckless, unprotected sex and then dump the kids on society to deal with. Men and women both.

I also say to those who are against same-sex marriage and say that it should be used to procreate the species: OK, fine. Then GET MARRIED WHEN YOU MAKE A BABY. Don't just use the argument for your convenience.

__________________________________________


who cares about the maury show, its only there for ratings, half the people on that show are people getting paid to say that. its not real life
____________________________________________
***************************************

It's not too far from the truth in many cases.

____________________________________________

My main point of this post was to shoot down opposition to gay marriage on the grounds that it's main purpose is pro-creation.
how can you say that its pro-creation. there are quite a few woman-woman couples that get inceminated (sp) or have a child, by having a male friend get them pregnant. or adopt a child.

____________________________________________
*************************************
You're missing my point, which I stated several times: I didn't say it. I'm shooting down the notion that pro-creation is the primary purpose of marriage, and should thus belong only to heterosexuals. I'm using it as an argument to support same-sex marriage.

john





posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   
It's a flawed concept.

But how about mandatory adoption? Specifically, no baby farming through surrogate mothers, no science induced puppy litters of 6 kids for some 40 year old woman.
You want babies? Adopt those already neglected on this earth. Do that for, let's say 3 yrs, and then you can get a science baby.
God knows how many of mankinds adnvancers have been withered saplings.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 02:08 PM
link   
My wife's coworker had an idea. Why must you be homosexual? What if two heterosexuals want to become married for tax reasons? What is the judge going to say, "No, you can't because you two aren't attracted to one another?


I have to admit, it caused me to pause and think about that point.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
What is the judge going to say, "No, you can't because you two aren't attracted to one another?


I have to admit, it caused me to pause and think about that point.

Whoa! And if the guys were single fathers and owned properties? That is some great tax benefits! Interesting point TC.

Now, how do you ask your buddy to marry you in a hetro way? "Need another beer? Cool. So hey, you and I have been friends a long time right? Well..."



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   
LOL! Yeah, a touchy one there. Better not do it while on a hunting trip!



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 10:02 PM
link   
john-


I'm not sooo worried about kids with just one parent. But -trying to be tactful here- there are many more minority kids that will go unadopted, will be parentless.

yeah, they may go unadopted, i was just trying to state that you were worring about the single parent kids, all i was trying to say was what about the parentless kids




So what if he says, too bad, I'm gonna father a dozen kids and not worry about what happens to them. They become a drain on society, and we end up dealing with it.....Don't just use the argument for your convenience.

ITS A TWO WAY STREET, yeah, he may father a dozen kids, and not care, but its then up to the mother to raise the child, yeah the father has a little to do with it, but it is now up to the mother to raise the child, and maybe by herself. you can't put all the blame on the runaway father. if the mother is too woried about the father leaving and not about the kids, than she's an idiot. the mother is now the one to raise them, so if they turn up bad, than its mostly her fault.



You're missing my point, which I stated several times: I didn't say it. I'm shooting down the notion that pro-creation is the primary purpose of marriage, and should thus belong only to heterosexuals. I'm using it as an argument to support same-sex marriage.

ok, so support same-sex marriage, ill support marriage between two loving consenting adults. i just think its IDIOTIC to FORCE two people into marriage because of children.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 10:09 PM
link   
We used to have something like that here in the South it was called a shotgun wedding and it just lead to wife-beating and child-abuse from men that did not want either and were not ready for either. # him just make him pay child support.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 10:18 PM
link   
This is the most obscence idiotic thing i have ever heard in my life yea thats what you need to do make people marry eachother for the sake of children, guess who is gonna loose in this situation THE CHILDREN, duh you people make me sick you want the govt to make laws to take care of things you should be doing yourself, like parenting duh thats where people get there ideas from childhood but you people are too caught up in your suvs and your huge houses so you work all the time and let your kids be raised by daycare or a baby sitter while sitting in front of the tv watching rap videos and getting their idea on correct society sexual promescuity, you sound like the same people who back the fcc so you dont have to worry about taking responsibilty in any aspect of your childrens lives just sit them down in front of the idiot box and fox and cbs will take care of them.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   
john-

Originally posted by jsobecky
OK, I would probably be considered by most as a conservative. I have two children, and am definitely a breeder (hetero). Divorced, but so what?

(from your first post) your contradicting yourself here, you say they should force marriage on two people for creating children right? then WHY ARE YOU DIVORCED. if this is soooooo important to you, and love isn't an issue than in your mind, you should have stayed married for the sake of your children.
i mean come on, its like saying dont do what i do.......



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 10:45 PM
link   
smilingsarah82

I put that info about myself at the request of a person who asked me, in another post.

Both my kids live with me; their choice. Their mother is a good person, so am I - we get along better now that we're apart.

I could have been a much better husband.

Do I wish I knew then what I know now? Of course. the kids love both of us and they are better off now. But I did support them in every way, every day.

john



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tweeker
This is the most obscence idiotic thing i have ever heard in my life yea thats what you need to do make people marry eachother for the sake of children, guess who is gonna loose in this situation THE CHILDREN, duh you people make me sick you want the govt to make laws to take care of things you should be doing yourself, like parenting duh thats where people get there ideas from childhood but you people are too caught up in your suvs and your huge houses so you work all the time and let your kids be raised by daycare or a baby sitter while sitting in front of the tv watching rap videos and getting their idea on correct society sexual promescuity, you sound like the same people who back the fcc so you dont have to worry about taking responsibilty in any aspect of your childrens lives just sit them down in front of the idiot box and fox and cbs will take care of them.


_____________________________

Thanks. I definitely needed the comic relief from someone who obviously didn't read enough of the posts to get a clue as to what we're discussing here.

john




posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
smilingsarah82

I put that info about myself at the request of a person who asked me, in another post.
Both my kids live with me; their choice. Their mother is a good person, so am I - we get along better now that we're apart.
I could have been a much better husband.
Do I wish I knew then what I know now? Of course. the kids love both of us and they are better off now. But I did support them in every way, every day.
john

so then your saying that this manditory marriage thing, your proposing is for everyone BUT you???? you are a Hypocrite!!!



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   
And you're too damn stupid to see the difference.

john



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I am COMPLETELY AGAINST same sex marriage. I think the idea makes a joke out of the basic moral value of marriage. I am a very traditional person (call me crazy)who believes in the wedding coming before the baby.

I am however, COMPLETELY FOR, Civil Unions. If a gay couple wants to be recognized....let them do it that way instead of making a mockery of morals and traditions.

As far as your Mandatory Marriage..............your heart is in the right place but your head is AWOL



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   
The last thing we want to do is desecrate the value of a marriage between a man and a woman. We all know how helpful it is to society and how often it "works out" for the couple. Why taint the sanctity of marriage by allowing gay people marrying eachother out of love...



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Venus
I am COMPLETELY AGAINST same sex marriage. I think the idea makes a joke out of the basic moral value of marriage. I am a very traditional person (call me crazy)who believes in the wedding coming before the baby.



DOES US STILL HAVE THESE PEOPLE?

This is good news I am not the only one!


its supposed to be:

marriage-sex-baby

and not

sex-baby-marraige-devorice-child support-etc.

or

sex-sex-sex-abortion-sex-sex-abort-sex-oops didnt see it coming-baby-marraige-week later-devoirce.

or

gay marriage-abopt kid-make that kid have another-gay marriage-US population growth-10.07% and kids need to be imported from China because US deosnt produce anymore.

Sorry for having ATS most worst spelling.

Orcan I get an award for that?


Out,
Russian

[Edited on 1-4-2004 by Russian]



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thorfinn Skullsplitter
The last thing we want to do is desecrate the value of a marriage between a man and a woman. We all know how helpful it is to society and how often it "works out" for the couple. Why taint the sanctity of marriage by allowing gay people marrying eachother out of love...


OK Mr. Sarcasm............what is wrong with this:

What are the legal consequences of a civil union?
Parties to a civil union are given all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under Vermont law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage. These include:


Parties to a civil union shall be responsible for the support of one another to the same degree and in the same manner as prescribed under law for married persons.
The law of domestic relations, including annulment, separation and divorce, child custody and support, and property division and maintenance shall apply to parties to a civil union.
The rights of parties to a civil union, with respect to a child of whom either becomes the natural parent during the term of the civil union, shall be the same as those of a married couple, with respect to a child of whom either spouse becomes the natural parent during the marriage.
The following is a nonexclusive list of legal benefits, protections and responsibilities of spouses, which shall apply in like manner to parties to a civil union:
laws relating to title, tenure, descent and distribution, intestate succession, waiver of will, survivorship, or other incidents of the acquisition, ownership, or transfer, inter vivos or at death, of real or personal property, including eligibility to hold real and personal property as tenants by the entirety (parties to a civil union meet the common law unity of person qualification for purposes of a tenancy by the entirety);
causes of action related to or dependent upon spousal status, including an action for wrongful death, emotional distress, loss of consortium, dramshop, or other torts or actions under contracts reciting, related to, or dependent upon spousal status;
probate law and procedure, including nonprobate transfer;
adoption law and procedure;
group insurance for state employees under 3 V.S.A. 631, and continuing care contracts under 8 V.S.A. 8005;
spouse abuse programs under 3 V.S.A. 18;
prohibitions against discrimination based upon marital status;
victim's compensation rights under 13 V.S.A. 5351;
workers' compensation benefits;
laws relating to emergency and non-emergency medical care and treatment, hospital visitation and notification, including the Patient's Bill of Rights under 18 V.S.A. chapter 42 and the Nursing Home Residents' Bill of Rights under 33 V.S.A. chapter 73;
terminal care documents under 18 V.S.A. chapter 111, and durable power of attorney for health care execution and revocation under 14 V.S.A. chapter 121;
family leave benefits under 21 V.S.A. chapter 5, subchapter 4A;
public assistance benefits under state law;
laws relating to taxes imposed by the state or a municipality other than estate taxes;
laws relating to immunity from compelled testimony and the marital communication privilege;
the homestead rights of a surviving spouse under 27 V.S.A. 105 and homestead property tax allowance under 32 V.S.A. 6062;
laws relating to loans to veterans under 8 V.S.A. 1849;
the definition of family farmer under 10 V.S.A. 272;
laws relating to the making, revoking and objecting to anatomical gifts by others under 18 V.S.A. 5240;
state pay for military service under 20 V.S.A. 1544;
application for absentee ballot under 17 V.S.A. 2532;
family landowner rights to fish and hunt under 10 V.S.A. 4253;
legal requirements for assignment of wages under 8 V.S.A. 2235; and
affirmance of relationship under 15 V.S.A. 7.
See 18 V.S.A. 1204


Note that a party to a civil union is included, by law, in any definition or use of the terms "spouse," " family," "immediate family," "dependent," "next of kin," and other terms that denote the spousal relationship, as those terms are used throughout Vermont law.


Now....if that don't make 'em happy.........screw them!!



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by Venus
I am COMPLETELY AGAINST same sex marriage. I think the idea makes a joke out of the basic moral value of marriage. I am a very traditional person (call me crazy)who believes in the wedding coming before the baby.



DOES US STILL HAVE THESE PEOPLE?

This is good news I am not the only one!


its supposed to be:

marriage-sex-baby

and not

sex-baby-marraige-devorice-child support-etc.




I THINK I'M IN LOVE



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Ok. I don't get it. How is this a bad thing.

As a side note. I don't think it should be called a civil union. They aren't always civil, ya know...



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thorfinn Skullsplitter
Ok. I don't get it. How is this a bad thing.

As a side note. I don't think it should be called a civil union. They aren't always civil, ya know...


That's what I'm saying. I think if their intentions to marry are for all the "poofies" you get from marriage, then why not be happy with a "civil union"? Why do they have to degrade (IMO) the traditional concept of marriage? I think the only gays that aren't happy with that are the ones that just want to stir #.

Please note: I live less then 30 minutes from San Francisco and have to tolerate the "Gay Pride Parade" every June....LOL...there is a hugh difference between gays and "FLAMING" gays......I only see the flamers shouting out that they want to be "married".

[Edited on 4/1/2004 by Venus]





new topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join