Since.

[FromWayDowntown]

The direction I would go would be to argue the governmental interest in maintaining marriage as a unique heterosexual lifelong intimate relationship because of the obviously much higher likelihood of generativity, notwithstanding the existence of non-generative marriages.

Continued generativity in the absence of committed lifelong heterosexual relationships as the usual social construct has a notably deleterious effect on society, as can be observed in certain socioeconomically disadvantaged subcultures.

With regard to the generativity issue, while there certainly are exceptions gay marriage proponents might point out, such as adoption, artificial insemination, and so forth, that does not change the underlying reality of the greater ease with which heterosexual partners in general can conceive via natural means, and the state interest in maintaining the social construct of marriage.

The state then has to demonstrate the deleterious effect on the ins ution when it its heteronormativity is taken away, when partners are no longer husbands and wives. I don't think that is so difficult.

Where the state would go too far is if it denied the rights and privileges allotted to married couples to those in other kinds of committed relationships which cons ute a household. There is no compelling state interest I can think of to deny custody or guardianship rights, medical visitation, Social Security benefits, inheritance, etc.

And if it is substantially more difficult for commiited lifelong partners in a household to secure those benefits, then I think you have a problem with equal protection.

But the problem is not with marriage itself per se.

I think the way this will play out, eventually, is not too far off from what you propose. As an advocate, I would imagine the government would set up the strawman argument that is the need for reproduction and the achievement of that goal by limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

The problem with that argument is one of practicality, I think. If the government's interest was in assuring reproduction, granting marriage licenses to one man and one woman only assures that the mechanism is in place; it doesn't ensure that it will or can be put to that use. I mean, if government's important interest is in assuring propagation of the species, it would be an hetical to that interest to grant marriage licenses to one man and one woman who are either not interested in reproducing or not capable of reproducing. Thus, even if assuring propagation of the species is an important governmental interest (and I'm sure it is) the limited definition of marriage is not substantially related to achieving that interest. After all, infertile, heterosexual men can marry barren, heterosexual women. That sort of heterosexual marriage (from the standpoint of the articulated governmental interests) is indistinguishable from the prohibited sexual marriage. I think establishing a substantial relationship between prohibiting same-sex marriages to furthering the governmental interest in reproduction would be a bit of a logical leap.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

so, essentially, conservationists like gtownspur are adamant in gays not marrying, because WHERE DOES IT END??? a goat can marry a panther then!! oh no!!!

it'll ruin our society!

you're a ing dip dude

[Mr. Peabody]

so, essentially, conservationists like gtownspur are adamant in gays not marrying, because WHERE DOES IT END??? a goat can marry a panther then!! oh no!!!

it'll ruin our society!

you're a ing dip dude

A goat can marry a panther? That's crazy.

Animals don't get married.
________
AnalQueen cam

[Mr. Peabody]

so, essentially, conservationists like gtownspur are adamant in gays not marrying, because WHERE DOES IT END??? a goat can marry a panther then!! oh no!!!

it'll ruin our society!

you're a ing dip dude

It's just like voting. First the women want to vote, then the Blacks, where does it end?

Should my dog be allowed to vote? My cat? What if they elect another dog or cat? I'll be damned if I am going to let some or pussy be the President of the United States.
________
DeluxeKarra

[Drachen]

It's just like voting. First the women want to vote, then the Blacks, where does it end?

Should my dog be allowed to vote? My cat? What if they elect another dog or cat? I'll be damned if I am going to let some or pussy be the President of the United States.

Mr. Peabody has always been so informative and taught me so much.

[Oh, Gee!!]

A goat can marry a panther? That's crazy.

Animals don't get married.

In some cultures, you can only marry panthers. I forget where, but I read about it.

[JoeChalupa]

^^or better yet. Quit being a moron by implying that every one that opposes gay marriage hates gays. You have no basis for your views.

You mean like those who imply that everyone who is pro-choice is pro-abortion??

[Extra Stout]

1) So your solution is to deny those children have same-sex parents the comfort and security that comes along with those parents being married. You just noted the deleterious effects of such a scenario.

I think that's a red herring. Legal recognition of a particular family as a "marriage" has nothing to do with how comfortable and secure children feel.

If they have parents, caregivers, etc., who love them and care for them and STAY together, how they file their taxes is irrelevant.

But anyway, my biggest concern is the ongoing erosion of the traditional ins ution of marriage. My concern with this shift from the traditional idea of marriage being a lifelong, committed relationship between a man and a woman which creates the basic framework for the care and upbringing of children when they have sexual relations, to this new idea of marriage being any kind of intimate relationship between any willing partners.

See, I don't think that the predominance of marriage in a society is automatic. I think it exists as a social construct, and I believe it came about to condition the man to go against hius biological propensity for multiple sexual partners, and instead to care for the needs of a single woman, and for the children he produces by sexual relations.

Caring and nurturing are more natural for the woman, because it's in her biological makeup. For the male, it has to be conditioned.

In the days before the welfare state, if this didn't happen, you wouldn't have much of a civilization. I know there have been variations on the theme, but in general the vast majority of societies that have survived have maintained this basic family model, where a man and a woman get married.

Now with the welfare state, we've had somewhat of this luxury not to be bound rigidly to these "rules," so to say, to maintain our society. It's possible for the man to shirk his responsibility to his family and bolt, or even beyond that, either for the man or the woman just to have casual sex with no responsibility whatsoever. If there's a kid, the state picks up the tab, or we abort the fetus. For the affluent parts of our society, we can get by OK. We can have almost endless motility in our relationships because we have the resources to clean up the messes we make.

But look at the not-so-affluent parts of our society, and it's been a disaster, even with legalized abortion. Legitimate families are the exception, not the rule. And we aren't raising children in a manner that gives them much of an opportunity to get out of the vicious circle.

Now I know to liberals the solution is just to throw lots of money at these folks to make up the difference. But I think that grossly oversimplifies the depth social infrastructure to make those dysfunctional communities functional again. And the basic unit of infrastructure that is missing is the FAMILY.

Nevertheless, in these elite circles, we're still moving forward, changing the concept of these commitments from personal responsibility to personal choice, because we have the luxury of doing so.

Sending that message to the society at large I think is potentially catastrophic. I still want marriage to connote the responsibility that a man has to his wife and children, actual or potential, because without it, I think that a lot of men simply won't get married and we'll be much worse off for it. It will get more and more difficult and expensive to pick up the pieces.

So, I don't begrudge any people their relationships. Two women or men want to spend their lives together? More power to them. They want to raise kids? Terrific, loving committed parents are an asset to us, no matter what walk of life they come from. A family is a family. The relationship makes the family more than the blood does. If people wanted the state to recognize their household as a family, I don't see a problem with that. Because that's what it is.

But keep your hands off marriage. The traditional heteronormative understanding of it serves a critical purpose for the greater good, and if we keep screwing with it, I think our society, especially the middle and lower classes, will be much worse off. We've done enough damage already.

2) I am not aware of any studies showing that the children of same sex parent are maladjusted or demonstrate characteristics of being harmed by their parents situation

You're assuming that's what I was saying. You're wrong.

To summarize a little more, I'm saying we need to maintain marriage as an ins ution into which heterosexuals are expected to enter, because of the ease with which they can create children (in general), rather than a choice.

As for other relationships: family, yes, marriage, no.

3) You are gay-bashing bigot

Since you've resorted to this, I can only assume you know you've lost to me.

[Mr. Peabody]

Since you've resorted to this, I can only assume you know you've lost to me.

Since you've resorted to this, I can only assume that you are either too egotistical or too humorless to realize that I was joking.

Quit taking yourself so seriously.
________
Paxil lawsuit information

[Mr. Peabody]

I think that's a red herring. Legal recognition of a particular family as a "marriage" has nothing to do with how comfortable and secure children feel.

If they have parents, caregivers, etc., who love them and care for them and STAY together, how they file their taxes is irrelevant.

But anyway, my biggest concern is the ongoing erosion of the traditional ins ution of marriage. My concern with this shift from the traditional idea of marriage being a lifelong, committed relationship between a man and a woman which creates the basic framework for the care and upbringing of children when they have sexual relations, to this new idea of marriage being any kind of intimate relationship between any willing partners.

See, I don't think that the predominance of marriage in a society is automatic. I think it exists as a social construct, and I believe it came about to condition the man to go against hius biological propensity for multiple sexual partners, and instead to care for the needs of a single woman, and for the children he produces by sexual relations.

Caring and nurturing are more natural for the woman, because it's in her biological makeup. For the male, it has to be conditioned.

In the days before the welfare state, if this didn't happen, you wouldn't have much of a civilization. I know there have been variations on the theme, but in general the vast majority of societies that have survived have maintained this basic family model, where a man and a woman get married.

Now with the welfare state, we've had somewhat of this luxury not to be bound rigidly to these "rules," so to say, to maintain our society. It's possible for the man to shirk his responsibility to his family and bolt, or even beyond that, either for the man or the woman just to have casual sex with no responsibility whatsoever. If there's a kid, the state picks up the tab, or we abort the fetus. For the affluent parts of our society, we can get by OK. We can have almost endless motility in our relationships because we have the resources to clean up the messes we make.

But look at the not-so-affluent parts of our society, and it's been a disaster, even with legalized abortion. Legitimate families are the exception, not the rule. And we aren't raising children in a manner that gives them much of an opportunity to get out of the vicious circle.

Now I know to liberals the solution is just to throw lots of money at these folks to make up the difference. But I think that grossly oversimplifies the depth social infrastructure to make those dysfunctional communities functional again. And the basic unit of infrastructure that is missing is the FAMILY.

Nevertheless, in these elite circles, we're still moving forward, changing the concept of these commitments from personal responsibility to personal choice, because we have the luxury of doing so.

Sending that message to the society at large I think is potentially catastrophic. I still want marriage to connote the responsibility that a man has to his wife and children, actual or potential, because without it, I think that a lot of men simply won't get married and we'll be much worse off for it. It will get more and more difficult and expensive to pick up the pieces.

So, I don't begrudge any people their relationships. Two women or men want to spend their lives together? More power to them. They want to raise kids? Terrific, loving committed parents are an asset to us, no matter what walk of life they come from. A family is a family. The relationship makes the family more than the blood does. If people wanted the state to recognize their household as a family, I don't see a problem with that. Because that's what it is.

But keep your hands off marriage. The traditional heteronormative understanding of it serves a critical purpose for the greater good, and if we keep screwing with it, I think our society, especially the middle and lower classes, will be much worse off. We've done enough damage already.

To insinuate that two people committing to spending their lives together and caring for one another somehow undermines the social construct of marriage and minimizes the notion of responsibility among males in society is ridiculous. If you truly believe that marriage between two heterosexuals is essential to keeping a society intact, we should criminalize divorce or make it harder to get.

The whole idea of marriage as a life-long commitment for the purpose of raising a family is a concept that is fading from society. And this has nothing to do with sexuals or gay marriage. People are no longer afraid to be looked down upon by society for getting a divorce or maintaining unmarried status. If you ask me this is a good thing. The whole idea of spending your life with another person is not for everyone.

Also, you're a gay-bashing bigot.
________
LIVE SEX

[Mr. Peabody]

In some cultures, you can only marry panthers. I forget where, but I read about it.

, just dating Panthers can be dangerous. Just ask Rae Carruth's girlfriend.
________
LIVE SEX WEBSHOWS

[Mr. Peabody]

I think that's a red herring. Legal recognition of a particular family as a "marriage" has nothing to do with how comfortable and secure children feel.

If they have parents, caregivers, etc., who love them and care for them and STAY together, how they file their taxes is irrelevant.

But anyway, my biggest concern is the ongoing erosion of the traditional ins ution of marriage. My concern with this shift from the traditional idea of marriage being a lifelong, committed relationship between a man and a woman which creates the basic framework for the care and upbringing of children when they have sexual relations, to this new idea of marriage being any kind of intimate relationship between any willing partners.

See, I don't think that the predominance of marriage in a society is automatic. I think it exists as a social construct, and I believe it came about to condition the man to go against hius biological propensity for multiple sexual partners, and instead to care for the needs of a single woman, and for the children he produces by sexual relations.

Caring and nurturing are more natural for the woman, because it's in her biological makeup. For the male, it has to be conditioned.

In the days before the welfare state, if this didn't happen, you wouldn't have much of a civilization. I know there have been variations on the theme, but in general the vast majority of societies that have survived have maintained this basic family model, where a man and a woman get married.

Now with the welfare state, we've had somewhat of this luxury not to be bound rigidly to these "rules," so to say, to maintain our society. It's possible for the man to shirk his responsibility to his family and bolt, or even beyond that, either for the man or the woman just to have casual sex with no responsibility whatsoever. If there's a kid, the state picks up the tab, or we abort the fetus. For the affluent parts of our society, we can get by OK. We can have almost endless motility in our relationships because we have the resources to clean up the messes we make.

But look at the not-so-affluent parts of our society, and it's been a disaster, even with legalized abortion. Legitimate families are the exception, not the rule. And we aren't raising children in a manner that gives them much of an opportunity to get out of the vicious circle.

Now I know to liberals the solution is just to throw lots of money at these folks to make up the difference. But I think that grossly oversimplifies the depth social infrastructure to make those dysfunctional communities functional again. And the basic unit of infrastructure that is missing is the FAMILY.

Nevertheless, in these elite circles, we're still moving forward, changing the concept of these commitments from personal responsibility to personal choice, because we have the luxury of doing so.

Sending that message to the society at large I think is potentially catastrophic. I still want marriage to connote the responsibility that a man has to his wife and children, actual or potential, because without it, I think that a lot of men simply won't get married and we'll be much worse off for it. It will get more and more difficult and expensive to pick up the pieces.

So, I don't begrudge any people their relationships. Two women or men want to spend their lives together? More power to them. They want to raise kids? Terrific, loving committed parents are an asset to us, no matter what walk of life they come from. A family is a family. The relationship makes the family more than the blood does. If people wanted the state to recognize their household as a family, I don't see a problem with that. Because that's what it is.

But keep your hands off marriage. The traditional heteronormative understanding of it serves a critical purpose for the greater good, and if we keep screwing with it, I think our society, especially the middle and lower classes, will be much worse off. We've done enough damage already.

It's obvious that the social construct of marriage is not necessary to encourage procreation. People would procreate whether marriage existed to it didn't. The drive to procreate is natural and does not need the assistance of marriage. That being that case, the benefits of marriage are not biological, they are, as you say, sociological. If this is the case, why does the gender of either party matter? Your argument is that it keeps people responsible and that this responsibility is essential to our society. Again, I ask, aren't there means of keeping people responsible other than oppressing a minority? There has to be.
________
LIVE SEX

[gtownspur]

^^prove where a society lasted becuase of a wasted social structure in rasing children.

[Mr. Peabody]

^^prove where a society lasted becuase of a wasted social structure in rasing children.

I don't even know what this means.
________
Pearl50 cam

[mookie2001]

LOL
i was thinking the exact same thing

[gtownspur]

so, essentially, conservationists like gtownspur are adamant in gays not marrying, because WHERE DOES IT END??? a goat can marry a panther then!! oh no!!!

it'll ruin our society!

you're a ing dip dude

And Your a ing splint! Seems like you couldnt realize that i was using extremes to prove a point. WHat it really boils down to is this, defining marriage is irrelevent since statue laws already exist. YOu cannot have multiple partners in a marriage, or can you marry your own sibling. The people have spoken.. THey want to ban gay marriage.

[mookie2001]

THey want to ban gay marriage

in a state where gay marriage was already...banned...

[gtownspur]

^^so quit massaging your clit and stop in, notinings changed.

[Mr. Peabody]

^^so quit massaging your clit and stop in, notinings changed.

Is this the compassionate conservative side or the christian side of you?
________
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL MARIJUANA

[gtownspur]

^How bout your liberal tolerant hot air touting everyone else in the country as bigoted.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Yeah Peabody. How dare you not tolerate intolerance. I thought you were open-minded.

[Mr. Peabody]

^How bout your liberal tolerant hot air touting everyone else in the country as bigoted.

Once again, if you do not realize it was a joke, even after I posted that I was joking, there is nothing I can do to help you.
________
LIVE SEX

[gtownspur]

Even after you posted you were joking? Did you type that post on a parallel universe?

I called you on it and exposed the liberal twink you are. Plain and simple.

[Mr. Peabody]

Even after you posted you were joking? Did you type that post on a parallel universe?

I called you on it and exposed the liberal twink you are. Plain and simple.

Since you've resorted to this, I can only assume that you are either too egotistical or too humorless to realize that I was joking.

Learn how to read dip .
________
Pattaya property

[FromWayDowntown]

Even after you posted you were joking? Did you type that post on a parallel universe?

I called you on it and exposed the liberal twink you are. Plain and simple.

I think he's got you there, Peabody. Nobody should ever think that gtown is too intolerant to not tolerate intolerance.

I mean, look at his toleration of those who disagree with him.