toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[Arthur Brain]

I didn't ask you if you intended to have children

just wanted to know if you would go ahead and have children without getting married

Why is that any of your business anyway? I would only have children if I was prepared for the responsibility that's attached and marriage itself isn't some magical contract that leads to responsible parenting or 'protects' children from relationships going awry.

 

[Arthur Brain]

why won't you answer the question?

are you worried about where it would lead?

someone has to take care of your child
and
is that someone getting health benefits?
is that someone contributing to the social security fund?

Oh the irony. What happened to you Chrys? You never used to be such a troll so what changed? Why won't you answer the questions posed or even attempt to back up your own assertions? You do nowt these days but spam up threads. Heck, the only person with marginally more irritating post formatting nowadays is 'The Horn'....though even that's probably a toss of a coin...

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

does the mother stay home and take care of your child?

What if she does? How is that relevant?

 

[chrysostom]

Why is that any of your business anyway? I would only have children if I was prepared for the responsibility that's attached and marriage itself isn't some magical contract that leads to responsible parenting or 'protects' children from relationships going awry.

for some reason you are not willing to say that you would have children without getting married

there must be a reason for that

 

[rexlunae]

I really didn't understand the reason you gave

can you try to explain it?

Ok. Once more. Treating gay marriage as something legally other than marriage serves no purpose but to sustain the inequality which the Constitution forbids, if only in name.

 

[chrysostom]

What if she does? How is that relevant?

does that person have health benefits?

does that person have some sort of pension fund?

does that person have any job security?

 

[chrysostom]

Ok. Once more. Treating gay marriage as something legally other than marriage serves no purpose but to sustain the inequality which the Constitution forbids, if only in name.

how does the name change make it not equal?
and
what is this need for equality based on?

 

[Town Heretic]

why won't you answer the question?

It isn't relevant to the actual point under consideration AND why should I answer a single question of yours given your utter unresponsiveness relating to objections and counters raised against your declarations?

are you worried about where it would lead?

If by that you mean further and further away from a coherent point that would weigh on the consideration before us, sure. lain:

someone has to take care of your child and is that someone getting health benefits?

How does this relate to the OP or my arguments regarding it again?

is that someone contributing to the social security fund?

Supra.

 

[Arthur Brain]

does that person have health benefits?

does that person have some sort of pension fund?

does that person have any job security?

The wife? What are you talking about here?

 

[Samstarrett]

what are your methods?

The "methods" thing was primarily a reference to abortion, where your method seems to be to mindlessly punch the hole marked "R" and vote in the primary for awful pro-choice Republicans if you think they can get the GOP into the White House in an attempt to get "conservative justices" on the Supreme Court, whereas my method is, among others, to only support real pro-life candidates.

 

[chrysostom]

they are avoiding my questions because they cannot deny the awesome responsibility of taking care of a child

the child is completely dependent on the parents
the child is a full time job
and
whoever takes care of that child needs to be taken care of as well

now compare that to two adults living together, each with their own job and each with their own benefits sharing a place to live

you should all be ashamed of yourselves for not admitting to all this

 

[Arthur Brain]

for some reason you are not willing to say that you would have children without getting married

there must be a reason for that

I would only consider having children while in a committed relationship. As it happens I don't intend on having kids anyway but if that changed then marriage wouldn't be the catalyst for it. Can I be any more clear?

 

[Arthur Brain]

they are avoiding my questions because they cannot deny the awesome responsibility of taking care of a child

the child is completely dependent on the parents
the child is a full time job
and
whoever takes care of that child needs to be taken care of as well

now compare that to two adults living together, each with their own job and each with their own benefits sharing a place to live

you should all be ashamed of yourselves for not admitting to all this

Who the heck is denying or even wanting to deny that parenting is a full time responsibility? Or that those who are parents don't deserve being looked after also? NOBODY that's what!

You OTOH make some dumb assertion that marriage is there to protect the child and when pressed make NO effort to answer questions. Ya know what that's called? It begins with 'h' and ends in 'y' so take a wild guess.

FYI children are protected in this country whether the parents are married or not. They have child tax credits, child benefits etc and whilst that doesn't protect children from abuse neither does marriage. So get a flaming grip and stop being such a bloody troll.

 

[Town Heretic]

they are avoiding my questions because they cannot deny the awesome responsibility of taking care of a child

Untrue, but were it true it would, at worst, level the playing field methodologically.

the child is completely dependent on the parents

No one is denying this.

the child is a full time job

And most families divide responsibilities relating to child rearing, which you still haven't established is the point of marriage...the reason for that failure being, for the reasons actually offered prior, that it demonstrably isn't.

and
whoever takes care of that child needs to be taken care of as well

Everyone involved with a child is taking care of the child one way or another.

now compare that to two adults living together, each with their own job and each with their own benefits sharing a place to live

Why? It isn't a parallel.

you should all be ashamed of yourselves for not admitting to all this

You should be ashamed of your behavior in this thread, your ongoing side step, side bar approach to a straight forward proposition.

 

[Rusha]

You're acting like a troll.

I am thinking it's not an act.

Or, it's none of your business and nonresponsive to the OP discussion. Engage or find another thread to haunt with your two note symphony.

If only ...

why won't you answer the question?

are you worried about where it would lead?

someone has to take care of your child
and
is that someone getting health benefits?
is that someone contributing to the social security fund?

:kookoo:

Single and divorced parents CAN and DO supply health benefits and contribute to social security, Chrys. I know this better than YOU do because I have actually have been ***GASP*** a single parent and managed to supply my children with everything that was needed.

Done. Thanks for the useful input.

And I told you. Now say something interesting or buzz off.

Chrys is not capable of contributing anything other than misogynistic drivel.

Oh the irony. What happened to you Chrys? You never used to be such a troll so what changed? Why won't you answer the questions posed or even attempt to back up your own assertions? You do nowt these days but spam up threads. Heck, the only person with marginally more irritating post formatting nowadays is 'The Horn'....though even that's probably a toss of a coin...

lain:

Yes, however, in The Horn's defense, it is individuals such as CHRYS, the misogynistic toad, that drives individuals to being such hardcore pro-choicers because of the blatant disregard for women and children.

I have yet to see Chrys ever speak in defense of the victims of spousal or child abuse. He/she/whatever doesn't give a rat's behind once the unborn baby is BORN nor does he care about the mother.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, however, in The Horn's defense, it is individuals such as CHRYS, the misogynistic toad, that drives individuals to being such hardcore pro-choicers because of the blatant disregard for women and children.

I have yet to see Chrys ever speak in defense of the victims of spousal or child abuse. He/she/whatever doesn't give a rat's behind once the unborn baby is BORN nor does he care about the mother.

It would be interesting to see Chrys' response to this. I sure hope he does give a rodents posterior as regards spousal/child abuse else he's even more of a hypocrite...

lain:

 

[rexlunae]

they are avoiding my questions because they cannot deny the awesome responsibility of taking care of a child

You're questions haven't been avoided. They've been worn out, as you've failed to address the responses to them.

the child is completely dependent on the parents
the child is a full time job
and
whoever takes care of that child needs to be taken care of as well

now compare that to two adults living together, each with their own job and each with their own benefits sharing a place to live

But this isn't a point that can distinguish heterosexual and homosexual relationships, as has been repeatedly pointed out.

you should all be ashamed of yourselves for not admitting to all this

I've never found myself shamed by a shameless man, and I don't plan to start now.

 

[bybee]

it would help if you defended the institution of marriage
and
recognized the real purpose of it is to protect the child[/QUOTE

My defense of marriage is the way in which I lived it. I cannot tell another what to do unless they ask me.

I believe it is the responsibility of all adults to protect any and all children as the need arises.

 

[chrysostom]

it would help if you defended the institution of marriage
and
recognized the real purpose of it is to protect the child[/QUOTE

My defense of marriage is the way in which I lived it. I cannot tell another what to do unless they ask me.

I believe it is the responsibility of all adults to protect any and all children as the need arises.

I asked you

is it their responsibility to get married
if
they are going to have children?

 

[chrysostom]

But this isn't a point that can distinguish heterosexual and homosexual relationships, as has been repeatedly pointed out.

what distinguishes the two
is
that one can produce a child