Non religious reasons to oppose gay marriage

[nehalem256]

What about marriage brings stability?

Well it certainly was better at bringing stability before liberals normalized divorce.

But it is still a fact that a child of a single mother is 5 times more likely to be in poverty that a child of a married couple.

 

[HumblePie]

You're making an opinion and demanding that I subject my little brain to it. I'll return the demand. No! You admit that marriage is about the link between human relationships and the production of offspring!

No nothing to do with offspring. I specifically said heirs. Again, historical evidence suggests that "marriage" as we know it was formed in human societies when humans stopped being hunter / gatherers. Until that point, humans were having and raising kids without needing to be considered "married" to one another. The reason for marriage was to pass down land and have it recognized by others in the same society. It also became a tool later for class separation and then a tool of various religions. Those later changes didn't not remove the original intention of the term "marriage" which was to define legal heirs. Offspring are one form of heirs but not the only form. This is why I said you have a little brain that has been brain washed. You can't seem to get beyond the fact that heirs do NOT have to be offspring. These are NOT my opinions but are facts from human history.

For the second time, this has nothing to do whatsoever with my religion. That you guys keep trying to argue that straw man speaks to an inability to argue honestly.

A marriage is the best environment in which to raise children. I don't think anyone, even gay marriage proponents, would argue against that. To then say that nonetheless, marriage is not about children, seems inconsistent.

If all marriage does is provide a legal link between people for their mutual benefit, why shouldn't marriage be granted to an elderly mother and daughter who live together and look after each other? What about two brothers who live together?

You arguments stem from your religious brain washing. You keep claiming otherwise, but keep spouting off the same shit.

And who says "marriage" is the best environment to raise children? On contend that it's not based upon several cultures that did NOT raise their children that way. That is an argument put forth by many modern religions though.

Many cultures did not even have the actual biological parents raise their own kids. Kids were born and raised by the society. Hence the term, "it takes a village to raise a child" because it is much easier for a human society to share that burden than to rest it squarely upon the shoulders of 1 or 2 adults. Especially when we are talking multiple kids. Not that 2 adults can't raise their own, but historically that is a "modern" notion to child rearing.

 

[cybrsage]

Never would happen so why even try to speculate?

Many things are speculated upon that will never happen. Does not mean we should not speculate on them. For example, ever wonder what the world would be like if the dinosaurs were not wiped out? Ever wonder what would have happened if a man went back in time and got rid of Hitler when Hitler was young - someone did and made a video game series out of it.

 

[cybrsage]

Not at all. I'm talking about ALL cultures. Has been around long before the US. Long before Europe, long before Ancient Greece, long before Ancient Egypt, long before the Ming Dynasty, and long before just about anything else.

Early evidence suggests that when humans stopped being hunter/gatherers and started staying in one spot that people started forming bonds of marriage. This was to pass down LAND to heirs and have it recognized by others who wanted to do the same thing. It had zero to do with children or raising them. Humans were having an raising children long before "marriage" was even a concept to humans.

You are correct if you are excluding the United States from your discussion and if you pretend God is not real.

 

[Atreus21]

You arguments stem from your religious brain washing. You keep claiming otherwise, but keep spouting off the same shit.

Well, then I have little alternative than to conclude that you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. I could just as easily claim your positions are nothing more than the deluded ramblings of someone brainwashed by the left.

And who says "marriage" is the best environment to raise children? On contend that it's not based upon several cultures that did NOT raise their children that way. That is an argument put forth by many modern religions though.

So we're just going to ignore the evidence that points to marriage being a better environment for children?

Many cultures did not even have the actual biological parents raise their own kids. Kids were born and raised by the society. Hence the term, "it takes a village to raise a child" because it is much easier for a human society to share that burden than to rest it squarely upon the shoulders of 1 or 2 adults. Especially when we are talking multiple kids. Not that 2 adults can't raise their own, but historically that is a "modern" notion to child rearing.

I suppose it's ironic that holding a "progressive" position puts you at odds with "modern" interpretations of the concept of marriage in favor of the prehistoric.

 

[soulcougher73]

Have you noticed you are wanting to force your view of marriage on everyone else as well, as if its the only way to live and think? You really should take your own advice about growing up.

Have you ever noticed my views dont discriminate against anyone, while yours do? Im about equality, you are not.

 

[nehalem256]

And who says "marriage" is the best environment to raise children? On contend that it's not based upon several cultures that did NOT raise their children that way. That is an argument put forth by many modern religions though.

Reality does. Poverty rate for children of married couples is 1/5 that for single mothers. Or maybe you think poverty is conducive to raising children?

Many cultures did not even have the actual biological parents raise their own kids. Kids were born and raised by the society. Hence the term, "it takes a village to raise a child" because it is much easier for a human society to share that burden than to rest it squarely upon the shoulders of 1 or 2 adults. Especially when we are talking multiple kids. Not that 2 adults can't raise their own, but historically that is a "modern" notion to child rearing.

the term, "it takes a village to raise a child" is because those societies never progressed beyond villages.

 

[nehalem256]

Have you ever noticed my views dont discriminate against anyone, while yours do? Im about equality, you are not.

So you are in favor of incestuous marriage? And polygamy? And object-marriage?

 

[cybrsage]

Object marriage cannot exist because an object cannot give consent to the legal contract.

 

[cybrsage]

Have you ever noticed my views dont discriminate against anyone, while yours do? Im about equality, you are not.

You demand others accept your view as that which must be used. You are as bad as those you decry.

 

[HumblePie]

Reality does. Poverty rate for children of married couples is 1/5 that for single mothers. Or maybe you think poverty is conducive to raising children?




the term, "it takes a village to raise a child" is because those societies never progressed beyond villages.

Only when you compare 1 person versus 2 people "raising" a child. How to those comparison work out in societies where no single person or a couple are allowed to raise children? When they become wards of the society and all children are raised together?

By the way I'm not advocating that all child raising is done this way in the least. I'm merely pointing out the logical fallacy in your assumption. That "marriage" is for raising children by a couple. That is a very flawed argument.

As for your second post, about never going beyond village, you are pretty naive there. In many societies parents didn't raise their kids. Kids were taken from them and raised by the government or by those people in society better suited and able to raise them. I am not talking about fascist regimes or countries either. Monarchies were done this way as well to a degree. Ancient Sparta was this way to a degree while being a democracy.

 

[Bird222]

What we have here truly is a moral issue. And im morally opposed to it. ... What we do have here is gays actively telling people how we are wrong and bigots for not agreeing with this act.

No, what we have is the government discriminating against some of it's citizens which is unconstitutional.

 

[HumblePie]

Well, then I have little alternative than to conclude that you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. I could just as easily claim your positions are nothing more than the deluded ramblings of someone brainwashed by the left.

And you do so without using any factual back up or standpoints. Great way to do a discussion by the way. That's sarcasm in case you couldn't tell. I am bringing up facts of what marriage was invented for in human society and what it has historically been used for in ALL cultures and societies. Deny those facts all you want but that denial changes nothing.

So we're just going to ignore the evidence that points to marriage being a better environment for children?

Who is ignoring that? I'm stating that just because you throw two random people together to raise a child does not mean it will be an automatic success. Actually, looking at other animals and other human cultures, the herd mentality is the more successful propagation scheme and child "rearing" scheme in nature. But don't let little facts like that get in your " "my moral religious" preachings.

I suppose it's ironic that holding a "progressive" position puts you at odds with "modern" interpretations of the concept of marriage in favor of the prehistoric.

This statement makes no sense what so ever. It a feigned outrage over something you have conceived of in your brain. That much I can tell.

 

[jackstar7]

Well it certainly was better at bringing stability before liberals normalized divorce.

But it is still a fact that a child of a single mother is 5 times more likely to be in poverty that a child of a married couple.

Enjoy your future shitty marriage...

I hope you don't widow your future awful wife, as that would leave her headed for poverty.

 

[nehalem256]

Object marriage cannot exist because an object cannot give consent to the legal contract.

I thought this was covered earlier. Women used to be considered property of their husband; their consent wasnt needed. So logically a man marrying his couch, which is already his property, is acceptable under the same constraints.

It is only liberal bigotry that demands that both sides be able to consent :\

 

[cybrsage]

No, what we have is the government discriminating against some of it's citizens which is unconstitutional.

What we need is to disentangle government from religion and have them stop doing marriages and only do civil unions.

 

[nehalem256]

Enjoy your future shitty marriage...

I hope you don't widow your future awful wife, as that would leave her headed for poverty.

I hope I dont widow her either. It would kinda suck for me .

But you know they have this thing called Life Insurance to protect against this very issue.

 

[HumblePie]

You are correct if you are excluding the United States from your discussion and if you pretend God is not real.

And how am I excluding the US? There was a time when polygamy wasn't "illegal" here either. There are still people that raise children through more than 2 parents.

And not everyone believes in your God. So your point again is?

 

[nehalem256]

No, what we have is the government discriminating against some of it's citizens which is unconstitutional.

Government always discriminates.

Consider for example the "Head of Household" filing status. This discriminates against me as a single person without children, as I have to pay higher rate of taxes simply because I dont have children

 

[HumblePie]

What we need is to disentangle government from religion and have them stop doing marriages and only do civil unions.

Again, you are trying to say the the color blue for a shadow of blue shouldn't be used. Instead cornflower blue is more appropriate.

That's your argument?

Wow....

Marriage, or civil unions, or legal consent contracts, or whatever you want to call it doesn't matter. Marriage is and has always been the bailiwick of the ruling body of any given society. It is a way to ratify heirs and ownership. Nothing more and nothing less.

Two people don't need to be "married" in order to raise children together. Look at Kurt Russel and Goldie Hawn. They aren't married but have been together for decades raising kids. I know other people like that, some in my family, who decided not to form a "legal" bond for whatever reason.

 

[SMOGZINN]

A marriage is the best environment in which to raise children. I don't think anyone, even gay marriage proponents, would argue against that. To then say that nonetheless, marriage is not about children, seems inconsistent.

Actually, it is not. The studies that have been done show quite clearly that marriage is not really all that important. Having enough money to live on and plenty of people around that care for and about the child is what is really important. Whether they are married our not does not seem to matter at all.

The science shows pretty clearly that 3 people are better at raising a child then two, and 4 are better then two. So in many ways marriage, as defined by the US, is a very bad environment to raise a kid, being just a little better then a single parent.

The reason that single parents look so much worse then 2 parents because single parents often fall into poverty. And poverty is the worst case scenario for raising a child. Once you correct for that, you don't find much of a difference.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I thought this was covered earlier. Women used to be considered property of their husband; their consent wasnt needed. So logically a man marrying his couch, which is already his property, is acceptable under the same constraints.

It is only liberal bigotry that demands that both sides be able to consent :\

This is a good point. It was a major turning point for all of western society actually. At some point the concept of contract changed. It started to require that all parties involved in the contract be both able and willing to consent. This was a new idea, before this it was just one side that needed the consent, and the laws revolved around which side it was that needed to consent. That idea of only one side needing to consent was the foundation that aristocracy was built on.

 

[jackstar7]

I hope I dont widow her either. It would kinda suck for me .

But you know they have this thing called Life Insurance to protect against this very issue.

She's awful. That insurance money will be gone before you're in the ground.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I was adopted by lesbian mothers at a time when adoption by gay or lesbian couples was not recognized by the state and very difficult to do through most adoption agencies. As such, only one of my mothers could legally adopt me at birth. It wasn't until I turned 10 that I was able to be adopted by my other mother. Both were teachers, solidly middle class, one with a son from a previous marriage to an abusive husband. I was raised well with an emphasis on pursuing my education. I never wanted for food or clothes or shelter; hell, we were first on the block to get a computer. I grew up well.

Now let's imagine that my adoptive mother had died when I was 8 or so. My other mother would have no legal claim to me despite having served as a mother to me since birth. She could have filed paperwork to claim me as an adoptee, but that stuff takes time, and I would have wound up in the foster care system in the interim. How would that have benefitted me? It wouldn't have. But because my parents were unable to marry, that was a very real possibility that I faced as a child. If something had happened to my adoptive mother, I would have been taken from my family.

So please, explain to me how gay marriage hurts families.

 

[nehalem256]

The reason that single parents look so much worse then 2 parents because single parents often fall into poverty. And poverty is the worst case scenario for raising a child. Once you correct for that, you don't find much of a difference.

And the rate of poverty for single parents is 5 times that for married couples. :hmm: