Post Reply
Page 5 of 27  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 27 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Marriage as a legal contract
2 years ago  ::  May 22, 2012 - 11:55PM #41
Find1Answer
Posts: 7,265

well for one thing it is exhausting debating point by point especially considering no one is going to change their opinion.    It is difficult countering all your leftist theory as if all the blame of society's ills rest there.       so blah blah blah is not as inconclusive as you think.    


Here is where I think your rigid ideas are flawed.    I live in a red state that is solidly conservative.     a state that glorifies the sanctity of marriage and children.    Yet we have one of the highest teen birth rates in the nation.    My county has the highest per capita in the state.     We have a solid religion that predominates.  Everyone is in church on Sunday.   Everyone plays church ball.     How is it all these conservatives divorce ,  have gay children, have out of wedlock children?      Is it because of the leftists?     If it is the leftists then where are they in my state.    We often have zero democrats on the ballot where I live.    Where does Sen Vitter, Ensign, Govenor Sanford etc. fit into your theories.    You have a weak argument that everything bad is leftist.      Conservatives divorce as often as Liberals.      Conservative children have out of wedlock babies. obvious example are the Palins.    Bristol is cashing in on her status.  what is she on her 3rd reality show all extolling the virtues of traditional ways.   At least Megan McCain isn't phoney about it.


I do not understand why the matter is so complicated.    You have two individuals who wish to obtain civil marriage,  to raise children, to  have the same rights and obligations as married people.    gay or straight,  committment is committment.    I do not support Civil unions convey e second class citizenship.    You seem to be saying that everyone's reasons for marriage are trivial and non traditional.     I do not see how can speak for everybody.    btw I have two divorces,   and it was not because of the reasons you stated as least on my part.   I took the traditional route but they did not.     and they are both conservatives.  who knew

Bush's "de-Bathification program" eliminated all vestiges of Sunni power in Iraqi society and set the stage for the Sunni insurrection against American occupation and the new Shiite-led government. Bush disbanded the entire Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army and bureaucracy. He didn't change it. He didn't make it more inclusive of Shiites and Kurds. He just disbanded it. It is no accident that two of the top commanders of today's ISIL are former commanders in the Saddam-era Iraqi military.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 23, 2012 - 1:44AM #42
Ed.W
Posts: 9,436

May 22, 2012 -- 10:04PM, Bodean wrote:



Find .. I"m not trying to be hostile .. but you're missing the point.


Marriage ... is not about purple passion, and all that jazz.  It's not about the crap you find on E-Harmony.com.  It's not about what's on some reality TV show.  It most certainly is not about what you see in Hollywood.  MARRIAGE is NOT about the individual's involved desires.  It's not about the "couple's rights".


Think about it, in some cultures, still today, Marriages are arranged.  People are put together based on knowlege, not based on Romeo and Juliet.


Rather, Marriage is about committment, not to each other, but to the ideal of marriage itself, and the goals of marriage.  It is two people who can become ONE with the Goals of the Marriage, not one with their individual goals.


The reason that so many Marriages today don't work out, is because the Goals of Marriage have been replaced with the "desires" of the individuals involved.  Marriages split, just because .. so n so didn't make "me" happy.  I got bored with my marriage.  ... or ... I "fell in love with another". .. and all that other "I", ME .. MINE stuff.  Even relationships today are founded on the false mask of an individual.  Ya know .. the guy who can make me laugh .. or the chick who is mind blowing in bed.  It all has become how does this person fit into "MY" personality.  It's about "chemistry" ... personalities. ... the FALSE.


Characteristics of honesty, integrity, a good provider, a good mother, faithfullness, commitment, etc never enter the picture in a good number of the relationships of today .. to be specific .. about 50% of them. [I believe that is the divorce rate these days]


The Qualities of a Sound Marriage are not the same as a mind blowing relationship.  There actually is Codependence in a Marriage.  There is a VALUE .. one so strong that it prevents an individual from straying from the marriage because of loyalty, and a fear of losing what they have.


Gay Marriage is not of the original cloth of Traditional Marriage.  It is of the cloth of the "new relationship" .. the fancy, glitzy, ME centric crap that has lead to a divorce rate of 50%.





Nice post, Bo.  All of it was nice, but I just excerpted it.



And this is the way it is, people.  Marriage is bigger than any couple.   Marriage should not be equated to merely a contract, or definable only by the couple involved.


The last poster is right, no one is changing their minds.  It's therefore time to understand those that are saying "no change".

‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 23, 2012 - 4:37AM #43
arielg
Posts: 9,116

Two basic views seem to emerge from these discussions.  One is that  marriage is a social institution created to organize and  benefit the needs  and survival of society. Altough it is carried out by individuals, it's foundation is  the benefit of society as a whole.


The other sees marriage as a contract between  two individuals for their own benefit and personal satisfaction.  No social considerations needed. This view has made  marriage  a civil rights issue,  intended  for the benefit of the spouses.


Funny how on this issue, "conservatives"  emphasize  societal considerations, while  "leftist, socialistic  minded" individuals emphasize individual rights.  So much for fixed labels.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 23, 2012 - 7:57AM #44
amcolph
Posts: 17,456

May 23, 2012 -- 4:37AM, arielg wrote:


Two basic views seem to emerge from these discussions.  One is that  marriage is a social institution created to organize and  benefit the needs  and survival of society. Altough it is carried out by individuals, it's foundation is  the benefit of society as a whole.


The other sees marriage as a contract between  two individuals for their own benefit and personal satisfaction.  No social considerations needed. This view has made  marriage  a civil rights issue,  intended  for the benefit of the spouses.


Funny how on this issue, "conservatives"  emphasize  societal considerations, while  "leftist, socialistic  minded" individuals emphasize individual rights.  So much for fixed labels.




Not a bit of it.  Conservatives would like to have the argument shape up that way so they can rant about 'hedonistc Liberals' and all that other sort of egregious crap, but it just plain isnt true.


Marriage is both of those things, as Liberals know full well.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 23, 2012 - 9:12AM #45
Bodean
Posts: 9,495

May 23, 2012 -- 4:37AM, arielg wrote:


Two basic views seem to emerge from these discussions.  One is that  marriage is a social institution created to organize and  benefit the needs  and survival of society. Altough it is carried out by individuals, it's foundation is  the benefit of society as a whole.


The other sees marriage as a contract between  two individuals for their own benefit and personal satisfaction.  No social considerations needed. This view has made  marriage  a civil rights issue,  intended  for the benefit of the spouses.





BINGO Ariel.


There cannot be any understanding of the other sides point, because the two debate from two completely different premise.


In every thread on this topic, the only concern of Leftist on this issue is "rights".  They look at "marriage" as nothing more than a piece of paper that confers rights on the two people involved.  Thus, OSM, SSM .. marriage of any kind, is viewed from the perspective of "rights".  Thus, these marriage come to an end, be they OSM or SSM, because the individuals carry their rights with them, regardless of the union.


Conservatives view Marriage in its original context.  As an obligation and responsibility regarding the progression of hunanity towards the IDEAL.  Marriage transcends the "relationship" itself.  Hence ... "for better or worse, in sickness and health, till death do us part".  Those words do not allow for trivial excuses to end the Marriage.  It's not about "my rights" .. it's about an obligation to the Marriage itself.  There was a time when people felt shame for failing to honor the institution of marriage.  Today ... it's nothing for a person to get married multiple times.  This is because of Leftist Thought being pushed on  society through media and teaching.


The data tell us ... the Conservative view is consistent with striving for the ideal.  Even if not every marriage survives, the intent is for the two people to be committed to the marriage, as much as to each other.


The Leftist view is consistent with lose relations that can easily be nulified.  Hence, this is why the more Leftist the perspective of the State or Nation, the less respected is the institution of Marriage, and thus, less marriage occur [with more lose co-habitations etc].  With less marriages, you don't have to worry about the "divorce rate" .. because people aren't committing to the institution of marriage in the first place.  All they are worried about are "their rights". ... ie., I, ME, MINE.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 23, 2012 - 9:45AM #46
Ed.W
Posts: 9,436

May 23, 2012 -- 4:37AM, arielg wrote:



Funny how on this issue, "conservatives"  emphasize  societal considerations, while  "leftist, socialistic  minded" individuals emphasize individual rights.  So much for fixed labels.





Seems ironic at first glance, but it's not.  The socialist wants to destroy distinctions and erase lines between the rich and the poor.  Let's put all the money in one pot and divide it up equitably.... let's make working hard and disciplined living and saving worthless to them.


Let's make sure that someone with all the money in the world gets the same shoddy medical care as someone with no money would, i.e., let's make their money worthless to them.


Socialists are against the idea of "private property", in a nutshell.  That property can be real things, money, or abstract things like marriage.


We conservatives are concerned about the health of the society, but we don't find that the idea of private property is something that is harmful.




‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 23, 2012 - 9:46AM #47
amcolph
Posts: 17,456

May 23, 2012 -- 9:12AM, Bodean wrote:


May 23, 2012 -- 4:37AM, arielg wrote:


Two basic views seem to emerge from these discussions.  One is that  marriage is a social institution created to organize and  benefit the needs  and survival of society. Altough it is carried out by individuals, it's foundation is  the benefit of society as a whole.


The other sees marriage as a contract between  two individuals for their own benefit and personal satisfaction.  No social considerations needed. This view has made  marriage  a civil rights issue,  intended  for the benefit of the spouses.





BINGO Ariel.


There cannot be any understanding of the other sides point, because the two debate from two completely different premise.


In every thread on this topic, the only concern of Leftist on this issue is "rights".  They look at "marriage" as nothing more than a piece of paper that confers rights on the two people involved.  Thus, OSM, SSM .. marriage of any kind, is viewed from the perspective of "rights".  Thus, these marriage come to an end, be they OSM or SSM, because the individuals carry their rights with them, regardless of the union.


Conservatives view Marriage in its original context.  As an obligation and responsibility regarding the progression of hunanity towards the IDEAL.  Marriage transcends the "relationship" itself.  Hence ... "for better or worse, in sickness and health, till death do us part".  Those words do not allow for trivial excuses to end the Marriage.  It's not about "my rights" .. it's about an obligation to the Marriage itself.  There was a time when people felt shame for failing to honor the institution of marriage.  Today ... it's nothing for a person to get married multiple times.  This is because of Leftist Thought being pushed on  society through media and teaching.


The data tell us ... the Conservative view is consistent with striving for the ideal.  Even if not every marriage survives, the intent is for the two people to be committed to the marriage, as much as to each other.


The Leftist view is consistent with lose relations that can easily be nulified.  Hence, this is why the more Leftist the perspective of the State or Nation, the less respected is the institution of Marriage, and thus, less marriage occur [with more lose co-habitations etc].  With less marriages, you don't have to worry about the "divorce rate" .. because people aren't committing to the institution of marriage in the first place.  All they are worried about are "their rights". ... ie., I, ME, MINE.




That is absolute humbug, Bodean.


If you are going to argue against gay marriage, please do us the courtesy of bringing substantive arguments that you, yourself, find convincing.


Your constant attacks on imaginary liberals are fatuous and boring.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 23, 2012 - 10:27AM #48
Fodaoson
Posts: 11,155

What is a leftie?   It is my opinion , particularly  about BN posters ,that right and left  are used to disparage others and their opinions( see1)  Boaz asserts that arguments about the way the words should be used often displaces arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against a preconceived notion of what the terms mean


Blattberg’s  paper is cited as is Boaz’s


 


(1)“Some political scientists have suggested that the classifications of "left" and "right" are no longer meaningful in the modern complex world. Although these terms continue to be used, they advocate a more complex spectrum that attempts to combine political, economic and social dimensions


(2) The political philosopher  Charles Blattberg has proposed response to conflict as the basis of a reinterpreted political spectrum. According to Blattberg, those who would respond to conflict with conversation should be considered as on the left, with negotiation as in the center, and with force as on the right. See his essay "Political Philosophies and Political Ideologies.( papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract...)


 


(3)Libertarian writer David Boaz argued that terms left and right are used to spin a particular point of view rather than as simple descriptors, with those on the "left" typically emphasizing their support for working people and accusing the right of supporting the interests of the upper class, and those on the "right" usually emphasizing their support for individualism and accusing the Left of supporting Collectivism. Boaz asserts that arguments about the way the words should be used often displaces arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against a preconceived notion of what the terms mean(David Boaz, The Politics of Freedom: Taking on The Left, the Right, and the Threats to our Liberties, Cato Institute)

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 23, 2012 - 10:34AM #49
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,748

May 22, 2012 -- 10:49PM, Bodean wrote:


May 22, 2012 -- 10:39PM, Do_unto_others wrote:


Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.


Yada yada yada.


Do you ever listen to the inanities you type?





you can't argue with a single point of it.  All you can do is type what you did.





I not only can, but I have on numerous occasions.


All your blather about "future generations" is predicated on procreation. But you always ignore the fact that we let non-procreative heterosexuals marry, that procreation is not a requirement for marriage (ANYONE's), nor that procreations can and does take place outside of the legal marriage contract all the time.


You likewise ignore that many LGBT folk not only do have children, they also adopt them (some 24% of the more than 130,000 legally married same-gender couples in America are raising children, often their own biological children).


And you ignore the harm that not allowing the parents of these children to marry does to those citizens and their children


But once again, the presence of children (in heterosexual or homosexual households) is irrelevant to the secular contract that is marriage, and you simply have not made a cogent case for keeping LGBT citizens from entering into that contract.


Feel free to try.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 23, 2012 - 10:39AM #50
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,748

May 22, 2012 -- 11:55PM, Find1Answer wrote:

I live in a red state that is solidly conservative.     a state that glorifies the sanctity of marriage and children.    Yet we have one of the highest teen birth rates in the nation.



Are those teens married? How does this "highest teen birth rate" 'sanctify marriage'???


May 22, 2012 -- 11:55PM, Find1Answer wrote:

My county has the highest per capita in the state.     We have a solid religion that predominates.  Everyone is in church on Sunday.   Everyone plays church ball.     How is it all these conservatives divorce ,  have gay children, have out of wedlock children?      Is it because of the leftists?     If it is the leftists then where are they in my state.    We often have zero democrats on the ballot where I live.    Where does Sen Vitter, Ensign, Govenor Sanford etc. fit into your theories.    You have a weak argument that everything bad is leftist.      Conservatives divorce as often as Liberals.      Conservative children have out of wedlock babies. obvious example are the Palins.    Bristol is cashing in on her status.  what is she on her 3rd reality show all extolling the virtues of traditional ways.   At least Megan McCain isn't phoney about it.



QED. Thanks.


May 22, 2012 -- 11:55PM, Find1Answer wrote:

I do not understand why the matter is so complicated.    You have two individuals who wish to obtain civil marriage,  to raise children, to  have the same rights and obligations as married people.    gay or straight,  committment is committment.



Agreed. Equal is equal.


May 22, 2012 -- 11:55PM, Find1Answer wrote:

    I do not support Civil unions convey e second class citizenship.



Observably so, too.


May 22, 2012 -- 11:55PM, Find1Answer wrote:

 You seem to be saying that everyone's reasons for marriage are trivial and non traditional.     I do not see how can speak for everybody.    btw I have two divorces,   and it was not because of the reasons you stated as least on my part.   I took the traditional route but they did not.     and they are both conservatives.  who knew





To paraphrase from Othello: "Refutation. Refutation. Refutation."


 


Many thanks for your cogent response to the 'rightists'.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 27  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 27 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook