AZ Governor's call to repeal same-sex partner benefits hurting tourism?

[zsdersw]

I do not disagree with that. But just like having children out of wedlock it is a bad thing.

Why, exactly, is it a bad thing?

 

[nehalem256]

Why, exactly, is it a bad thing?

Marriage is essential to the stability of families.

Encouraging "domestic partnerships" and having children out of wedlock is contrary to family stability.

Look at the facts regarding children raised by single mothers.

Look at the amount of government bailouts going to single mothers.

The better question is how is it not a bad thing.

 

[zsdersw]

Marriage is essential to the stability of families.

Encouraging "domestic partnerships" and having children out of wedlock is contrary to family stability.

Look at the facts regarding children raised by single mothers.

Look at the amount of government bailouts going to single mothers.

The better question is how is it not a bad thing.

One thing that marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships all have in common is that no one in them is considered "single".

Family stability is achieved by having the mother and the father committed to each other and the proper raising of their child(ren). This can be achieved whether they're married, civil unionized, or in a domestic partnership.

Promoting stable families is a valid reason to have government involved with recognizing and rewarding relationships that tend to be stable and good environments for raising children. It is not the only reason to recognize and reward relationships, nor are well-raised children the only benefit to society that is significant enough to deserve government recognition.

 

[nehalem256]

One thing that marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships all have in common is that no one in them is considered "single".

Family stability is achieved by having the mother and the father committed to each other and the proper raising of their child(ren). This can be achieved whether they're married, civil unionized, or in a domestic partnership.

I would agree that married or civil unions are 2 names for the same thing. But domestic partnership implies impermanence to me. So it is not the same. It is basically a government sanctioned live-in bf/gf.

Promoting stable families is a valid reason to have government involved with recognizing and rewarding relationships that tend to be stable and good environments for raising children. It is not the only reason to recognize and reward relationships, nor are well-raised children the only benefit to society that is significant enough to deserve government recognition.

Children are the reason marriage exists.

And like I said I am willing to grant same-sex marriage, so long as no-fault divorce is eliminated.

 

[zsdersw]

I would agree that married or civil unions are 2 names for the same thing. But domestic partnership implies impermanence to me. So it is not the same. It is basically a government sanctioned live-in bf/gf.

Impermanence is determined by and the exclusive responsibility of those involved, not others.

Children are the reason marriage exists.

Exists where and when? Historically, no, marriage was a contract concerning the ownership and transfer of property, not to identify the ideal environment for children... which is a much more recent reason.

And like I said I am willing to grant same-sex marriage, so long as no-fault divorce is eliminated.

You'll find no argument from me on eliminating no-fault divorce, so long as it is applied to all marriages, gay and straight.

Actively preventing gay marriages/civil unions while doing nothing to improve marriage in general is what those opposed to gay marriage/civil unions are presently doing, though.

Rather than passing state constitutional amendments and writing laws that improve marriage, they're more concerned with preventing gay marriage. Their priorities are entirely backward. If, as they say, marriage is under attack... attack what's attacking it, not those who have never had access to it.

 

[lopri]

so long as no-fault divorce is eliminated.

What kind of fault do you have in mind? Alienation of affections? :twisted:

 

[nehalem256]

Impermanence is determined by and the exclusive responsibility of those involved, not others.

But if you getting married/civilunioned/partnered you are actively involving state. You cannot ask the government to be involved in your relationship and then complain when it is.

Exists where and when? Historically, no, marriage was a contract concerning the ownership and transfer of property, not to identify the ideal environment for children... which is a much more recent reason.

Um, no marriage was in fact more essential for children previously then now. Why do you think that a non-virgin bride was worth less?

EDIT: In fact was not one of the Biblical definitions of marriage a man and his rape victim? Why do you think this was?

 

[zsdersw]

But if you getting married/civilunioned/partnered you are actively involving state. You cannot ask the government to be involved in your relationship and then complain when it is.

That's not what I mean. The permanence or impermanence of a marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership is determined by those in such a relationship. They decide how permanent or impermanent it will be by how they act and what they do.

Um, no marriage was in fact more essential for children previously then now. Why do you think that a non-virgin bride was worth less?

EDIT: In fact was not one of the Biblical definitions of marriage a man and his rape victim? Why do you think this was?

Wrong. Until very recently, most marriages in the world were arranged; business arrangements that were economic liasons for growing family wealth. It was more about money, power, and survival than about being an ideal environment for raising children.

 

[shortylickens]

Damn this woman is narrow-minded. She won't be happy until her state has nothing but straight, white christians.

Shens. They sure as hell havent done anything to kick out the blacks. All they've done so far is TRY to get rid of illegals, 99 percent of whom just happen to be brown. Though I do wonder if Russian illegals were a problem would they still be concerned? I dont know.

Also find it amusing that Arizona even has a tourist industry. What the hell is down there to see?

 

[nehalem256]

Wrong. Until very recently, most marriages in the world were arranged; business arrangements that were economic liasons for growing family wealth. It was more about money, power, and survival than about being an ideal environment for raising children.

Survival of children being of high importance.

And you are conveniently ignoring how non-virgin women were considered less valuable as brides. Hmm, I wonder why?

Or why only men and women were arranged to be married together.

If it was purely about money, power, and survival then why not marry 2 men together?

 

[nehalem256]

Shens. They sure as hell havent done anything to kick out the blacks. All they've done so far is TRY to get rid of illegals, 99 percent of whom just happen to be brown. Though I do wonder if Russian illegals were a problem would they still be concerned? I dont know.

Also find it amusing that Arizona even has a tourist industry. What the hell is down there to see?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_canyon

 

[zsdersw]

Survival of children being of high importance.

Basic survival is not the primary problem with children today. Only recently has marriage been enshrined as the "ideal environment for raising good kids." The key word being good.

The focus on children is a very recent reason that people on your side use for preventing SSM. The history of marriage tells a very different tale.

And you are conveniently ignoring how non-virgin women were considered less valuable as brides. Hmm, I wonder why?

If children were as essential to marriage as you claim, non-virgin women would never have been brides.. yet they were.

Or why only men and women were arranged to be married together.

If it was purely about money, power, and survival then why not marry 2 men together?

Same-sex unions were recognized at times in ancient Greece, Rome.

 

[nehalem256]

Basic survival is not the primary problem with children today. Only recently has marriage been enshrined as the "ideal environment for raising good kids." The key word being good.

The focus on children is a very recent reason that people on your side use for preventing SSM. The history of marriage tells a very different tale.

Because throughout most of history keeping kids from starving was a paramount concern. Hard to raise a good kid when starves to death.

And the only reason basic survival is not a primary concern for bastard children is that the government spends 100s of billions bailing out their mothers.

Same-sex unions were recognized at times in ancient Greece, Rome.

You mean the ones where an old man took on a teenage boy

 

[Jaskalas]

All this crap about single woman.... so you want them to find partners, right? That'd include SSM.

 

[zsdersw]

Because throughout most of history keeping kids from starving was a paramount concern. Hard to raise a good kid when starves to death.

And the only reason basic survival is not a primary concern for bastard children is that the government spends 100s of billions bailing out their mothers.

Having children and making sure they survive didn't require marriage back then and it doesn't now. Children were not the reason marriage was created.

You mean the ones where an old man took on a teenage boy

No. Learn how to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

The point is.. same-sex unions existed in ancient times.. and not just between an old man and a teenage boy.

 

[shortylickens]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_canyon

Really? People still make trips for that?

 

[nehalem256]

Having children and making sure they survive didn't require marriage back then and it doesn't now. Children were not the reason marriage was created.

Lets see 40% of single mothers live in poverty. So I would say without government bailouts in the place of marriage that it is pretty important to making sure that children survive.

No. Learn how to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

The point is.. same-sex unions existed in ancient times.. and not just between an old man and a teenage boy.

You mean like:

Unlike marriage, however, a pederastic relation was temporary and ended when the boy turned seventeen.
At the same time, many of these relationships might be more clearly understood as mentoring relationships between adult men and young boys rather than an analog of marriage. This is particularly true in the case of Sparta, where the relationship was intended to further a young boy's military training. While the relationship was generally life long and of profound emotional significance to the participants, it was not considered marriage by contemporary culture, and the relationship continued even after participants reached age 30 and married women, as was expected in the culture

 

[cybrsage]

Since the discussion is no longer about the lies put forth by the article quoted by the OP, I can assume we all agree the law in AZ does not discriminate against homosexuals, right?

Just checking.

 

[zsdersw]

Lets see 40% of single mothers live in poverty. So I would say without government bailouts in the place of marriage that it is pretty important to making sure that children survive.

Don't move the goalposts. The issue I was addressing was why marriage began, not government handouts to single mothers.

You mean like:

Selective reading is your strong suit...

There were also same sex unions among peers among the Ancient Greeks which were not age-structured. Numerous examples of these are found in Ancient Greek writings. Aristotle praised a same sex couple (Philolaus and Dioclese) who lived their whole lives together and maintained a household together until their deaths when they were buried side by side.

 

[nehalem256]

Don't move the goalposts. The issue I was addressing was why marriage began, not government handouts to single mothers.

Even today children need 2 parents. I do not know why you think that was not obvious to people thousands of years ago.

But in a way your marriage being about property theory makes sense... so long as you are considering the woman and children the man's property... which is not so inaccurate.

Selective reading is your strong suit...

And what is your point. 2 men lived together 2000 years ago and someone wrote about... clearly this means we must support gay marriage!!!!!

 

[zsdersw]

Even today children need 2 parents. I do not know why you think that was not obvious to people thousands of years ago.

Yes, but needing two parents != needing to be "married".

And what is your point. 2 men lived together 2000 years ago and someone wrote about... clearly this means we must support gay marriage!!!!!

Earlier you asked why wouldn't two men, historically, form a same-sex union. I'm just showing that such unions did occur.. and not just between an old man and a teenage boy.