🚀 go-pugleaf

Chris Fodor (cfodor@megatek.com) wrote:
: In article <3mcjog$p8i@canyon.sr.hp.com> mikep@sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) writes:
: >: Ah, I see, it's just "natural" right?  And you wouldn't what anything
: >: "unnatural" fouling it up.
: >
: >	Ahhhh....    no.  I'm not a 'nature' freak.  Besides, it's hard
: >	to get a common definition of what is or is not 'natural' wrt
: >	human activity... (if a beaver dam is 'natural' they why aren't
: >	the dams we build 'natural' as well?)

: Well, ok, then.  But then stop quoting history if you want to know
: what is right and wrong.

	
	Huh?  Can you explain this a bit better?  It sounds like you
	advocate abandoning history as part of determination of right
	and wrong...  Why would you want to do this?


We have cars, computers, planes, nuclear
: weapons, refrigerators, and astronauts.  Why can't we also have same
: sex marriage?  Same sex marriage *doesn't* make much sense in a 50
: person village.  It *doesn't* not make sense in a 500,000 person city.

	Huh? (part II) Can you explain this assertion as well?

	You seem to be saying:"Only take homosexual marriage seriously
	when population density reaches a certain point."

	This is just plain wierd.

: >: Incorrect.  It *justifies* the committment.  Same sex marriages have a
: >: higher success rate than heterosexual marriage.  It shows that when
: >: people want to form a physical, emotional, and financial union they
: >: should be taken seriously by the rest of us.
: >
: >	Why?  If it was truly socially important, why then are not
: >	same-sex marriages a universal occurrence dating back to the
: >	beginning of recorded history? (ie: how the hell did we get
: >	by without them)

: See above, and use your brain.

	I see that you have no answer to offer.  I thought as much.

: Furthermore, in Greek society many
: men had wives just for procreation, and their lovers were other men.
: Does that date back far enough?

	We are not talking about sex partners.  We are talking about
	the social tradition of marriage.  I make the assumption that
	homosexuality is older than recorded history.  So what?
	That does not help us determine if same-sex marriages are
	important to society.  It just says that it is old. (as is
	murder, rape, theft, etc. none of which are important to
	society, right?)

: History doesn't justify... Prostitution dates back to the earliest
: recorded history, do you support that?  How does history justify
: anything.

	History _doesn't_ justify things.  History is just a tool.
	A source of perspective.  People justify things.

: >: On the other hand, if I wanted to devalue marriage, I would want to keep
:
>: as many committed couples out as possible.
: >
: >	Why couples?  And what do you mean "committed couples"???  Comitted
: >	to what?  

[insult deleted]

: Committed couples are those which decide they want to spend a lifetime
: together, or at least a significant portion thereof.  Couples in "love".
: Generally I would say more than 20 years (or long enough to raise a
: family for hetero...)

	And what exactly is the commitment?  A commitment to
	_eachother_?  Why is that important to society?  Why does
	society give a hoot that two people make _any_ long-term
	commitment to eachother?  (we are getting there... but slowly)

: Marriage is a tradition.  It is a way for a couple to declare their
: love in front of their familty and friends, and also a special
: ceremony for them to share together.  It doesn't have anything to
: do with people that aren't their friends, and it certainly doesn't
: have anything to do with the government.

	Marriage is a tradition.  Everywhere.  The details of the
	tradition vary.  There _are_ common elements.  A declaration
	of love is _not_ one of them. (although it is important
	in America, and tends to be that way in free societies, but
	it is not at all universal).

	You are confusing the ceremony with the marriage.
	
	You must have a clear notion of what marriage _is_ in it's
	totality (not the ceremony) in order to address the
	topic at hand.

: >       Also, do we not see that "committed couples" are
: >	becoming more and more rare?  It this important?  Why?

: I think this is a result of women becoming more independent and
: breaking away from men who are abusing them.

	Really?  That's it?  Divorce is the result of abuse by men?
	If this is true, then why do _men_ often initiate divorce,
	or just leave the woman "high and dry"?
	
	Your explanation has _immense_ holes. (although we can agree
	that women avoiding abuse is part of it).

I support this
: 100%.  The men should pay child support/alimony until the women
: gets back on her feet.  If he doesn't pay he should be jailed
: unless he has good reasons (like she has been living with
: someone else supporting her.)

: I also think the main problem that you are against is unwed
: mothers.

	Bingo.

This is not a result of lack of committment, it is
: (most often) the result of lack of forethought, especially
: when it happens on a regular basis.

	So maybe if there was an established procedure... a specific
	set of steps that society could make _clear_ (requiring zero
	"forethought") that all people follow.... something like,
	ahhh... a tradition!  Yea that's it! 

	I think that people are learning that marriage is little 
	more than a legal device... fully optional... that marriage
	and children are simply not part of the same discussion... two
	totally different topics.  I think that people are getting the
	idea that marrige is just about love, laws, and taxes, having no
	direct connection to children at all (the notion of same-sex
	marriage says this loud and clear).

If people have children
: it becomes a completely different thing than marriage.

	Not sure what you mean here.

: Committment to your offspring is 100% necesssary for the
: future.  That is undeniable.
	
	Agreement. Now how do we make sure this happens without
	oppressive laws that _force_ people to do what's 'right'?
	
	A deeply held and _clear_ tradition perhaps?

	Recognizing, as you and I both do, that "Committment to your
	offspring is 100% necesssary for the future", then what social
	mechanism might we set up that addresses this area of
	immense social concern? (hint: it starts with "M") 
	

: >	(an interesting thought:  Can commitment to winning a war change
: >	the outcome?  Why does a nation commit?  Why did we commit to WWII
: >	but not make the same commitment to the Vietnam war?  Was it
: >	because we had a hard time answering: "why are we doing this?")

: What does this have to do with anything.

	It shows that _why_ one commits to something can influence
	(strongly) the outcome.   If we enter a war for the wrong
	(or unimportant reasons) or resolve to succede is impaired.

	The same can be said of why we enter marriage.  If we are
	not clear, or our reasons are not sound, we will risk failure. 

: The only reason two people need to have for being married is that they
: want to.  Society is *not* here to judge their reasons.  We can
: expound on what we would like those reasons to be, but we cannot
: legislate morality.

	Exactly why marriage has been a tradition, more than set of
	"legal definitions" or benefits which, to the extent that we
	view marriage that way, is the extent to which the tradition
	of marriage fails to serve society.  The extent to which
	homosexuals claim that marriage is about having a 
	set of legal benefits is the extent to which that movement
	twists mariage into something that is less able to perform
	it's most vital functions.

	(BTW, many people don't understand by the common phrase
	 "we cannot legislate morality", and I'm wondering exactly
	  how you mean it in your usage...)

: We can legislate what people do with their children because we must
: protect the children.

	Far to general a statement, I think.  This reasoning can generate
	almost _any_ level of legislation.  One could show that statistically
	two parents are more protective of the general welfare of
	children... does that mean we can legislate that parents _must_
	remain together to perform in that job????

	Won't fly. (not in a 'free' country anyway) 

	-Mike-