EnviroLink Forum

Which, in the US, more often ends in divorce, annulment, or murder than not.

The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.





There are no legally defined rights based solely on the narrow definition of marriage as you seem to belive there are.



Just as you could have the right to vote for a candidate predetermined by a religious group and be called a "right to vote"?



I can see you being down with only homosexuals being allowed to marry so you would be prevented from getting the family benefits for the family you choose to have. You could have them if you married the right man would be all the choice you would need.



It is not my head that is lacking in sense though.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Human-animal marriages?

This is a silly subject, even by my own standards(Such as they are)

Which, is beside the point.


Funny, given the choices we have for president this year at least.



If that were our natural tendency, culturally accepted, and legal definition of marriage, sure.



That makes two of us.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Humans are animals .... aren't they? So if two people get married at least one of them should be an animal.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Not the point of firmly established if it falls apart more than not.




If I actually wanted the job, I would change my name to None Ofthe Above and run on the Independent ticket and I bet I would win any election I wanted.



There is no such legal definition of marriage prior to the rush to prevent same sex marriages in some places. There is a question as to whether marriage is actually a natural tendancy, but homosexuality is clearly natural in many species. Which culture do we pick for acceptability of rights? The culture said women did not have rights. The culture said certain races did not have rights. The culture said certain nationalities should not have rights.



You wish

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

now I am tempted to change my name

The practice, how we do it, the inputs required to do it. You know what I’m talking about.



You'd get my vote.



True, yet we are comfortably under natural tendency and cultural acceptance.



I’m not suggesting that homosexuality is unnatural. I’m talking natural tendency as in the formation of opposite sex couples as opposed to same sex.



We can decide for ourselves. No need to pick.



Same culture that ultimately said they did. Again, we’re talking rights denied vs. that don’t by definition exist.

My lack of right to an abortion prevents my insurance and medical providers from giving me the attention I think I need because abortion isn’t defined accordingly.

_________________
TANG SOO!

All of those would remain the same, though. The participants might change but not that much.



The natural tendancy is still questionable and the cultural acceptance is very subjective. Which culture do we choose for acceptance?



The natural tendancy in the formation of same sex couples has always been there, just some have opposed it for their own reasons.



Then the whole cultural acceptance issue is out the window? The decision was made when we applied the Constitution to all citizens equally.



This one will do the same for homosexuals eventually too.



What rights do not by definition do not exist? The right to marry? If not and it is supposed to be the right for a homosexual to marry, it would be a denial of rights.



You just need to have a sex change opreation and the donation of a reproductive system and then you can have the abortion. The homosexual partners in a marrige already have everything required to be married except the legal right in some states.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Well there you go.



Questionable in what context, exactly? Just making friends? Clearly, humans tend to form opposite sex partnerships with regard to courting/mating/etc. Better, or need we define tendency?



Our own.



The point was what we are willing to accept as a culture, not what some other culture accepts.



When was that?

Probably. We’ll see.



The ones that don’t make any sense. If marriage is defined as X and there is a right to it with components of Y and Z required for it to be exercised, then I cannot exercise it with components other than Y and Z. 2 Y's or 2 Z's won't suffice. It's that whole process and it's required inputs thing again.



That would be a matter of how we define marriage. We can make it possible between a human and a rock if we wanted to. It's no more skin off anyone's back than that of two men marrying, right?


But I don’t need that if we define abortion just so.



That’s just it. The required elements aren't present. The same applies to me and abortion.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Yet you oppose it?



No, there is a clear natural tendancy toward homosexuality as well, so the natural tendancy is not just heterosexual.



Our own means different things to different people, thus the subjective nature.



But that assumes we all have the same culture, which is clearly not the case when there is such a critical disagreement on what the culture is.



It was a process that started with the Bill of Rights and ended with the Civil Rights Act.



So what is the benefit of trying to remain a caveman?



Marriage is not legally defined with required components though. That is a recent creation attempt.




Not according to the fundamentalist who claim it will somehow damage marriage ... worse than divorce does.



If you need to define male abortion to be happy, so be it. But it is a technical term and will still have the same technical meaning regardless of the political meaning. Marriage his not a technical term.


What is missing? An X and Y chromosome? Why? Marriage does not require sexual contact. It does not require reproduction. It does not require specific sexual organs to be present. Only those with an opposing mindset make such a claim attempt. It is an attempt. Because there are specific cases of legal marraige where there are lacking these very same "required" elements. What is missing exactly which would be required for a marriage in the "perfect" universe?



Unless and until a fetus is implanted into your body.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Not necessarily.



Then my point was the difference in magnitude of the two tendencies in question.



Yes, it is still subjective.



The culture is that of the country. I realize there are different sub-cultures and resulting opinions at play.



Then why did it take up until now for this issue to become the controversy that it has? That’s rhetorical. I know why.

[/quote]

1971…middle-aged…maybe, but hardly a caveman.



I know, and I have no problem with the attempt.



You’ve mistaken me for one who cares what fundamentalists say. It will certainly change marriage as we know it. I don’t think it will damage it so much as effectively render it no more meaningful than a civil contract two may acquire without marrying.



Doesn’t matter so long as it’s defined legally. You have no problem with legal definitions that are nonsensical?



A member of the opposite sex.



Because we’re dealing with homosexual couples.



Technically, marriage doesn’t require anything but two people of the opposite sex to commit that way.



Perhaps you’d like to think so because it makes your case easier or comforts you somehow. I have my beliefs on what marriage is. I don’t have to necessarily oppose anything simply because I don’t care to alter them. I know it makes no difference to you or homosexuals wishing to be married, but that’s not my problem.



Yes, there are. I’m but one man with one set of beliefs.



Perfect universe? What? Anyway, I believe you already know the answer to that. No need to go off on that hair-splitting tangent.



…or we define it such that a fetus isn’t necessary…like we’re attempting to define marriage not requiring a member of the opposite sex.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Right.



Magnitude makes it no less natural.




There is no single culture within our country though.



The same reason it took so long for women to be given the basic rights or even longer for the largeest minority race. Prejudice which had to be overcome.



1971…middle-aged…maybe, but hardly a caveman.[/quote]

Talk to your daugher about the phone, computer, video games, etc. you had and see if she does not agree with the caveman description.



Even though it is just an attempt to prevent certain people from having the rights others enjoy. Sad.



But you said "anyone's back" which would include those folks who claim they would be damaged in some fashion.



But you cannot acheive the same situation with a civil contract. The civil marriage IS nothing more than a specifc civil contract that grants rights and benefits due to its application. A religious ceremony not following the the requirements of the government does nothing other than give the spectators something to do. Thus, it is the legal marraige which is being denied to part of the population.



The definition is not nonsensical since it has never had a single definition since its inception.



That is not a requirement. A transgender can be married legally and that is only a approximation of the opposite sex.



Not a valid answer. Why are homosexual couples treated differently?



No, there is no such requirement for an opposite sex, that is the new definition attempt just to prevent some from being married.



You can hold whatever belief you wish, it is not a problem. It matters what the law says and that the people are treated equally. I do not expect you will ever consider a marraige to another man so you would not have to alter your beliefs in any way. The key is that others would not have to alter their beliefs either and could be married.



As long as you do not wish to impose your beliefs on others you can hold whatever belief you wish. It is when the beliefs are held above the rights of others under the law that the problem begins.



Cool you can follow your beliefs and others can follow theirs and eventually the beliefs may growe closer together.



Well, this is an imperfect universe as it has tons of people who disagree with me.



More like we are opposing the addition of the need for a member of the opposite sex ... a significant difference.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

The nature of its existence wasn't ever in question.



That's what I meant.



For women and blacks, sure.



She listens to 80's music and plays Atari.



We had a custom practiced a certain way for as long as it was. How it was, in fact, was so obvious that it didn't have to be legally defined nor was it substantially questioned. Now, out of the blue, some are attempting to weasel their way into practicing it under the guise of civil rights. Sad indeed.



In your opinion, it's no skin off anyone's back. The question was rhetorical. The point was that we can make marriage legally mean whatever we want.



You cannot grant homosexuals the right to marry without opening the option to others who stray from what's considered standard practice--those who engage in incest, polygamy, and chain marriages. Perhaps that's what they mean by "destroy". I simply see it as needless change.



I can't help but wonder why.



It is relative to how it has been practiced. But that's beside the point. If you're okay with abortion being redefined such that it can be practiced on a male, then you're obviously into nonsensical definitions.



Despite that being the case, one still legally becomes the opposite sex.



Because enough have an sufficient understanding of the custom to know what it is and isn't.



If only it hadn't been that way and so well understood, you'd have a point. As it stands, all we have is whine about someone being disenfranchised.



I always look on the bright side. If legalized, it widens my options.



No one was imposing any beliefs before. It may appear that way, but it's not.

[/quote]

They need it as much as I need an abortion, redefined or not.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Then why mention the "natural tendancy" as if there were not two such tendencies?



But the law has to be equal across the country under the Constitution, so there has to be a single right for all.



And not homosexuals? Have you really been living in a cave?




Just wait ....



What custome was that? Not marriage because there have been plural marriages for as long as there has been the practice and that is not the definition currently being presented as THE new definition.



Obvious to whom? The Mormons? The Christian books that clearly illustrated the multiple wives ansd the "purcahse" of the wife from her father.



Giving my opinions in your statements?



Those are being practiced even now. Some are not caught and are considered legal while others are not even attempted to be made legal. It is legal in this state to marry your first cousin if you want.



THAT is the point, it has not been practiced the same since its inception.



No, just trying to get past the semantical gymnastics you have been presenting.



Now we can just define one person in the gay marraige as a man and the other as a woman and you would be happy?



Why not just say because of bigotry and be done with it.



Just like it was always one man and one woman? Except when it was not. The "custom" is variable and yet held as being absolute.



Homosexuals just decided to make themselves outcasts and deny themselves rights because they wanted to?



I agree, the addition of the need for a partner of the opposite sex is not necessary.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

What I meant by “natural tendency” was that we are far more prone than otherwise to form opposite sex partnerships.

At least, that’s what living in a cave taught me. You know we bonk our women on the head with a club and drag them back home by their hair when…well…whenever we feel inclined. You gotta be careful though. If you hit too hard or too often, they start to get stupid and you have to go find another one…assuming you don’t have multiple already…or you’re homosexual cave man.



Once again, there is.



What part of “they already have the right” is unclear to you? If one has the right to vote then that’s what they have the right to do as it is legally defined. A required input to the voting process is an election. If there is no election, they aren’t disenfranchised. They are able to do so when the circumstances are appropriate.



An animal rights proponent sees some cow on video being abused every, say, 6 months or so, probably less frequently. Never mind the tens of thousands of others that were handled just fine, they call for the abrupt end to factory farming. It is defined by what they see.

Now, I think you know better than that, but perhaps I am mistaken. I know you didn’t grow up in Utah, so that can’t be it. You’re better off simply making the case that there was never a legal definition. Suggesting that we as a society didn’t understand our own custom because a relative few took exception to it, isn’t the way to go.




Unless you think someone’s rights are compromised by legalizing gay marriage. Please let me know, I don’t want to speak for you if it is incorrect.



Yes, thank you, I know. You’ll have to excuse me. I’m too confused over factory farm abuse to see the forest for the trees.



Doesn’t have to be. Just has to be enough doing it the say way for a while such that it is effectively defined. If it was so variable and unpredictable, there would be no controversy and we wouldn’t be having this discussion because gay marriage would have blended into the existing noise.



So you’re telling me that my opinion becomes prejudice soon as someone else attempts to practice something a different way? Sure, okay, but I don’t recall a controversy of this magnitude over polygamous marriage, and that’s actually been around a while. That’s my indicator that you’re not in this for the rights aspect. You’re doing it because you want there to be preferential treatment. Maybe you want it and don’t realize it.



We could, but that would be nonsensical, and I don’t support stuff like that.



Because it isn’t.



Not what I meant, you know that, but still true nonetheless. That’s the funny thing about all this. It’s purely subjective.

_________________
TANG SOO!