OT:Protecting Marriage

I believe that you're a little confused in your thinking, evidently fogetting to realize what marriage is all about. It involves the marriage of a man and a woman, THEIR procreation of children, and the protection of a blood bonded family unit. It is not something that should be confused with the adoption of children produced by others, which is needed but a different sort of thing.

Indeed it did, when I was a youth it was effectively state law in most states, and marriage was a lifetime committment except under rare circumstances.

Indeed we should, because such children, unless adopted by a married couple, tend to become a burden on society in various ways. I would cite the crime rate in the inner city communities as an example of this.

I have no statistics to offer, however to mature normally, male children require a male role model to emulate and a female role model to provide empathy. Girls require a female role model to emulate, and male (father) role model to impart a sense of discipline and strong character. There is a direct anlog to this in the animal kindgom...Consider lions as an example.

[Off topic material deleted]

Certainly it goes well beyond concern just for children. What you appear to be missing is that marriage forms one of the foundations of western civilization and our entire culture. Without the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman only, our society could become indidtinguishable from earlier primitive societies. Doesn't this connect and resonate with you?

Realize that today no one really cares about what two consenting adults do in privacy, however when such relationships begin to affect our society as a whole, people care very much.

Harry C.

||Now that the GOP controlled Senate killed the marriage amendment, we need to ||look at alternative proposals.

I think the best policy is none at all. I see no need to for our government to have any involvement in "alternatives". Texas Parts Guy

How about requiring a license to have children? You need one to do just about everything else, but isn't having children one of the most important things we do in life? This license would/could have all kinds of stipulations on it. Like mental health, financial health, plus an agreement to continue the marriage until the child reaches adulthood; all of which would be enforceable with heavy fines and/or jail time. And of course, no plea bargaining allowed. No way to leave the child behind getting the short end of the stick.

Yes, I'm kidding here. I don't like government involvement in my personal life anymore than you do. However when you think of all the children that are born without both parents staying around to raise them in a good healthy environment you've got to be thinking "there's got to be a better way". Think of all our tax dollars that are going to various causes/issues directly related to children whose parents don't raise them properly (and all that that entails), ones that wouldn't be necessary if every set of parents were caring, loving, and capable.

I have to agree with the gay and lesbian movement to be able to adopt children. In such households where there are two loving parents (whatever the sex) surely the child would get a better chance at life than without such a household to live in. But I also have to agree with the OP that the best environment is where there is a Mommy AND a Daddy; i.e. one of each sex. A child needs to get both perspectives that each sex contributes to the environment to be a well rounded contributing member of society.

Fodder for your mind... Lane

Heck just ban them altogether.

No more school taxes then, either.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

The proposed amendment was a sop to the Religious Right, and was known to not have a chance in hell of passing. (2) Two authors. And as you pointed out..the Republican controlled Senate killed what was in effect an attempt at changing the Constitution to ban same sex marriages.

This speaks well for not only the country as a whole, freedom is still foremost, but well for the Republicans.

I personally am all for civil unions of any kind, same sex, multiple, poly etc etc. Its simply not the governments business or those of religious persuasions, who has what sort of mutually consensual relation ship with others.

Gunner

"The entire population of Great Britain has been declared insane by their government. It is believed that should any one of them come in possession of a firearm, he will immediately start to foam at the mouth and begin kiling children at the nearest school. The proof of their insanity is that they actually believe this." -- someone in misc.survivalism

Bjórrúnar skaltu Gunner rista --

45 Republican of the 51 Republicans voted for the measure.

Only a moron like you would think that "speaks well" of the Republicans.

Yes.

No.

There is so much crap going on in this country right now, and they try to distract the public with *this*?

They should have told the RR to get stuffed right from the start instead of letting it get as far as it did.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Says who?

If marriage is only for the protection of a blood bonded, reproducing family unit, does that mean adopted children should not be accorded the same protections as the biological offspring of the married couple? If adopted children are to be accorded the same protection, then marriage cannot be exclusively limited to blood bonded family units.

What about an infertile couple? Should they get divorced after 10 years of trying because they discover they cannot ever reproduce? If no, then reproduction is an optional element of marriage because surely you would extend the same rights to a couple who chooses not to have children. If you don't, then I look forward to your crusade to make extensive interviews and background checks mandatory for all people considering marriage, in order to confirm their fertility. No doubt you'd be glad to pay for it by increasing your own taxes- after all its for society's good, right?

So if you allow men & women to be married yet child-free, then the issue here is about the relative gender of the couple & procreation is pretty much an aesthetic issue. Please note I do not mean existing children are only of aesthetic interest- only that the potentiality of children is. Once a child is in the balance, parents, regardless of their marital state, really need to take responsiblity.

If you then propose that only a man and woman are qualified to raise a child, I hope you reconsider the mess so many men & women make of their families.

Who says marriage MUST be between a man and woman? If the answer is religious in nature, what makes you think the philosophical basis of your reasoning is so much more correct than other people's that you are free to impose it upon them?

Could you also define what you mean by "primitive society", please?

What resonates with me is you seem to be taking a myopic view of humanity and mistaking your preferences for morality. As far as I'm concerned if people are treating one another with respect and no-one's being coerced, then society wins & its none of my business.

In what way does a gay couple being married "affect society" differently than them living together would? They'd probably pay more in taxes- perhaps you're concerned they aren't paying enough?

Gregm

Did it pass or did it fail with a "republican controlled Senate"?

One should also note it sounds like they voted the way their constituents wanted them to

Seems that a few Dems also voted for the amendment. Shrug. It was a non starter from the git go.

Gunner

"This device is provided without warranty of any kind as to reliability, accuracy, existence or otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose and Bioalchemic Products specifically does not warrant, guarantee, imply or make any representations as to its merchantability for any particular purpose and furthermore shall have no liability for or responsibility to you or any other person, entity or deity with respect to any loss or damage whatsoever caused by this device or object or by any attempts to destroy it by hammering it against a wall or dropping it into a deep well or any other means whatsoever and moreover asserts that you indicate your acceptance of this agreement or any other agreement that may he substituted at any time by coming within five miles of the product or observing it through large telescopes or by any other means because you are such an easily cowed moron who will happily accept arrogant and unilateral conditions on a piece of highly priced garbage that you would not dream of accepting on a bag of dog biscuits and is used solely at your own risk.'

Want to tell Feinstein and the rest of her ilk the same when they try to redo the Assault Weapons Ban ?

Snicker...

Gunner

"This device is provided without warranty of any kind as to reliability, accuracy, existence or otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose and Bioalchemic Products specifically does not warrant, guarantee, imply or make any representations as to its merchantability for any particular purpose and furthermore shall have no liability for or responsibility to you or any other person, entity or deity with respect to any loss or damage whatsoever caused by this device or object or by any attempts to destroy it by hammering it against a wall or dropping it into a deep well or any other means whatsoever and moreover asserts that you indicate your acceptance of this agreement or any other agreement that may he substituted at any time by coming within five miles of the product or observing it through large telescopes or by any other means because you are such an easily cowed moron who will happily accept arrogant and unilateral conditions on a piece of highly priced garbage that you would not dream of accepting on a bag of dog biscuits and is used solely at your own risk.'

Bjórrúnar skaltu Gunner rista --

It failed because of the votes by the Democrats.

If it was up to the Repugs, it would have been passed by nearly 90%

So to ensure that children are raised to be "normal", we should require that a parent must remarry immediately upon the death of a spouse, right?

Yes, let's! Lion families are based on prides of related females, headed up by one or two dominant males. Sound like polygamy, no? Lionesses do

85%-90% of the hunting, but males eat the most, and eat first, with the women and children waiting until the men have eaten before they take their first bites. While the females are hunting the males spend their time "protecting" the pride. Infanticide is not uncommon. When males compete for reproductive access, the winner often kills all the cubs sired by the loser.

So you're saying we should emulate lions how?

On 15 Jul 2004 09:30:03 -0700, jim rozen calmly ranted:

Yeah, ban all pets and other forms of children.

P.S: Duck, Jim, 'cuz we just got put in the same category as W.C. Fields. (He said "Children? Yes, love them, parboiled or fried." and "I love children...when properly cooked.")

--- Annoy a politician: Be trustworthy, faithful, and honest! ---

Comprehensive Website Development

Then it wasnt a Republican Controlled Senate was it? Snicker...

Gunner

"This device is provided without warranty of any kind as to reliability, accuracy, existence or otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose and Bioalchemic Products specifically does not warrant, guarantee, imply or make any representations as to its merchantability for any particular purpose and furthermore shall have no liability for or responsibility to you or any other person, entity or deity with respect to any loss or damage whatsoever caused by this device or object or by any attempts to destroy it by hammering it against a wall or dropping it into a deep well or any other means whatsoever and moreover asserts that you indicate your acceptance of this agreement or any other agreement that may he substituted at any time by coming within five miles of the product or observing it through large telescopes or by any other means because you are such an easily cowed moron who will happily accept arrogant and unilateral conditions on a piece of highly priced garbage that you would not dream of accepting on a bag of dog biscuits and is used solely at your own risk.'

Bjórrúnar skaltu Gunner rista --

Nor does it 'speak well' of the Repugs.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 04:53:58 GMT, Gunner calmly ranted:

This just in:

-snip- The following is an exerpt from the Armed Females of America Newsletter:

Armed Females of America endorses Badnarik

The Lesser of Two Evils is Still Evil!

As you know an important election is coming up this November. We are concerned by the number of gun owners who are planning on avoiding the polls this election cycle because a vote for Bush would be a vote for the lesser of two evils.

There is an alternative. Since the so-called Republican Revolution of

1994 the GOP has been stumbling all over themselves to see who can become the most liberal in their policies and this includes gun rights. If you notice, the GOP does not even mention the Second Amendment as a campaign issue.

In short, the differences between the two major political parties have been blurred. They have become one and the same in their anti-gun agendas. Even though with Bush we will lose our gun rights at a slower rate, this is not good enough to deserve our votes.

This creates an opportunity for gun owners to send a clear message to the GOP by voting for a third party candidate. Don't just stay home on election day, send a message of disapproval to arrogant public servants. Look into the candidates offered by the Libertarian Party and the Constitutional Party. We, at Armed Females, highly encourage you to support Michael Badnarik the Libertarian candidate for President, he has our vote!

Remember, any politician who says he/she is pro-Second Amendment is basing that statement on their own interpretation of what the Second Amendment means -- not yours.

-snip-

- DANCING: The vertical frustration of a horizontal desire.

---------------------------------------------------------

Full Service Web Programming

Sure it does. Not all of them voted for it.

Gunner

"This device is provided without warranty of any kind as to reliability, accuracy, existence or otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose and Bioalchemic Products specifically does not warrant, guarantee, imply or make any representations as to its merchantability for any particular purpose and furthermore shall have no liability for or responsibility to you or any other person, entity or deity with respect to any loss or damage whatsoever caused by this device or object or by any attempts to destroy it by hammering it against a wall or dropping it into a deep well or any other means whatsoever and moreover asserts that you indicate your acceptance of this agreement or any other agreement that may he substituted at any time by coming within five miles of the product or observing it through large telescopes or by any other means because you are such an easily cowed moron who will happily accept arrogant and unilateral conditions on a piece of highly priced garbage that you would not dream of accepting on a bag of dog biscuits and is used solely at your own risk.'

Sounds like my family's gatherings. First the men would eat, then the women, then the kids. My uncle never thought that was fair, so he'd eat with the men, eat with the women, and then eat with us kids too.

That man could put away more food, for a skinny guy, than anyone I've ever seen. :-)

Gary

Bjórrúnar skaltu Gunner rista --

You're a laugh a minute, Mark.

It's good to have an entertaining idiot like you around.

...