🚀 go-pugleaf

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.  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.

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

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

>: 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 "comitted couples"???  Comitted
>	to what?  


Are you being intentionally dense here?  You are sounding a lot like
someone I know name DCI...

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...)

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.

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

Committment to your offspring is 100% necesssary for the
future.  That is undeniable.

>	(an interesting thought:  Can comittment to winning a war change
>	the outcome?  Why does a nation commit?  Why did we commit to WWII
>	but not make the same comittment 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.

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.

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

Chris