|
Author
|
Topic: The future of marriage
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 430 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
Message 2 of 308 (378275)
01-20-2007 12:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
01-20-2007 12:16 AM
|
|
nemesis_juggernaut writes: "Not only are the statistics in the NYT article completely fabricated...." That has not been established.
"If they can convince people that marriage is ultimately unimportant, they will be less likely to fight new legislation supporting the rights of gays to marry." It seems to me that supporting the rights of gays to marry enhances the importance of marriage.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-20-2007 12:16 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 430 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 5 of 308 (378332)
01-20-2007 10:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 4 by subbie
01-20-2007 10:21 AM
|
|
Re: Wow.
subbie writes: Your hegemony is waning and you see that as some kind of threat to your way of life. quote:
There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South... Here in this pretty world Gallantry took its last bow.. Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave... Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered. A Civilization gone with the wind...
The end of "civilization as we know it" - but not the end of the world. 
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 4 by subbie, posted 01-20-2007 10:21 AM | | subbie has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 430 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Fleshing it out
nemesis_juggernaut writes: The implicit nature is that divorce, separation, or that women in general are no longer interested in marriage. It seems that you're the only one who reads it that way.
So what more could you deduce? The object here is not to deduce "more" - it's to understand what the article says.
No, not the "abolition" of marriage, either the abandoning of it or the degradation of the sacredness of it. I asked you before and I don't think you answered: How would extending marriage to more people "degrade the sacredness of it"?
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-23-2007 11:47 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 430 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 75 of 308 (379529)
01-24-2007 2:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 71 by Fosdick
01-24-2007 2:01 PM
|
|
Re: The "family-oriented marriage"
Hoot Mon writes: Look at them on the streets with their gangsta-rap attitudes and their pants dragging on the pavement. What kind of parents would allow that? Well, the answser is the kind of parents who don't give a shit about what their kids wear or what they do at school, because they are not around to bother with it. Y'know what's funny?  Back in the sixties, it was tight pants and long hair. Only most of the mothers were around to take care of the kids - because it was hard for women to get decent jobs. And most families did have two parents - because it was hard to get a divorce. Y'know what else is funny? It's the same tight-pants kids from the sixties who are complaining about the gangsta-pants kids today. An old guy like you should know that there is nothing new under the sun. The world has always been going to hell in a handbasket and it always will be. The family unit has always been disintegrating and it always will be. Don't waste your energy on CONCERN ABOUT THE FUTURE OF MARRIAGE.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by Fosdick, posted 01-24-2007 2:01 PM | | Fosdick has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 430 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 86 of 308 (379571)
01-24-2007 5:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 85 by Fosdick
01-24-2007 5:25 PM
|
|
Re: The "family-oriented marriage"
Hoot Mon writes: If gays have some value-added principle to contribute to the future marriage and the family, then give them a license and let them adopt unwanted children. The "value added", as you said yourself, is unwanted children being adopted into loving families. Another "value added" side effect would be equality. What more do you want?
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 85 by Fosdick, posted 01-24-2007 5:25 PM | | Fosdick has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 91 by Fosdick, posted 01-24-2007 7:17 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 430 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 93 of 308 (379590)
01-24-2007 7:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 91 by Fosdick
01-24-2007 7:17 PM
|
|
Re: The "family-oriented marriage"
Hoot Mon writes: But how do you equate oral or anal sex with vaginal intercourse? What has that got to do with anything? "Equality" means everybody ought to have equal rights under the law - e.g. the right to marry another adult of their choice. It's not about the Thought Police watching who does what in the bedroom.
... but this is not my idea of how marriages are consummated. I don't know how to break this to you, but it doesn't matter what you think.
As far as I can tell anal/oral sex does NOT equal vaginal intercoursed. Can anybody really be so mind-numbingly ignorant as to "think" that that has anything to do with equal rights?
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by Fosdick, posted 01-24-2007 7:17 PM | | Fosdick has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 430 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: The "family-oriented marriage"
Hoot Mon writes: I am now convinced that Hoot is being deliberately silly. Maybe. I'll get a troll-bite shot just to be on the safe side.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 95 by Chiroptera, posted 01-24-2007 7:34 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 430 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 113 of 308 (379743)
01-25-2007 11:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 110 by Fosdick
01-25-2007 11:28 AM
|
|
Re: The "family-oriented marriage"
Hoot Mon writes: What they choose to do is their own business. But why does it need to be my business, too? You're the one who's trying to make it your business. You want to dictate to them what the sex of their spouse should be.
You can twist the the meaning of "equality" all you like. You're the one who's doing that. "Equal" means "equal", no? It doesn't involve looking in anybody's pants.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 110 by Fosdick, posted 01-25-2007 11:28 AM | | Fosdick has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 116 by Fosdick, posted 01-25-2007 12:48 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 430 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 121 of 308 (379803)
01-25-2007 2:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 116 by Fosdick
01-25-2007 12:48 PM
|
|
Re: The "family-oriented marriage"
Hoot Mon writes: I'm not very interested in looking into other peoples' pants. Of course you are. How else would you even know if a couple was gay or straight?
what is your opinion of NosyNed's proposal (posted above)? I have no specific problem with Ned's proposal. However, allow me to remind you that we already have "full" marriage for same-sex couples in Canada. Ned's proposal seems to be a step backwards. It's a bit like abolishing the concept of "slavery" so we can adopt a system of "partial slavery" - say only ugly black people can be enslaved. We already have an institution called "marriage". Neither our Constitution nor yours permits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So what's the problem?
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 116 by Fosdick, posted 01-25-2007 12:48 PM | | Fosdick has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 430 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 219 of 308 (380478)
01-27-2007 1:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 216 by Fosdick
01-27-2007 12:43 PM
|
|
Re: As I said, not only stupid but off topic.
Hoot Mon writes: Do you deny the FACT that gay men, on average, have a much higher probability of carrying HIV in their bloodstreams than straights? How is THIS equal? Did you go to school? Were you out smoking behind the gym the day they talked about equality? Equality has nothing to do with how tall they are or what their favourite movie is or what diseases they might be susceptible to. Equality is about equal protection under the law. The whole principle of equality is meaningless if you make people "unequal" because they are different. You have been told and told and told what equality means and yet you keep on spouting the same garbage. Please don't use the word "equality" again until you get a @#$%ing clue what it means.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 216 by Fosdick, posted 01-27-2007 12:43 PM | | Fosdick has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 220 by Fosdick, posted 01-27-2007 1:33 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 430 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 222 of 308 (380488)
01-27-2007 1:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 220 by Fosdick
01-27-2007 1:33 PM
|
|
Re: As I said, not only stupid but off topic.
Hoot Mon writes: It's not ALL a matter of bigotry, you know; the gays hold some of the blame, too, for their own perceived repression. "Blaming" gays for something is more bigotry. How does having a disease make them worthy of repression?
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 220 by Fosdick, posted 01-27-2007 1:33 PM | | Fosdick has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2