JimiTime wrote: » She's right. A slow burning insidious plot is a lot more effective. Then its about knowing that the plot has worked and that you have infiltrated enough peoples mindsets before you enter endgame. In terms of redefining marriage, I think they've timed it well.
lmaopml wrote: » However, with this in mind - Introduce the status of children as far as legislation is concerned where a marriage has broken down, and now a new step parent is on the scene of course things get more messy....This is something that is already a massive problem legally speaking for biological parents. Now introduce two mums and two dads after a marriage breakup and the trauma of the whole thing for a child?
lmaopml wrote: » This I think is one of the major more 'common' reasons why I think that male/female marriage is something that really should be presented and upheld. It's not to undermine another, or say they are 'less' it's very simply to protect the notion of a 'family' in the community we live in, and that committed relationship between two biological parents to their offspring. Idealist? Maybe - but there is an ideal notion there of family and we'd be daft to ignore it.
NuMarvel wrote: » As you say, the introduction of a step parent after a marriage has broken down can be a messy legal problem. But I don't see how allowing same sex marriage would exacerbate this.
If a couple breaks up, and one (or both) being new relationships, how does the gender of the new partners affect things, legally speaking?
Whether the new couples are same sex or opposite sex, you still have the same issues around access, and custody, and visiting rights, and so on.
Don't get me wrong. I think it is grossly unfair that there are fathers who should have more access to their children but don't, and that should definitely be remedied. But that's something I think should happen regardless of same sex marriage.
Leaving aside any discussion about whether that is or isn't an ideal, we'd also be daft to ignore that there are plenty of families that don't achieve it. Plenty of couples can get married and don't have any children, or don't have any children of their own. Yet no one would say those couples are threatening the concept of family. Either we apply the ideal to everyone, or we don't apply it all.
lmaopml wrote: » I think perhaps that you may be pushing the boat out a little before defining what 'marriage' should be upheld as in the first place - why people feel so strongly about it too - Legally speaking, I think it would be appropriate for the law to allow for the person who was a parent and loved a child, with due regard to their actual parents of course, very messy!!! You have that one way or the other - it makes no difference, but is that a 'reason' for to say 'marriage' is not something that should be regarded and certainly approved as the norm? What happens when any father sees their child adopted by somebody else? There's the first step and then the second - the first step hasn't even nearly been met. I have two boys, I'm interested in these things because of that, and how society shapes itself because it's what I will pass on to them...
lmaopml wrote: » That's like saying it doesn't exist. It does though, it does exist and should be nurtured - and that's why it's important and not merely some kind of 'shape'. You seem to be implying that it's merely a 'shape' of family life among many - and that one should just regard that as something fleeting. What does marriage mean then?
NuMarvel wrote: » I have to be honest and say I'm not sure what your point is. Your breaking up of my post into individual sentences probably isn't helping. How does allowing same sex marriage make things legally worse when marriages (be they heterosexual or same sex) break down?
But if it's an ideal to be nurtured, then logically only couples who meet the criteria of the ideal should be allowed to marry. Your ideal of family is a committed relationship between two biological parents to their offspring. But that's not a criteria currently applied to heterosexual couples, so why should it apply to same sex couples?
lmaopml wrote: » The point is that if one only sees marriage as something that can, may or most likely could 'break down' and that people should have access to it as a temporary thing, than what does it mean? Where does it leave 'marriage', parents, children in the legal vacuum - or any man and woman who get married to have children and intend to share and give themselves equally to the offspring that 'may' in most cases result in their partnership? If it's only a fleeting concept; and merely one 'shape' the same as any other that any family can take in society and not a special thing, than why would anybody bother getting 'married'? If it's for 'legal' reasons than there are legal means, that granted need updating..
lmaopml wrote: » You know something, couples will often marry and find out they can't have children - but they 'married' not knowing. There is a difference, it's not hard to work out.
NuMarvel wrote: » I'm sorry, I'm really not getting your point. Society already accepts that marriages will breakdown and that some of them will be a temporary thing. Ireland accepted that long before anyone even thought of asking about same sex marriage. What does one have to do with the other?
And many couples get married knowing they can't have children. Do you agree that if we used your definition of marriage, then any couple who knows they can't have children together should not be allowed to marry?
lmaopml wrote: » The idea is NuMarvel, and it may be rather novel, that 'Marriage' is not particularly about just two people but also about the family they have? That is ridiculous, and I think you know it. If a couple who are male and female marry they more often than not believe they might have children - if a couple marry and they don't it doesn't mean that their pledge to each other is any less - in fact, it cements them. Marriage is not a 'legal' term, it's a life thing, a coupling - it's about children and family - and about the children and their rights 'to' parents - it's not about parents rights over others, or lovers etc. etc. It's about a child and their right 'to' their parents - and the commitment of a couple can't be just undermined or disregarded as unimportant, because it is not unimportant - it's very important. Take a walk down the path that only saw marriage as not important and see the results and heartbreak - both of children and parents and the legal mess. The minute you reduce marriage, you reduce the child's right to their parents - not the parents rights - the child. The idea of being brought up in a stable environment knowing both mum and dad in marriage in a family.
marienbad wrote: » What do you say to couples that get married and have decided never to have children ? I know of a number of such couples .
lmaopml wrote: » I would say that they choose to marry and decided that children weren't part of their ideal life together - even though there is a possibility that they may have one - I know the very best of parents too Marien who never thought they could cut parenthood and they are fabulous! Did they get married in the Church, your friends, of have a civil marriage?
NuMarvel wrote: » You have a very low opinion of people if you think they're not able to make up their own minds on this matter.
JimiTime wrote: » They do make up their own minds, its that people have been bombarded with propaganda without knowing it. Thats what makes it effective. Like the woman in the article gets at, do something explicitly, and it needs to go through a persons filters and be reasoned going into the mind. Insidiously hatch an agenda over the course of years, and it implicitly makes its way into the psyche, so that people think that the opinions they have, have actually be born in themselves. I saw it with the Jehovahs Witnesses, and see how effective it is.
marienbad wrote: » Church, and there is no possibility of children at this stage . It is not a question of ''cuting'' parenthood, they consciously decided they were never having kids and on that basis they married and as far as I can see they have no regrets. And I have come across a lot of younger people in Ireland that are adamant they will never have kids. Should they be banned from getting married ?
Corkfeen wrote: » Congratulations at attempting to make gay rights sound like a Bond villain's plot.
What is so 'insidious' about it besides your vague assertions that it will negatively affect marriage? You claim that it could open the slippery slope to polygamy and the likes even though you could say marriage itself or inter-racial marriage did the exact same thing.
This doesn't mean that marriage or interracial marriage should be prevented, does it? Should we label all progressivism as insidious and regress entirely?
1ZRed wrote: » So by that logic our tolerance and acceptance towards minorities like black people was just a slow-set insidious agenda over the years as well? Well I'll be damned!
JimiTime wrote: » Not at all, but lumping an action or behaviour in with issues of skin colour is part of the insidious agenda.
JimiTime wrote: » You should read, 'After The Ball' Nothing like it in the slightest. Inter-racial marriage did not require the redefinition of marriage. Also, as much as people (with absolutely no reasoning at all) dismiss the slippery slope argument, it is VERY real. People have now made out that marriage is about the state telling people who they can love. People have bought the stupidity on the back of the agenda's moulding of people over the years. Like I said before, you cannot reasonably argue against polyamorous or incestuous marriage once marriage has been defined as who the state tells you, you can love. The regression is in man going back to being desire led and not valuing self control. There is nothing progressive at all.
lmaopml wrote: » Wow, if they got married in the Catholic Church they made a vow to love and protect the children that may come about from their union? Now perhaps they were older I don't know the circumstances...so won't go there..
lmaopml wrote: » As far as a Civil Marriage is concerned the same thing applies, that a child has a right to it's parent - and not the parent to the child. That's the difference Marien, and the similarity. That's why a Priest sometimes acts as a registrar.
lmaopml wrote: » So, again - what does marriage and the vow mean if it is merely about only two people and not about the family? It was always about the protection of the family and the children to the right to their parents, both their mum and their dad. In Christianity we call it a 'covenant' - but it's not much different to how the law describes and protects children, although sometimes it can be bias... ...nothing on this earth is perfect - but that doesn't mean that we should desire less for children and more for us.
lmaopml wrote: » Wow, if they got married in the Catholic Church they made a vow to love and protect the children that may come about from their union? Now perhaps they were older I don't know the circumstances...so won't go there.. As far as a Civil Marriage is concerned the same thing applies, that a child has a right to it's parent - and not the parent to the child. That's the difference Marien, and the similarity. That's why a Priest sometimes acts as a registrar. So, again - what does marriage and the vow mean if it is merely about only two people and not about the family? It was always about the protection of the family and the children to the right to their parents, both their mum and their dad. In Christianity we call it a 'covenant' - but it's not much different to how the law describes and protects children, although sometimes it can be bias... ...nothing on this earth is perfect - but that doesn't mean that we should desire less for children and more for us.
marienbad wrote: » So if what if they made a vow ? That vow was to protect any children that might be born but in this case they choose not to have any . Is their marriage any less valid ?
tommy2bad wrote: » If they had declared an intention not to have children, the RCC would have refused the sacrament, so yes as far as the church is concerned their marriage is not just less valid but completely invalid. (IS their such a thing as less valid even?). So what? legally their just as married, the state doesn't make offspring a condition of marriage. It dose allow for the possibility as part of the contract so as far as gay marriage the same thing must apply. Again no legal definition of marriage that excludes same sex couples other than an assumption that it didn't mean 'them'.
koth wrote: » For someone who wishes to avoid comparisons to interracial marriage, this is a terrible line of thinking to take considering that parts of the US up until the 1960s said that interracial marriage wasn't allowed. You're actually making the case for same-sex marriage to be allowed due to the similarities to interracial marriage.
aloyisious wrote: » Reference to insidious behaviour does not compute. It can lead to mud-slinging and demeaning debaters.
JimiTime wrote: » Not at all. Disallowing different races to marry each other requires no redefinition of marriage but rather a law forbidding it. To allow homosexuals to marry requires a redefinition of marriage itself. I understand why you would like to insist that these issues are the same, but in reality, however hard you insist, they are nothing like the same.
