To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 23555
23554  |  23556
Subject: 
Re: Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:58:54 GMT
Viewed: 
453 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
  
I don’t think it’s so obvious, honestly. If the fundamental criterion for legal marriage is the possibility of childbirth, then non-fertile couples must not be allowed to wed. Similarly, if a wife and husband try unsuccessfully to conceive, must their marriage be dissolved?

Don’t ask, don’t tell;-) But seriously, privacy issues put that tack in irons.

   What is obvious is the fact that the possibility of childbirth is not the fundamental criterion of marriage. Equally obvious is the fact that the differences between men and women are not fundamental criteria, either.

If you want to argue that men and women are basically the same, bring it on;-D

   Which, in your view, would be more destructive to the development and well-being of a child: a loving, stable marriage between two men in which the child is raised by both parents, or a bitter, abusive marriage between a man and a woman, in which one or both parents fail to provide emotional stability for the child?

Specious. You are comparing apples and oranges. Of course I’d never advocate abuse by anyone. By your analogy, 2 loving wolves would be better than 1 abusive heterosexual couple. Rephrase your question with the premise of “all things being equal”. That is a more valid analogy.

   If you are indeed thinking primarily of the child’s well being, and if you’re willing to have the Constitution altered to protect children’s well-being, wouldn’t it follow that dysfunctional heterosexual marriage must be banned along with homosexual marriage?

If not, why not?

Define “dysfunctional”. And BTW, the proposed Amendment doesn’t “ban” gay marriage; it merely defines marriage as the union of 1 man and 1 women. I could just as easily call it the “Amendment that bans polygamy”, but that isn’t really an accurate title.

Are we already devolving into the Pro-Choice/Pro-Abortion vs Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion nomenclature already?

JOHN



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee)
 
(...) Well, the last time I looked, they're pretty different in most cases. But my point is that the difference between men and women is not central to marriage. Therefore the difference between men and women cannot be used as a gatekeeper criterion (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Marriage (was: Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee)
 
(...) I don't think it's so obvious, honestly. If the fundamental criterion for legal marriage is the possibility of childbirth, then non-fertile couples must not be allowed to wed. Similarly, if a wife and husband try unsuccessfully to conceive, (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

33 Messages in This Thread:











Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR