It's is this insane kind of ideology that makes individuals such as yourself the best friend the pro-abortion advocates and politicians have ever encountered.
toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
It's is this insane kind of ideology that makes individuals such as yourself the best friend the pro-abortion advocates and politicians have ever encountered.
I think it is important for a child to have a mother and a father
ALL children are biologically created with a mother and a father. However, to answer your question: It is far better for children to be raised in a stable environment with one parent rather than an environment of two parents that includes cheating, violence, drugs, etc.
All children DO have a mother and father. Next ..............................
so how do we keep it that way?
Keep what what way? Children STILL have two parents ... it's a fact. Even if one dies, they STILL have two parents, one is just no longer living.
how do we keep them together while they are still alive?
Well, we could make a law that anyone that is charged with domestic violence or child abuse have his/her spinal cord severed so they are paralyzed from the neck down.
Then we can make the legal consequence of a cheating parent to be surgically altered in such a way that they can never have sex again.
Let's not forget a law that mandates either parent who is continuously verbally abusive have their tongue surgically removed.
For those who abuse alcohol to the extent they harm their family, they need to be forcibly injected with Antabuse.
Is this what you had in mind, Chrys? Because outside of divorce, it is the ONLY way to stop those types of situations if the offending parent refuses to change.
zippy2006
New member
My internet is out for the month and I am trying to find a new place to live, so I'm having a hard time responding atm :chuckle: (at work right now searching for apartments)
In an attempt to summarize my position:
1. My position is wholly dependent on the benefits and positive subsidies that the government offers married couples
2. I believe that those benefits exist for healthy families and society, namely:
2a. Procreation
2b. Optimal family setting--one mother and one father
Now this is a perfectly coherent argument, whether you and TH in your enormous bias prefer to acknowledge it or not. As for our own conversation, it seems that you have recently been challenging 1, even in spite of the support it has had throughout the thread. If you think that marriage does not imply those benefits, then I'd say you're as crazy as TH when he says the government is merely looking to strengthen relationships to increase happiness and productivity in society via monetary support. The everyday man working in the middle class just knows how wrong those assertions are, I don't intend to argue them and if you disagree then we've nowhere to go.
What do you think?
:e4e:
What I said, in answer to your question, was that you can't protect children from divorce by contract. You can make divorce illegal, I suppose. Are you in favor of that? But then you'd need to be certain the two maintained a residence and care of the children, or it would just be a legal fiction. And you only just said it wasn't practical to look in on families...so that hardly seems helpful.
can you improve the chances that they will stay together with a contract?
zippy2006
New member
Your pride-encrusted methods have come to a point in this thread. I've found them supremely disappointing both from a secular and Christian point of view. You default to throwing rocks and ad hominem attacks, and nothing else (which is what separates you from someone like Rex or I, who are foolishly prideful but yet presenting a point at the same time). That your nose remains high above mirrors throughout the ordeal is also supremely frustrating; a level of intellectual dishonesty and self-reflective ignorance only found in someone of such learning--a fact which continues to strike me as odd even as I encounter it more and more. It's almost as if you don't understand how ridiculously arrogant and condescending your comments are, both to me and to other posters in this thread. Their lack of resemblance to Christ is staggering; your "swinging with both hands" is nothing more than the mockery offered by the demons.
...and this is all rather ironic since my point in this thread was merely to raise the level of discussion on the topic to ...well discussion. Hell forbid.
:down:
Rather, I've set out points and argued them, whatever your opinion. You mostly live to declare, as you do here, and do so in contradiction to the facts of the matter.
So you'll admit to a fault, if only when you can claim company in it (and I don't agree with you about rex) and use it to point to a larger perceived fault on my part. Telling.
Given the smell of so much of what you're offering here it seems a reasonable enough positioning, metaphorically speaking.
You know, the whole unsupported ad hom bent would probably look less like a petulant swipe if you coupled it with actual examples and without hurling "pride encrusted", charges of "intellectual dishonesty" and "self reflective ignorance" along with them, to say nothing of the ever popular pointy-headed intellectual attack.
Well, we can't all have your Christ like demeanor and practice...at least not if the Romans are going to be left with any work.
Supra.Then you need a better sense of direction to match an elevated practice. My hope is that time may be your ally in that regard, but who knows?
:e4e:
I think, like any other dictator who sees himself as benevolent, you wish to impose your views on all of society.
You ignore the Founding Fathers express dictates to separate Church and State for the good of a diverse population.
You have been as relentless as a Rat Terrier in pursuit of his prey.
I do not want you or anyone else to define me beyond the dictates of governmental rules and regulation for my/our safety and pursuit of happiness.
You are free to do as you please. In this country others enjoy the same freedoms, SO FAR!.
:rain:
There's nothing here that's at all new. Even if your argument were entirely coherent, that doesn't imply that it is correct. More on this below.
I think wherever I've seen you assert something like #1, I've challenged it all along.
If that's true, I'd say I'm in good company. But you've been given an answer to this line of reasoning repeatedly, and failed to address it adequately each time. The law is entirely able to address benefits for raising children specifically to people who are actually raising children. That being the case, where legislation names as beneficiary the married couple themselves, or a spouse, it is quite reasonable to assume that the intention is to subsidize the marriage for its own sake, not dependent on children, especially where, as with the SSA, there are parallel benefits for both surviving spouses and surviving children.
As for points 2a-b, marriage has been described by the Supreme Court as a basic right. To deny it to make it easier to withhold certain government benefits from homosexual couples is not only directly in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment, but it is also contrary to the Court's view of what marriage is. Now previously you've been shown the error due to irrelevance of 2a, and you haven't even begun to try to make the case for 2b, so I'd say you're pretty well without an argument.
It's like your earlier appeal to common sense. You claim to speak for a silent majority that removes the burden of winning the argument from you. You're right on the cusp of the anti-intellectual crowd's derision of "elitism".
I think you should take some careful time to consider what has been said to you, and try to post something that actually addresses the argument against you.
alwight
New member
This is just a comment here by me btw since I really don't know the situation in the USA, pay no heed.
Family benefits imo are paid after-the-fact as part of a more responsible society's response to maintaining that society.
IOW the government is not openly pro-actively encouraging a particular ideal of marriage, nor that there even is one, it is merely making a practical response to a perceived need.
There is in fact no absolute moral standard of what a marriage is or should be, as seen by government at least, only a currently accepted relative interpretation.
This surely all rather harks back to your particular views of absolute moral standards perhaps, possibly?
Everyone should have equal rights in secular society despite their sexual orientation and free from religious interference.
A child only gets protection if they are with their biological parents?
Ready for what? Should I have been preparing for something? :noid:
You say that as if the purpose doesn't matter. Are you contending that married couples give the government as much of a benefit as corporations?
- Status