ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:34 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2003 9:49 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2428
Location: In the ether, Hand of DM poised for enervation at will
There are lots of things that screw a kid up when his or her parents are in a straight relationship, too. Incessant arguing, spousal abuse, child abuse, ect ect. I don't see how it'd be any different, exept that there are two mothers, or two fathers, instead of one of each. While it's true that they'll get teased for it, it's no different than getting teased for you parents being poor, or your parents being black or hispanic, or whatnot.

If gays and lesbians want to get married and adopt a kid, more power too them. If both parties love the child, then I don't see what's so wrong with it.

_________________
The scent of Binturong musk is often compared to that of warm popcorn.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2003 2:05 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
With the mention of common-law marriage, I think we need to take a look at what marriage is for second. It is (supposed to be) a pledge to support one another throughout the rest of their lives, a declaration of the immense feelings for each other. I for one can't see how the fact that the two in question are the same gender changes the idea at all. When kids come into the equation, though, then there is some small validity to the argument against. Small, in that it can easily be countered with the mention of single parents.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2003 11:38 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 448
Location: Yet another city of degenerate fools
/taps foot waiting for evidence, then realizes that he could try and find said evidence, but is too lazy to, so promptly shuts up

playing the bigoted devil's advocate here, i guess my point is that children of gay couples may be more likely to grow up "worse-off" (whatever that means) than children of straight couples. This may not be true (that's why I clamor for evid...oh, never mind :oops: ), and even if it is, it could be debated whether that's reason for outlawing it. Probably we just need to accept gay marriages, and that would erase any abnormalities suffered by those children, if any exist. So basically, if there is a problem, it's "our" (society's) fault anyway. And that was rambling if I've ever seen it.

_________________
"I have asked God for only one thing in my life
and that is that he should make people laugh at my enemies.
"And he did."
-Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2003 7:33 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
You're right, I was rambling. But what I meant is that marriage itself isn't rally changed at all by the fact the two marrying are both the same gender (except for the fact they go through more hardships together). The kids of such a marriage might be a bit worse off for the schoolyard taunting, but this is no worse compared to what the child of a single parent goes through. Should we outlaw single parents?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2003 10:45 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 448
Location: Yet another city of degenerate fools
Actually, I meant myself.

Anyway, there may actually be some difference, in a vacuum, between children of homo- and heterosexual marriages. I'm almost tempted to look it up myself. Almost.

_________________
"I have asked God for only one thing in my life
and that is that he should make people laugh at my enemies.
"And he did."
-Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2003 11:02 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
Probably some difficulty in figuring out which is the father-figure and which is the mother-figure.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 5:53 pm 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 30
Location: The City in the Clouds
Actually the main difference between children from homo and heterosexual marriages would most likely be that those from a homosexual household are more grounded and practical than children from a "normal" household. After all they get a close up look at society at its worst, as well as at its best, rather like children from a poor household.
On a separate note, I'd also like to mention that as a child of a single parent, I don't remember ever being teased, even in middle school when kids are at their most vicious, about only having one parent. In fact, most people have only one parent, or their parents have remarried, or they live with someone other than their biological parents. Its just not the sort of thing you get teased about anymore because its so common. Maybe thats what needs to happen to homosexual relationships. If more people had them, and had children in them, then it wouldn't be so unusual and kids would be less likely to tease the progeny of these unions.

_________________
Ride the Wind.


"Who is John Galt?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 5:59 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
What I meant about the schoolyard taunting thing was not that single parent children get teased, just that they have it harder than the steoreotypical family for several reasons, including that the parent having to work a job in addition to taking care of the kids. This is probably worse than a little taunting in a relatively tolerant neighborhood.

Still, regardless of what I meant, you made very good points,

[5/16/03, 11:39pm Central.] Edit: I have no idea what I was going to say. That is all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 7:05 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Hm. Just thought I'd dig up this topic, because I have something interesting.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/sisiphus/229937.html

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:33 pm 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 5:54 pm
Posts: 89
Location: Sacramento, CA
Wow, that was stupid.

_________________
DNI'ed by: Ezelek + Kali
(though feel free to send over disturbing porn)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:42 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Yeah. I didn't like that article. As you can tell from my little response below.

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:41 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
I'm feeling lazy, so I'll just post my opinion. Same sex marriages are cool by me. I also think it's wrong to force people born as hermaphrodites into the male or female sex w/o allowing them to decide for themselves. So there, nyah!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2038 9:00 pm
Posts: 3209
that was interesting how? it was pathetic standard Christian fundamentalist-without-trying-to-be-overtly-fundamentalist rhetoric.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:52 pm 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:55 pm
Posts: 37
Location: In a van, down by the river
Everyone keeps asking for a major drawback to gay marriage, but I will throw this right back at you:

What gain does society get from allowing homosexuals to marry?

Until there is a quantifiable gain to allow it, there will be no sweeping reform. Period.

Here goes, the major reason that same sex relationships are not generally recognized has to do with how the couple, under no circumstances, could bring a child into the world. Yeah, they can adopt, they can have a "third party" involvement, but they cannot bring a child of their own into the world.

An argument commonly used against this is "well what if one partner in a heterosexual relationship is sterile?" If the couple adopts a young enough child, it would be easy enough to convince the child and the community that it was their child. It's also that a heterosexual couple would be finishing what another had started.

If a gay couple had a child, it would be VERY obvious that the child was born out of wedlock. Not really considered a big deal now, but it was.

These conventions just haven't changed enough in the eyes of the majority to warrant a change in the laws.

As it stands, I do not believe in gay marriage as an instituion. If it's what you really want, go for it when it's legal but i will say this:

If a gay couple has a child using a third party, the "parent" with no blood connection should have no rights to the child if a split occurs. It's the same idea that if a man and woman have a child, get divorced, one remarries, and divorces again, who gets the child? The blood related parent. If they aren't suitable, the other blood parent does, if they aren't then and only then might the step parent even be considered.

Rubi

_________________
"Gravity just overcame his equilibrium at the precipitant appearance of my foot"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:26 pm 
Offline
Spawn of Kyhm and D
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4498
Location: Australia
Rubi wrote:
What gain does society get from allowing hetrosexuals to marry?

Rumours on the intarweb suggest that copulation is possible outside of wedlock. You seem to do a lot of talking with very little point-making.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:37 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
Ezelek wrote:
Rubi wrote:
What gain does society get from allowing hetrosexuals to marry?

Rumours on the intarweb suggest that copulation is possible outside of wedlock. You seem to do a lot of talking with very little point-making.


actually there are benefits to heterosexual marriages. One is that it (in theory) provides a stable place to raise children, it was originally established as a way to force the man to provide support for the woman (or woment) and children. After switching to monogomy it also provides for a built in population limiter, one woman can have only x number of children.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:40 pm 
Offline
Spawn of Kyhm and D
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4498
Location: Australia
Proin Drakenzol wrote:
actually there are benefits to heterosexual marriages. One is that it (in theory) provides a stable place to raise children, it was originally established as a way to force the man to provide support for the woman (or woment) and children. After switching to monogomy it also provides for a built in population limiter, one woman can have only x number of children.

And yet, a situation such as you described can still occur outside of wedlock. Thus making marriage nothing but a "binding contract", that stopped being binding quite some time ago. You can't say something is providing a benefit, when said benefit is occuring without the introduction of the aforementioned event.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:43 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
in the here and now such things can occur out of wedlock due to child-support laws and what-not. however, originally there were no such laws, thus the evolution of marriage.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm 
Offline
Spawn of Kyhm and D
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4498
Location: Australia
A wife could be also viewed as property. That's a pretty crappy benefit. So far, marriage is sounding a hell of a lot more like a sentence.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:53 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
Ezelek wrote:
A wife could be also viewed as property. That's a pretty crappy benefit. So far, marriage is sounding a hell of a lot more like a sentence.


originally wives were property. And I never said that marriage was perfect, merely that it provided some benefits.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group