Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Kinsa

UPDATE: I want to meet a gay person.

Recommended Posts

 

 

Ah, so you are a supporter of polygamy. That's cool, I have no problem with it either. Consenting adults, and all that. ;)

 

As long as there is at least one man and one woman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some examples: http://www.nolo.com/...fits-30190.html

 

Some reasons have to do with the fact that some people really want to be in committed relationships with other adults. Some people prefer to be alone, and that's fine too. But the desire to love and be loved is generally pretty well understood.

 

Those linked benefits are contrived by the state, and I don't agree with many of them.

 

One can love and commit without being married.

 

Those who for religious reasons feel marriage is necessary to legitimize what they want to do with their loved one should do so, but why this should affect everyone else is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was kinda my point. You are comparing apples and pears. You are taking studies of children of SINGLE parents and saying that because those children do comparatively worse then children of homosexual parents must also do worse because they have two parents of the same gender. There are very few scientific longitudinal studies of children with same sex parents because societal norms have only recently changed to where two openly homosexual people can have a family.

 

 

 

I would love to hear your ideas on this.

 

I loose ninja points because I much prefer

 

David_Tennant_kilt.jpg

 

to ladies but I did kiss a girl once and I do own an apron.

 

I'm sorry, I have obviously not expressed myself well. I am concerned that overall marriage is losing its power as a social force that benefits individuals, families, and especially children. I was trying to reference the general decline of marriage and the way that decline disadvantages children. I can see how misunderstanding could happen. I am not worried so much about the impact on children of homosexual couples, but on the impact on ALL children if marriage itself loses meaning and influence. I believe that the union of male and female is an intrinsic part of marriage, and that something of value to society will be lost if we change that. Others disagree and believe that marriage will be strengthened.

 

 

 

With regards to more important matters, I like his ghillies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is cruel to see an entire segment of society suffering, yet it is also cruel to require people to reject their deeply held personal beliefs. Where is the humane middle ground?

 

I personally believe that the crux of the issue lies in the fact that true separation of religion and state does not exist. Marriage has traditionally been a religious institution. When the government started to blur the lines by making it a religious AND civil institution, it's no wonder people can see marriage in a different light.

 

I think a good medium ground would be to require a civil union for EVERYONE if they want the government to recognize their union. Then, for those who also want their religious institution to "seal their covenant", they can do that separately, apart from the government recognition. That way, churches/synagogues/whatever who choose to recognize gay unions can do so happily, and those that choose not to can do so happily. But this would then eliminate a segment of society from being denied civil protections granted, this far, to heterosexual married couples.

 

I also think that the handwriting is on the wall, and in a generation gay marriage will be fully underway. Anyone who believes otherwise is living with their heads in the sand. I might not agree with it, but it's going to happen regardless of what I think.

 

I agree that having the legal benefits of marriage offered only as a government marriage or civil union, but having the religious marriage be separate.

 

I, too, think the problem is the religious/state blur in marriage. The very fact that religious officiants of a marriage can say "by the power vested in me by the state of . . . " yadda, yadda, yadda, is a great example. The state gives religious representatives a state power so that a married couple might have state/government recognition. That's already a problem right there. No wonder it's so confused. Let the state give state recognition to all committed unions (which entitles citizens to legal rights and benefits) and let religions do their own recognition (which is largely symbolic).

 

Marriage has not always held religious connotations, though in most of modern US history it has. In ancient Greece, for instance, the sexual relationship that older warriors had with their bound younger counterparts was created with lots of pomp and religious ceremony, which was not the case in marriage to wives, which, while paying lip service to religion, was largely legal.

 

Marriage in many, many cultures for many, many years, has been the transaction of property, namely, a woman, from one family to another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still can't figure out what's so wonderful about being married in this day and age. It kind of reminds me of women fighting to be allowed to be in the trenches in the military.

 

Today is one of those days I wished I believed in polygamy because I'd take a long vacation by myself and let someone else take care of his ..him, wait, I'd take the dog, maybe the kid too. I kind of like him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those linked benefits are contrived by the state, and I don't agree with many of them.

 

One can love and commit without being married.

 

Those who for religious reasons feel marriage is necessary to legitimize what they want to do with their loved one should do so, but why this should affect everyone else is beyond me.

 

Agree with them or not, they're quite useful, and they're a reason may people get married. I'm just trying to provide an answer to your question, but I see you were being rhetorical.

 

I agree that one can love and commit without being married. But, that there are benefits to certain people for having a legal marriage--whether you like it or not--is just a fact.

 

And, in countries where everyone is supposed to be equal under the law, if some are excluded, it is an issue.

 

Again, you may not care about any of this one whit, that's ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with them or not, they're quite useful, and they're a reason may people get married. I'm just trying to provide an answer to your question, but I see you were being rhetorical.

 

I agree that one can love and commit without being married. But, that there are benefits to certain people for having a legal marriage--whether you like it or not--is just a fact.

 

And, in countries where everyone is supposed to be equal under the law, if some are excluded, it is an issue.

 

Again, you may not care about any of this one whit, that's ok.

 

But how can we have a truly philosophical discussion when we've treated as a given the substantive value of legal marriage for all families?

 

As a single mom, I feel the legal benefits of marriage are discriminatory. Being married, you already have two people to help shoulder the burdens of childrearing. Why tax the single moms (and their kids) to benefit those who are already advantaged by having two parents? And is it right to wave these carrots around to "encourage" women to marry when they might be doing a fine job of parenting on their own (or with people they don't desire to marry)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I have obviously not expressed myself well. I am concerned that overall marriage is losing its power as a social force that benefits individuals, families, and especially children. I was trying to reference the general decline of marriage and the way that decline disadvantages children. I can see how misunderstanding could happen. I am not worried so much about the impact on children of homosexual couples, but on the impact on ALL children if marriage itself loses meaning and influence. I believe that the union of male and female is an intrinsic part of marriage, and that something of value to society will be lost if we change that. Others disagree and believe that marriage will be strengthened.

 

 

 

With regards to more important matters, I like his ghillies.

 

Ahhh okay I see where we were misunderstanding each other.

 

I guess I don't see a decline in marriage. My friends are all getting married, and I see the fact that people are willing to fight for the right to get married as a sign that it still holds its meaning and influence. I guess on that point we will have to agree to disagree :)

 

On the important matters: I very much like his sporran ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But how can we have a truly philosophical discussion when we've treated as a given the substantive value of legal marriage for all families?

 

As a single mom, I feel the legal benefits of marriage are discriminatory. Being married, you already have two people to help shoulder the burdens of childrearing. Why tax the single moms (and their kids) to benefit those who are already advantaged by having two parents? And is it right to wave these carrots around to "encourage" women to marry when they might be doing a fine job of parenting on their own (or with people they don't desire to marry)?

 

Ahh! Ok, I see the point you're making. I'm afraid I don't have any good response to it, however. I would just like everyone who wants to get married to be able to do so. And for people who are happy being single to be single. For whatever their reasons

 

As far as the substantive value goes, that's for the sociologists and political scientists, and I don't have my head in that game at all, so I plead ignorance there.

 

I do at least understand the point you were trying to make now though.

 

(I'm going to have this be my last post on this topic because I don't want to hijack this post--any more than it's already been hijacked :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I guess I don't see a decline in marriage. My friends are all getting married, and I see the fact that people are willing to fight for the right to get married as a sign that it still holds its meaning and influence. I guess on that point we will have to agree to disagree :)

 

 

And if there has been a decline in marriage, it certainly can't be attributed to the couples who haven't been allowed to do it. That's all on the heterosexual couples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I have obviously not expressed myself well. I am concerned that overall marriage is losing its power as a social force that benefits individuals, families, and especially children. I was trying to reference the general decline of marriage and the way that decline disadvantages children. I can see how misunderstanding could happen. I am not worried so much about the impact on children of homosexual couples, but on the impact on ALL children if marriage itself loses meaning and influence. I believe that the union of male and female is an intrinsic part of marriage, and that something of value to society will be lost if we change that. Others disagree and believe that marriage will be strengthened.

 

 

 

With regards to more important matters, I like his ghillies.

 

 

To define marriage by a strict standard and say that it is a societal force does a grave injustice to your logic and ignores the fact that homosexuality exists and is very real. Defining marriage as one woman/one man expects society to disregard, well, society. Homosexuals exist. The fact that they do, and are in committed relationships AND have children does not contribute to disadvantages in children. They are loved, in stable homes, and see what a relationship looks like.

 

Marriage, in homes where one parent cheats on another, or the children/spouse is abused, are at a disadvantage. Children who watch their parents bounce through multiple partners are at a disadvantage.

 

These are still symptoms, they are not causes. They are a result of a lack of family bond, of the breakdown of generational influence, of a family that parents by proxy because both parents work from 7am-7pm 6 days a week in order to afford health insurance and a decent neighborhood. Each generation passes down problems and rewards of their own situation.

 

Trying to say that defining marriage as a contract between consenting adults is contributing to the decline of society is faulty at best. No research ever will say that it is a contributing factor - well, maybe bigoted ones with an agenda, but no serious research. To even say it is so shows a lack of awareness and critical thinking skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that a homosexual couple isn't a "stable family environment" is downright offensive. A person's genitalia has nothing to do with their parenting ability. I don't know about you, but I don't parent with my vagina.

 

 

Same here, but I will proudly proclaim that I vote with my vagina!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, such as when some people's belief that union of male and female is not an intrinsic part of marriage changes that definition for all of society. It's a pretty serious issue and should be taken seriously.

.

.

.

.

 

 

Not quoting you at length but I am responding to the length of your post which I will flatly state that I consider both ill informed and ill considered.

 

Vitriol is people telling happy, stable and secure families they have never met that their family is a threat to society. This is not a "discussion" about possible "change". Gay people have been raising children for a very long time. The change is now. It's here and you may not like it, but you can not stop it. My brother is legally married to his husband - only he had to wait years and 2 kids in able to enjoy that right and freedom.

 

There is in fact no legitimate concern of yours which should impact the family of my brother, his husband and my perfectly happy 2 little nieces. You have zero standing to decide what is best for them or their daughters based on your concept of family. You don't get a vote. You can not make a valid argument that you do merely because you are personally attracted to the opposite gender.

 

I fail to see how this is up for discussion from uninvolved persons. It is about real people and their very real lives. Lives which you can not possibly understand well enough to be better able to make better decisions for them than they can for themselves, anymore than they would be able to make the best decisions for YOUR family. Why do YOU feel like you get any say in someone else's healthy and most simple, basic human relationship? How is that not intrusive and overreaching?

 

Marriage protects families and children and eases up the details of their lives (inheritance, taxes, child custody oversight, child support if a marriage ends etc) Unless you can tell me why that my sons should have more rights than their cousins, I don't see how the rest of your position stands. Your position is not about stability and raising the next generation well at all. What I think you are missing is that your POV is damaging to children. Not theoretical children- many gay people are parents, no two ways about it.

 

My nieces deserve the same legal protections and rights that my sons have always had by virtue of their parents be straight and able to marry right from the get go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here, but I will proudly proclaim that I vote with my vagina!!

 

That conjured up an image that I really, really didn't want in my head. :ack2:

 

(I knew what you meant, though! :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But how can we have a truly philosophical discussion when we've treated as a given the substantive value of legal marriage for all families?

 

As a single mom, I feel the legal benefits of marriage are discriminatory. Being married, you already have two people to help shoulder the burdens of childrearing. Why tax the single moms (and their kids) to benefit those who are already advantaged by having two parents? And is it right to wave these carrots around to "encourage" women to marry when they might be doing a fine job of parenting on their own (or with people they don't desire to marry)?

 

Single parents don't file as single though, do they? They can file as HoH and they still received the child tax credit. Married people with two incomes can jump tax brackets and sometimes pay more by quite a bit. Most years, my family would have been financially better off if we were unmarried (though the benefits of being married to us outweighed the extra tax costs.) I won't argue with a tax consultant on taxes but that has been my personal experience running the numbers both ways out of curiosity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Single parents don't file as single though, do they? They can file as HoH and they still received the child tax credit. Married people with two incomes jump tax brackets and pay more quite a bit. Most years, my family would have been financially better off if we were unmarried (though the benefits of being married to us outweighed the extra tax costs.) I won't argue with a tax consultant on taxes but that has been my personal experience running the numbers both ways out of curiosity.

 

 

Well, for one thing, the list of benefits linked by a previous poster goes way beyond taxes.

 

For example, a married mom (or a childless wife) can choose to not work for an employer and still (usually) get health benefits for herself and her kids via her husband's employer, at a cost much less than what it would cost a single mom who is self-employed. For my family that means over $10K per year out of my pocket. It's pretty significant. It means I have little choice but to work long hours compared to most moms of young children.

 

Here's another one. At our local rec center, the membership fees are the same for myself and two 6yos as for an entire family, because there is no family discount for single-parent households. If I had a husband, he'd be getting a free ride at the rec center just for being married.

 

The same applies to pretty much the whole list of legal benefits of marriage.

 

When I said "why tax single moms," I was saying "tax" in a generic sense. When I worked for a CPA firm, I used to pay $X in health insurance premiums while married couples did not pay $X x 2. I felt that was a tax on singles, even before I became a single mom. I could see it IF the single were childless and the couple had kids, but it doesn't work that way.

 

However, there are also tax effects. It's true that I file as Head of Household, but there is still more benefit if a single-income couple files as married.

 

While I think it's great if some wives want to leave the work force and focus on their homes, it shouldn't be at the cost of other employees or taxpayers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for one thing, the list of benefits linked by a previous poster goes way beyond taxes.

 

For example, a married mom (or a childless wife) can choose to not work for an employer and still (usually) get health benefits for herself and her kids via her husband's employer, at a cost much less than what it would cost a single mom who is self-employed. For my family that means over $10K per year out of my pocket. It's pretty significant. It means I have little choice but to work long hours compared to most moms of young children.

 

That's not a benefit of marriage, it is a benefit of working for a large employer with spousal insurance coverage. Lots of people can't choose self employment because of a chronic health concern in the family even if they would earn more as a consultant. A married couple where the earner/s are self employed face the same sort of high costs you do as a self employed single. Insuring MORE people costs less per each person. This is why my husband's huge non-profit employer can offer very reasonable rates for spousal coverage and really encourages spouses to use their plan, not the one through their employer. They cover employees and children at no direct cost to the employee. A married couple is adding TWO people to the size of the insurance pool. In a large plan with some economy of scale, this benefits everyone on the plan. If the plan only covered the employees, the plan would cost more per head. Is it fair to childless employees that children are covered by the plan? Small employer plans carry similar costs to self employed workers.

 

Here's another one. At our local rec center, the membership fees are the same for myself and two 6yos as for an entire family, because there is no family discount for single-parent households. If I had a husband, he'd be getting a free ride at the rec center just for being married.

 

I totally agree that this is absurd and unfair. My Y and most places here do not offer only 1 family plan. They do offer a single parent plan. That said, the family plan prices (1 or 2 parents) include any number of kids, be it 1 or 10. I guess I could see that as unfair to small families like mine, but I do not really care about it. Life is never exactly equal. Sometimes things work in my favor, other times they do not.

 

...

 

When I worked for a CPA firm, I used to pay $X in health insurance premiums while married couples did not pay $X x 2. I felt that was a tax on singles, even before I became a single mom. I could see it IF the single were childless and the couple had kids, but it doesn't work that way.

 

The insurance company the firm paid for insurance coverage set the rates based on the cost of insuring a couple vs. a family vs. a single. It's not cheaper for two vs. one out of the kindness of the heart of the insurance company. The larger group created by including spouses lowers everyone's rates.

 

However, there are also tax effects. It's true that I file as Head of Household, but there is still more benefit if a single-income couple files as married.

 

The only distinction there is for a single income married hh is that the earner gets to claim the non-earner, who they are financially supporting, as an exemption. The non-earning spouse is usually helping the spouse earn that income in some ways, usually fairly large ways. A few thousand in a personal exemption reduces the taxable income only a modest amount (less than the exemption) in most cases.

 

While I think it's great if some wives want to leave the work force and focus on their homes, it shouldn't be at the cost of other employees or taxpayers.

 

It is not a tax in the way you are presenting it. Don't forget that a worker with a SAHP misses less work on average and averages more working hours per year than other parents at the same employer. And as explained above, insurance rates are not equal regardless of the number of plan participants (larger groups=less for all.)

 

Also, there are benefits available to more single than married parents in my state like state and federally subsidized childcare, healthcare and pK programs. I don't see that as unfair even though I don't benefit. Things are never 100% equal and rarely does it all go in the favor of one group all the time. Plus, the groups are fluid. Very few households have an able bodied adult who is never in the workforce.

 

One could argue that people without children are getting short shrift by not getting child tax credits and by people's children getting lower rates at rec centers and from insurance companies. That would ignore the very real financial benefits to them that these children will later bring by paying for their SS and nursing homes. The idea that stay at home parents are a cost to others with no benefit to others is short-sighted and I speak as someone who has mostly been a working parent.

 

ETA: Is blue better? :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for one thing, the list of benefits linked by a previous poster goes way beyond taxes.

 

For example, a married mom (or a childless wife) can choose to not work for an employer and still (usually) get health benefits for herself and her kids via her husband's employer, at a cost much less than what it would cost a single mom who is self-employed. For my family that means over $10K per year out of my pocket. It's pretty significant. It means I have little choice but to work long hours compared to most moms of young children.

 

That's not a benefit of marriage, it is a benefit of working for a large employer with spousal insurance coverage. Or any company with subsidized health insurance. Which most employed dads do work for. .... Insuring MORE people costs less per each person. But the individual employee pays only a fraction of the cost. ...

 

Here's another one. At our local rec center, the membership fees are the same for myself and two 6yos as for an entire family, because there is no family discount for single-parent households. If I had a husband, he'd be getting a free ride at the rec center just for being married.

 

I totally agree that this is absurd and unfair. My Y and most places here do not offer only 1 family plan. They do offer a single parent plan. That said, the family plan prices (1 or 2 parents) include any number of kids, be it 1 or 10. I guess I could see that as unfair to small families like mine, but I do not really care about it. Life is never exactly equal. Sometimes things work in my favor, other times they do not. But this last sentence is not allowed to be said in certain contexts, apparently.

 

...

 

When I worked for a CPA firm, I used to pay $X in health insurance premiums while married couples did not pay $X x 2. I felt that was a tax on singles, even before I became a single mom. I could see it IF the single were childless and the couple had kids, but it doesn't work that way.

 

The insurance company the firm paid for insurance coverage set the rates based on the cost of insuring a couple vs. a family vs. a single. It's not cheaper for two vs. one out of the kindness of the heart of the insurance company. The larger group created by including spouses lowers everyone's rates. That still doesn't explain why a single pays a lot more per capita than a couple on the same plan.

 

However, there are also tax effects. It's true that I file as Head of Household, but there is still more benefit if a single-income couple files as married.

 

The only distinction there is for a single income married hh is that the earner gets to claim the non-earner, who they are financially supporting, as an exemption. The non-earning spouse is usually helping the spouse earn that income in some ways, usually fairly large ways. But how does it follow that such income should be subject to lower tax? Single moms have all of the responsibilities stay-at-home moms do and yet nobody is giving them a tax break for it. ...

 

While I think it's great if some wives want to leave the work force and focus on their homes, it shouldn't be at the cost of other employees or taxpayers.

 

.... Don't forget that a worker with a SAHP misses less work on average and averages more working hours per year than other parents at the same employer.... That's what employee attendance policies are for. Again, it's nice if someone's wife makes it easier for him to get to work, so why does he need more support that single parents don't get?

 

Also, there are benefits available to more single than married parents in my state like state and federally subsidized childcare, healthcare and pK programs. I don't see that as unfair even though I don't benefit. .... Are these based on marital status or income of the parents? Not all single parents are low-income. I've never heard of a program open to my kids on account of my being single. I do know that being on public assistance is in a whole different category from getting the child tax credit. I've never gotten either, but I'm pretty sure one feels better than the other.

 

One could argue that people without children are getting short shrift by not getting child tax credits and by people's children getting lower rates at rec centers and from insurance companies. That would ignore the very real financial benefits to them that these children will later bring by paying for their SS and nursing homes. That's a whole different issue. But by the way, not everyone qualifies for child tax credits or the like. I don't. The idea that stay at home parents are a cost to others with no benefit to others is short-sighted and I speak as someone who has mostly been a working parent. That's a matter of opinion. I don't believe stay-at-home moms benefit me any more than working moms benefit me. Not that they should. But neither should I, as a payer of taxes and fees, benefit one group over the other.

 

I just think all adults should be treated equally regardless of marital status. If society wants to give benefits to children, they should give benefits to children, not to every married couple on the theory that they might be more likely to produce children than single people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What can I do to persuade everyone to please not argue in eye-puncturing neon?

 

And SKL. Answering green with red. Color blind people reading along are going to miss the entire discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What can I do to persuade everyone to please not argue in eye-puncturing neon?

 

And SKL. Answering green with red. Color blind people reading along are going to miss the entire discussion.

 

I though it was maroon. Looks like a decent contrast to me, but then, I'm not color-blind.

 

If I could have quoted and answered, I would have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically single parents need to be punished, just like gay people do. That's what it boils down to IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That conjured up an image that I really, really didn't want in my head. :ack2:

 

(I knew what you meant, though! :))

 

I didn't make it up. It's even a bumper sticker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mrs. Mungo,

 

The society you describe demonstrates very well the concept of marriage as much more than the union of two individuals.

 

Agreed.

 

Marriage is the clan's way of perpetuating itself, and of maintaining a stable social structure. The clan itself is built on blood ties, with marriages strengthening cross-generational ties between clans (those husbands marrying into the clan are likely the grandsons and nephews of clan members, the children of sons who married into other clans). And yes, the clan as an extended family takes care of one another. That is very different in my mind from the government as an institution trying to take care of everyone, but I am afraid that would have to be the subject of a different discussion altogether.

 

To my mind the construct of gay marriage is a further step away from the kind of social structure you have described--yet another step in the direction of focus on individual desires rather than familiar and social needs.

 

Disagree. Many people in gay partnerships and/or marriages are raising children. They are often adopting disadvantaged and/or unwanted children. Those individuals are *increasing* the stability of the type of social structure that I'm talking about. The ones who don't have children aren't destabilizing society any more than child-free hetero couples or people who never marry. Your point has *nothing* to do with whether or not the marriage is between a man and a woman or two women or two men.

 

I disagree with your definition of the essence of marriage; historically and cross-culturally the "contract between two people" has had much less significance than the contract between families and with society in general, and with childbearing, clan membership, and inheritance issues.

 

Marriage between two people in a long-term relationship helps these issues. It doesn't hurt them.

 

I think if you will re-read the sentences you quote in context (see below) you will see that I was not referring to studies of children reared by same-sex couples specifically. I am not very familiar with those studies. I am referring to studies of children born and raised out of wedlock. I am sorry I don't have time this morning to look up references, but a search should lead you to plenty of research indicating lower outcomes on a variety of scales compared to children raised by a married father and mother. I am concerned that the strength and social influence of marriage itself are weakening, and that a redefinition to include same-sex relationships will further weaken the concept and practice of marriage as a stable foundation for bearing and rearing children.

 

 

Honestly, I have to agree that it makes no sense to decry homosexual marriage while quote stats about the poor outcomes of children from homes in which the parents of the children are not married. Wouldn't the argument favor marriage and other factors that help increase stable homes for children?

 

I'm sorry, I have obviously not expressed myself well. I am concerned that overall marriage is losing its power as a social force that benefits individuals, families, and especially children. I was trying to reference the general decline of marriage and the way that decline disadvantages children. I can see how misunderstanding could happen. I am not worried so much about the impact on children of homosexual couples, but on the impact on ALL children if marriage itself loses meaning and influence. I believe that the union of male and female is an intrinsic part of marriage, and that something of value to society will be lost if we change that. Others disagree and believe that marriage will be strengthened.

 

 

I think marriage has already lost much of its meaning and influence. How do you think the 20 hours marriages of celebrities we see in the news strengthens marriage? If you want to help marriage, there are other ways. Many other countries and many different religious institutions have ways of trying to help with this problem. I don't think not allowing a certain group to marry is helpful.

 

NOW, on the other hand? The DoD is looking at a certificate of domestic partnership for gay couples in states where they are not allowed to marry. I think *that* sort of thing is more destabilizing for marriage and opens the DoD up for more fraud (I won't even begin to get into the stupid decisions soldiers make to try to get extra money from the government and the fallout I have personally seen from that).

 

What can I do to persuade everyone to please not argue in eye-puncturing neon?

 

 

AGREED! GAH! MY EYES!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I though it was maroon. Looks like a decent contrast to me, but then, I'm not color-blind.

 

If I could have quoted and answered, I would have.

 

 

It looks maroon on my screen, too, but holy cow, that green is bright!!! -- :eek: :eek: :eek:

 

I'm all in favor of the standard black typeface. Except when Imp posts, because then it's supposed to be bold. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically single parents need to be punished, just like gay people do. That's what it boils down to IMO.

 

 

That's is totally not the essence of what I was saying or meant at all. I have as little against single parents as I do against gay parents. Put a different way, I am as supportive of single parents as I am of gay parents. Anyone reading my posts knows that I am nothing but fully supportive of gay parents, SAHPs, working parents, purple parents. The idea that staying at home is just a choice for parents is absurd in many cases. I can work (my usual and preferred mode of living) or I can meet the needs of a child who can not go to school and needs one of his parents at home for the time being. I can't do both. While railing against bias of single parents, you are displaying a bias against parents who stay home by either choice or necessity.

 

We will just have to agree to disagree or not as you choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Back to changing the definition of marriage, easy no-fault divorce has dramatically altered our social concept of marriage as a lifetime commitment. Not everyone feels that is a good thing. The issue is not so much in the limelight now because it is very, very difficult to undue a change that is already deeply entrenched.

 

I assure you that there is nothing easy about divorce, "no fault" or otherwise.

 

What I can tell you, however, is that the state should not, in any form, be allowed to dictate to individuals who is "more at fault" in a marriage and drive the barrage of effects that come from evaluating someone's intimate relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quoting you at length but I am responding to the length of your post which I will flatly state that I consider both ill informed and ill considered.

 

Vitriol is people telling happy, stable and secure families they have never met that their family is a threat to society. This is not a "discussion" about possible "change". Gay people have been raising children for a very long time. The change is now. It's here and you may not like it, but you can not stop it. My brother is legally married to his husband - only he had to wait years and 2 kids in able to enjoy that right and freedom.

 

There is in fact no legitimate concern of yours which should impact the family of my brother, his husband and my perfectly happy 2 little nieces. You have zero standing to decide what is best for them or their daughters based on your concept of family. You don't get a vote. You can not make a valid argument that you do merely because you are personally attracted to the opposite gender.

 

I fail to see how this is up for discussion from uninvolved persons. It is about real people and their very real lives. Lives which you can not possibly understand well enough to be better able to make better decisions for them than they can for themselves, anymore than they would be able to make the best decisions for YOUR family. Why do YOU feel like you get any say in someone else's healthy and most simple, basic human relationship? How is that not intrusive and overreaching?

 

Marriage protects families and children and eases up the details of their lives (inheritance, taxes, child custody oversight, child support if a marriage ends etc) Unless you can tell me why that my sons should have more rights than their cousins, I don't see how the rest of your position stands. Your position is not about stability and raising the next generation well at all. What I think you are missing is that your POV is damaging to children. Not theoretical children- many gay people are parents, no two ways about it.

 

My nieces deserve the same legal protections and rights that my sons have always had by virtue of their parents be straight and able to marry right from the get go.

 

 

I don't usually quote a full post, but in this case it was warranted. :hurray: :hurray: :hurray:

 

That kind of attitude among women is why voting booths used to have curtains.

 

:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also back the PFLAG recommendation. A big part of their mission is community education and helping people come to terms with and break down their prejudices. A PP said some of their meetings are open to the public, but I think most of their meetings are open to the public, much like any social helping group. I checked and there is a San Antonio PFLAG. From their website:

 

Our Mission Statement

PFLAG promotes the health and well-being of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons, their families, and friends through: support, to cope with an adverse society; education, to enlighten an ill-informed public; and advocacy, to end discrimination and secure equal civil rights. PFLAG provides an opportunity for dialogue about sexual orientation and gender identity, and acts to create a society that is healthy and respectful of human diversity.

Ideally, you would go with your son, but failing that, go by yourself. You will receive a very warm welcome and they will be so glad you came.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

David_Tennant_kilt.jpg

 

 

This reminds me... Raleigh is having a kilted run tomorrow and trying to beat the Guiness Book of World Records for the number of runners. We will be there because they are having Irish music and dancing after the run, and my dd will be dancing. I forget exactly how many runners are registered but I know it's over a thousand. Not to brag or anything...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for those of you who still are confused about all the stealthy ninjas on this board..."let me sum up"

being "stealthy" or a ninja" refers to someone who is LGBT etc... but flies under the radar if you will. ie a bisexual man or woman married to a member of the opposite sex or a trans person you don't know is trans.

you only get to rack up ninja points if your genetic code is at least a little bit rainbow colored.

back to the original poster, sounds like you son is being a teenage boy, dh assures me the brain cells kick back in and until that it happens, lay down the law about what words/phrases are acceptable coming out of his mouth and continue to be civil and welcoming to everyone you meet he will figure it out. sounds like you are good loving mom.

and hey if people are starting to throw kilts around women can rock them too...

http:

as far the marriage thing goes, as my priest said we live in a country with a supposed separation of church as state...many of the marriages he has performed have been performed in church but the couple in question did not want them legally recognized. The government also married couples that he would not consider to be a valid marriage. We are lucky enough to live in a country that allows me to worship as I choose, i am not going to fight to take that away from someone else.


edited to add- Elizabeth I am jealous! We had a local frat do a kilted run for cancer but it was just a one time deal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read every post, but a few of my gay friends did lots of saying things like that to their parents to gage the type of reaction they might get when they came out. It was a test. Some then never told their families that they were gay; others did come out to their familiies.

 

I'm not a christian, but for some reason lots of people think I am; so, I've had people that I've known for a long time that I worked with or knew to some extent, but they never let on that they were gay because they were not sure my position - they thought I was a christian who would not agree with their love life.

 

So, I agree with the other posters that your kids and you probably know people who are gay, but may feel no need to discuss it with you or around you - possibly because of fear based on assumptions about you.

 

I feel the same about people from other countries. I wish I knew more - but I feel awkward just walking up to someone and saying "can we be friends cuz I want to know more about your life."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

o 3 tattoos, a fairy, a Hopi fertility deity, and a Scarlet Begonia. (Bonus point for knowing what that references!)

you got a song stuck in my head . . .

Ah, so you are a supporter of polygamy. That's cool, I have no problem with it either. Consenting adults, and all that. ;)

See, thats the only alternative i ever gave a good try for. hubby is not in to it, but i'm happily monogamous now. having kids made me feel like i AM in a multiple relationship . . . emotionally, anyways

 

I never wanted to get married, oddly, but ended up doing so twice. the ex thought it would make him feel more secure in the relationship. but then he hit me, so, no, you dont get security if you pull that crap.

 

so then i was a single mom . . . which i thought was a lot better than living with a guy who couldnt hold a job and frightened everyone in the home.

 

and then i got married again because dh is canadian and wanted to be sure he wouldnt be deported if he lost his job (he was on a nafta work permit)

 

oh, and i did know someone locally who's parents apparently made fun of a waitress who couldnt speak much english, calling her dumb . . . this is a pretty big (southern) city . . . it baffles me that people are so close-minded. in fact, i have a friend who ended up homeschooling . . .mostly because they speak spanish? at the private school, some of the moms overheard her speaking spanish to her (mexican) husband, and suddenly her son was uninvited to play dates. at the public school her son got in trouble for translating instructions for an ESL student. in first grade.

 

surprised i responded here . . . i really generally dont care what other ppl think about marriage. i believe gays should have the same rights for their families, and that, while switching to a legal contract for all couples, and let churches do an 'add-on' ceremony would be a great idea, that would be a hard sell. although thats kinda what my parents did, i think? they had a jewish marriage and a legal marriage. they said its a LOT harder to get a divorce from the jewish marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's is totally not the essence of what I was saying or meant at all. I have as little against single parents as I do against gay parents. Put a different way, I am as supportive of single parents as I am of gay parents. Anyone reading my posts knows that I am nothing but fully supportive of gay parents, SAHPs, working parents, purple parents. The idea that staying at home is just a choice for parents is absurd in many cases. I can work (my usual and preferred mode of living) or I can meet the needs of a child who can not go to school and needs one of his parents at home for the time being. I can't do both. While railing against bias of single parents, you are displaying a bias against parents who stay home by either choice or necessity.

 

We will just have to agree to disagree or not as you choose.

 

The comment to which you are replying here was not directed at you. It was an observation on how society views things and how financial / tax policy reflects these biases.

 

I have no bias for or against stay-at-home moms. I think people should do what is best for their families, and it shouldn't be rewarded, punished, or otherwise influenced by the government or other extra-family institutions. In fact, if the public believes that a family would NOT have made a certain choice in the absence of government incentives, one wonders whether that was in fact the best choice. Government incentives don't exactly have a great track record for improving society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooh, there are ninja points? I definitely get ninja points, being married to a male with two kids & all that. But somehow I think I end up with negative ninja points since my ex-girlfriend and her new wife have SIX children between them (six very happy, well cared for children btw) & live a FAR more conventional life than my husband and I. Sigh, oh well. Maybe if I get a tattoo of the flag...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for those of you who still are confused about all the stealthy ninjas on this board..."let me sum up"

 

being "stealthy" or a ninja" refers to someone who is LGBT etc... but flies under the radar if you will. ie a bisexual man or woman married to a member of the opposite sex or a trans person you don't know is trans.

 

you only get to rack up ninja points if your genetic code is at least a little bit rainbow colored.

 

 

 

Oooh! I get points! I get two generation points: ninja spawn of ninja.

 

Laura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest inoubliable

Oooh! I get points! I get two generation points: ninja spawn of ninja.

 

Laura

 

 

Damn, that's hardcore!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know these are difficult discussions, and I just want to jump in and say that I am so pleased they are happening. The one thing we all have in common is intense love for our kids, and the ability to shirk the norms of society in order to educate at home. If so many women from such diverse backgrounds can debate and learn from one another it means that hopefully our children will grow up to be able to do the same.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I assure you that there is nothing easy about divorce, "no fault" or otherwise.

 

What I can tell you, however, is that the state should not, in any form, be allowed to dictate to individuals who is "more at fault" in a marriage and drive the barrage of effects that come from evaluating someone's intimate relationship.

 

 

agreed!! Divorce is very expensive, very time cosuming, and the process can be very confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooh! I get points! I get two generation points: ninja spawn of ninja.

 

Laura

 

 

Ha! generation points awesome...My grandmother was the ultimate ninja, I'm pretty sure she is the reason I rock a buzz cut so well ;)that would be 3 generation points if I include the rest of my family.

 

I know these are difficult discussions, and I just want to jump in and say that I am so pleased they are happening. The one thing we all have in common is intense love for our kids, and the ability to shirk the norms of society in order to educate at home. If so many women from such diverse backgrounds can debate and learn from one another it means that hopefully our children will grow up to be able to do the same.

 

 

I agree, everyone's civility and humor have been refreshing on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Oooh! I get points! I get two generation points: ninja spawn of ninja.

 

I would claim generational points through my uncle but he was definitely not stealth. ;)

 

Laura

 

 

You get ninja points times 10 for being spawn of ninja. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooh, there are ninja points? I definitely get ninja points, being married to a male with two kids & all that. But somehow I think I end up with negative ninja points since my ex-girlfriend and her new wife have SIX children between them (six very happy, well cared for children btw) & live a FAR more conventional life than my husband and I. Sigh, oh well. Maybe if I get a tattoo of the flag...

 

 

No need for a flag tattoo. Please no. You have lots of ninja points. I don't award the ninja points but I think your married ex-girlfriend gives you more points, not negative ones. You might want to buy a mini van just in case. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...