A Rant.

[NotPublished]

I was arguging with a friend about it, and she keeps insisting that you are removing a special bond created by the Mother - since she carried the baby and all. While I agree with it to a point. I argued back what about the children who don't have mums or due to circumstance want nothing to do with her - and the special bond isn't exclusive to the mum only - I am sure there are children who are very close to their dads and want nothing with mum.

She said I wasn't listening, and I said the same back .. She's using Science as her reasoning. I'm saying nothing is set in stone, and times are changing. Now I refuse to argue any further ...

[Kai]

I was arguging with a friend about it, and she keeps insisting that you are removing a special bond created by the Mother - since she carried the baby and all. While I agree with it to a point. I argued back what about the children who don't have mums or due to circumstance want nothing to do with her - and the special bond isn't exclusive to the mum only - I am sure there are children who are very close to their dads and want nothing with mum.

She said I wasn't listening, and I said the same back .. She's using Science as her reasoning. I'm saying nothing is set in stone, and times are changing. Now I refuse to argue any further ...

If you look at comparative psychology, maternal imprinting doesn't have to, you know, be on the biological mother to work.

[NotPublished]

Oh! That is material, thank you
How could I forget about things like Adoption..

[NotPublished]

@Ratatosk - Nice post. I find it kind of motivational to read

[Elder Iptuous]

Kai,
what is your position on legal recognition of marriage in general?
do you think that ending govt. involvement in the institution would be desirable, or is it impossible, shortsighted, or improper in some way?

It seems to me that if the govt. got out of the "you're married, and you're not" business, the whole issue would be moot, and there would be once less thing for bigots to flap their gums about...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Kai,
what is your position on legal recognition of marriage in general?
do you think that ending govt. involvement in the institution would be desirable, or is it impossible, shortsighted, or improper in some way?

It seems to me that if the govt. got out of the "you're married, and you're not" business, the whole issue would be moot, and there would be once less thing for bigots to flap their gums about...

No, they'd just go after Gays wanting to adopt.

There are simply too many reasons that government recognizes marriages (taxes, survivor benefits, etc).

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

In all honesty the only semi-rational thought from the 'no gay marriage' people are the ones that say "Well, you should have all the same rights and just call it something else..."

I think marriage is a fine word and anyone should be free to use it. However, a half loaf of bread is better than no bread or 'maybe bread in 20 years'. There is no excuse, no rational thought or reason to say that two individuals of whatever sex and whatever personal relationship should NOT be capable of having a personal legal contract between them and another person. It seems insane to say "No you can not agree to share your belongings with/act as next of kin for another willing human."  But, as many people confuse the menu for the meal and the word for the idea, I am not surprised that many people freak over the word marriage.

Monkeys flip over semantics all the time... OMGZ YOU USED A WORD!!!!!

I think its nuts, but its not all that weird or bizarre. In an ideal world, this all should be a non-issue, but if we don't live in an ideal world, isn't finding compromises (esp if the compromise is a word choice) an OK option?

I've talked to several people that say Yes Civil Unions, No Marriage. Maybe they're lying bigots and use that as a smoke screen (like the States Rights cover for anti-abortion activists, or the older anti-civil rights/pro slavery activists)... or maybe their monkey brains need to be updated for the 21sst century... but in the end, wouldn't it be better for people to have legal 'civil unions' in 30 states, rather than legal "gay marriage" in 5?

[NotPublished]

I know personally I would prefer a Civil Union instead of a Marriage. Only cause I can't bear going to another marriage [...going to one next week bawww..]
(I've been to too many - its cause we're ethnic and know everyone getting married)

But you are right - Civil Unions in 30 vs GM in 5 is a big difference. Its almost like one of those "You want what you can't get" things.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

In all honesty the only semi-rational thought from the 'no gay marriage' people are the ones that say "Well, you should have all the same rights and just call it something else..."

It's been tried.

[Elder Iptuous]

No, they'd just go after Gays wanting to adopt.

There are simply too many reasons that government recognizes marriages (taxes, survivor benefits, etc).

They do already, so that's not an issue.  I guess they might get more vocal on it rather than give their blowholes a rest, but that's beside the point.

as far as the second statement, i would say that the 'reasons' are not viable excuses from what i've seen.  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No, they'd just go after Gays wanting to adopt.

There are simply too many reasons that government recognizes marriages (taxes, survivor benefits, etc).

They do already, so that's not an issue.  I guess they might get more vocal on it rather than give their blowholes a rest, but that's beside the point.

as far as the second statement, i would say that the 'reasons' are not viable excuses from what i've seen.  

Really?  So, a man works, and his wife looks after the house, etc.  Then the man retires on SS.  Then he dies.

So we starve the wife, right?

[Elder Iptuous]

No, they'd just go after Gays wanting to adopt.

There are simply too many reasons that government recognizes marriages (taxes, survivor benefits, etc).

They do already, so that's not an issue.  I guess they might get more vocal on it rather than give their blowholes a rest, but that's beside the point.

as far as the second statement, i would say that the 'reasons' are not viable excuses from what i've seen.  

Really?  So, a man works, and his wife looks after the house, etc.  Then the man retires on SS.  Then he dies.

So we starve the wife, right?

apart from the fact that i'd get rid of SS if i had my druthers, i'd say that a person should be able to set whomever they want as their beneficiary for those benefits...
and to get it out of the way, i'd say an analogous thing for taxes, hospital visits, inheritance, etc.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No, they'd just go after Gays wanting to adopt.

There are simply too many reasons that government recognizes marriages (taxes, survivor benefits, etc).

They do already, so that's not an issue.  I guess they might get more vocal on it rather than give their blowholes a rest, but that's beside the point.

as far as the second statement, i would say that the 'reasons' are not viable excuses from what i've seen.  

Really?  So, a man works, and his wife looks after the house, etc.  Then the man retires on SS.  Then he dies.

So we starve the wife, right?

apart from the fact that i'd get rid of SS if i had my druthers, i'd say that a person should be able to set whomever they want as their beneficiary for those benefits...
and to get it out of the way, i'd say an analogous thing for taxes, hospital visits, inheritance, etc.

Sure, we should get rid of SS.  The poor should work until they die.  If they can't work, they should starve.

Right?

[Elder Iptuous]

No, they'd just go after Gays wanting to adopt.

There are simply too many reasons that government recognizes marriages (taxes, survivor benefits, etc).

They do already, so that's not an issue.  I guess they might get more vocal on it rather than give their blowholes a rest, but that's beside the point.

as far as the second statement, i would say that the 'reasons' are not viable excuses from what i've seen.  

Really?  So, a man works, and his wife looks after the house, etc.  Then the man retires on SS.  Then he dies.

So we starve the wife, right?

apart from the fact that i'd get rid of SS if i had my druthers, i'd say that a person should be able to set whomever they want as their beneficiary for those benefits...
and to get it out of the way, i'd say an analogous thing for taxes, hospital visits, inheritance, etc.

Sure, we should get rid of SS.  The poor should work until they die.  If they can't work, they should starve.

Right?

uh-huh....

So you're saying the reason we need Govt. approval of whether two people get married is because if they didn't we wouldn't be able to have the forced ponzi scheme that keeps poor people from starving?

not buying it.  I think people should be able to marry if they choose with it being solely between themselves, "god", and their family/friends.
I also think that we should not be forced to rob peter to pay paul, and call it a 'safety net'...

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think we should ban marriage in all states.