GOP Vote Declines Less Than NYT

[foxpaws]

The "acceptance of divorce" says nothing about how society views marriage with regards to children. It only says how easy it is for a divorce and how permenant they view marriage as.

Yes the ‘acceptance of divorce’ says a lot about how society views marriage with regards to children. Society now accepts that one parent households are OK to raise a child – otherwise we wouldn’t have divorce would we? That certainly goes against your argument that you have to have a male/female household to raise children.

Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.

And do you really think in this society – where there are almost as many non traditional households (single parent/step parent/grandparents/gay) raising children – that the statement you quoted is still true? How many children view marriage as a security blanket? How many people do you know that don’t have experience with divorce and alternate families? Whether they are the product of a divorced home, they have gone through a divorce, have married someone who is divorced, have children who are divorced and are taking care of grandchildren, there are a lot of people who fit that category.

Marriage should stay within the church, it is a good place for it – the morals and stigmatisms that religions foist onto it are the old standards that you quote above shag.

Society is moving away from the two parent standard with the widespread acceptance of divorce. It certainly doesn’t have anything to do with (as you said) how permanent they view marriage as. It is just the opposite. Marriage is now not permanent, it can be altered quickly, painlessly (if desired ), and without societal condemnation.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Because in some states, the language didn't specifically mention genders. Clearly, this wasn't the result of a tolerance for homosexual marriage, it was simply taken for granted. Aggressive lawyers and activist judges started reinterpreting the law, so states are just plugging the loop holes.

Clearly? To whom? So in your world some religious zealot is allowed to interpret the law?

But thanks for confirming my assertion that the RIGHT is trying to get the government to BAN gay marriage by redefining it to fit their narrow vision. THAT is government interferrence. :Beer

 

[Calabrio]

Johnny, if you want to engage in any kind of thoughtful debate, please do. But these drive by, thoughtful, attacks designed to simply score a quick hit, followed by your running a way are boring.

Clearly? To whom? So in your world some religious zealot is allowed to interpret the law?

So someone who recognizes that marriage is a specific union between a man and a woman is a "religious zealot?"

But thanks for confirming my assertion that the RIGHT is trying to get the government to BAN gay marriage by redefining it to fit their narrow vision. THAT is government interferrence. :Beer

I didn't confirm your assertion, I corrected you.
The only "redefinition" that is taking place is by the direction of the left.

Let's go back 50 years. If someone told your grandfather that they were getting married, did he need to get clarification before knowing the gender of the other party involved? Of course not. Marriage was between a man and a woman.

In order to make it now include any two people, regardless of gender, means you have to redefine that old institution.

This isn't complicated stuff, I'm sure you can follow it, if you were willing to be honest.

If you want to argue that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, then you can't argue that it should be forced to include homosexuals in the tradition. That simply expands a policy that you don't support. Instead you should invest your energy into getting rid of public recognition of "marriage" regardless of orientation. You can't argue both from that side.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Johnny, if you want to engage in any kind of thoughtful debate, please do. But these drive by, thoughtful, attacks designed to simply score a quick hit, followed by your running a way are boring.


So someone who recognizes that marriage is a specific union between a man and a woman is a "religious zealot?"

Or not. You seem to have ZERO qualification for WHO interprets the definition of marriage. I'll take the LAW's literal definition, which is NOT gender-specific, thank you.

Let's go back 50 years. If someone told your grandfather that they were getting married, did he need to get clarification before knowing the gender of the other party involved? Of course not. Marriage was between a man and a woman.

In order to make it now include any two people, regardless of gender, means you have to redefine that old institution.

This isn't complicated stuff, I'm sure you can follow it, if you were willing to be honest.

If you want to argue that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, then you can't argue that it should be forced to include homosexuals in the tradition. That simply expands a policy that you don't support. Instead you should invest your energy into getting rid of public recognition of "marriage" regardless of orientation. You can't argue both from that side.

Cal, again your dishonest argument is based on some arbitrary, un-written, un-qualified, ambiguous "definition". If the LAW was based on some "societal" definition of marriage being exclusive to man-woman, then why was it NOT originally written that way to begin with? Why do you continue to pretend that homosexuality is some 20th century phenomenon? And WHO gets to define what a "man" and a "woman" is?? Does the right now want to give potential married couples physical tests to assure that the couple contains one penis and one vagina? What about trans-gender and trans-sexual people? What about those people born with both sex organs who had NO CHOICE over their "god-given" sexuality?

There are only 2 rightious choices for the LAW, 1) remain arbitrary on the couple's sexuality, or 2) stay out of the "marriage" buisness altogether. To do anything else is to restrict the individual freedoms afforded by our constitution.

If the wording of the LAW has to be changed to limit "marriage" to be specifically between one male and one female, then that, by definition, IS re-definition.

 

[Calabrio]

I'll take the LAW's literal definition, which is NOT gender-specific, thank you.

Another remarkably stupid statement.
Right now, the law in California says the marriage is between a man and a woman. Florida had a similar amendment on it's ballot that also passed also.

Cal, again your dishonest argument is based on some arbitrary, un-written, un-qualified, ambiguous "definition". If the LAW was based on some "societal" definition of marriage being exclusive to man-woman, then why was it NOT originally written that way to begin with?

Because in the states where that specification was omitted, the fact that marriage is a male/female union was entirely taken for granted. Because the marriage doesn't specifically EXCLUDE sheep or pets, does that mean it's technically included too?

Why do you continue to pretend that homosexuality is some 20th century phenomenon?

I never implied or stated any such thing.
Why do you pretend that anyone in the past ever even considered that marriage would be redefined to include two people of the same sex? Do you think that, in the states where they forgot to include that detail, they were doing so in an effort to be inclusive??

And WHO gets to define what a "man" and a "woman" is??

Do we need to have a talk about the birds and the bees, Johnny? I would have thought you'd learned all about that in the public school.

Does the right now want to give potential married couples physical tests to assure that the couple contains one penis and one vagina?

The right doesn't want to do anything, but keep a traditional institution unchanged. This impression you're trying to make that conservatives are trying to make any kind of fundamental change to the culture is simply untrue and demonstrates the lefts persistent pattern of deception.

What about trans-gender and trans-sexual people? What about those people born with both sex organs who had NO CHOICE over their "god-given" sexuality?

What about a Siamese twin bearded lady(ladies) that likes to bite chicken heads off? If they enter a polygamous relationship with the half man, the sword swallower, and a goat, should we call that marriage too.

There are only 2 rightious choices for the LAW, 1) remain arbitrary on the couple's sexuality, or 2) stay out of the "marriage" buisness altogether. To do anything else is to restrict the individual freedoms afforded by our constitution.

Again, this is a foolish statement.
Marriage has a recognized and understood definition.
Check the dictionary, first defintion:
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

You don't need to redefine it so that other people can engage in something entirely different, but share the title.
Marriage is a religious or legal union between one man and one woman. There are even some conditions associated with it. These rules, this definition of this specific union is applied fairly and uniformly throughout the population.

You don't have a "right" to get married to a person you love.
You are allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender, you don't even have to like them.

Civil Union and domestic partnerships do, and they can be made to, replicate all of the financial and legal advantages and privileges that are associated with traditional marriage.

If the wording of the LAW has to be changed to limit "marriage" to be specifically between one male and one female, then that, by definition, IS re-definition.

No, if the legal definition of marriage needs to be made more CLEAR in SOME states, then that isn't redefinition.

If the entire culture needs to be retaught what something is, that by definition IS redefining it.

If I asked your father what marriage was 40 years ago, would he have said a "civil union between two people that might be homosexual?"
Of course not. He's say the union between a man and a woman.
If I asked your grandfather that question, he'd give me the same answer. They knew the definition. I know the same definition. You're the one who's trying to CHANGE the definition to include something else.

And ultimately, in Florida and California, you saw this matter determined through the Democratic process. Are you taking issue with that?
If the people of the state overwhelmingly, and repeatedly, say in an election that they don't want to redefine the institution, why are you saying they are wrong.