Awww

Post #388,279 by crazy 4/7/14 11:53:53 AM 4/7/14 11:56:23 AM Reply	Awww A screed about how intolerant people are of intolerance. So sweet. It's a very simple business decision. Generally, tech people lean far to the side of supporting gay rights. Mozilla depends on their good will. Their good will is revoked when they see the company is led by an anti-gay person. Mozilla pays less than the competition, and needs to recruit tech people based on the corporate culture, and they depend on external unpaid people pushing others to use firefox. This guy is the face of the company. He's got to be acceptable to the stakeholders, and in this case, their own employees and tech evangelists are high on the list. Let's compare this to Chick Filet. If you want to work there, you have to be prepared to put up with your boss inviting you to prayer meetings. Sure, they claim they don't discriminate based on religion. hehehhahaha. But they charge high (most expensive fast food I know of), and pay well enough as compared to their competition, so no matter what, they can ignore any internal employee griping. BTW, I was waiting for you to post on this. I noticed you referred to it on a different thread, but I was busy at that moment. I knew you'd be back on it. While were at it, I bet you linger on disgust more than joy. That's ok, it's not your fault, you were born with that predisposition. Sad, but hey, I'm tolerant that way. http://www.motherjon...ysiology-ideology Gotta pity those who's lives are spent suffering,and simply cannot see the joy in the world, especially when they can't do anything about it Edited by crazy April 7, 2014, 11:56:23 AM EDT Awww A screed about how intolerant people are of intolerance. So sweet. It's a very simple business decision. Generally, tech people lean far to the side of supporting gay rights. Mozilla depends on their good will. Their good will is revoked when they see the company is led by an anti-gay person. Mozilla pays less than the competition, and needs to recruit tech people based on the corporate culture, and they depend on external unpaid people pushing others to use firefox. This guy is the face of the company. He's got to be acceptable to the stakeholders, and in this case, their own employees and tech evangelists are high on the list. Let's compare this to Chick Filet. If you want to work there, you have to be prepared to put of with your boss inviting you to prayer meetings. Sure, they claim they don't discriminate based on religion. hehehhahaha. But they charge high (most expensive fast food I know of), and pay well enough as compared to their competition, so no matter what, they can ignore any internal employee griping. BTW, I was waiting for you to post on this. I noticed you referred to it on a different thread, but I was busy at that moment. I knew you'd be back on it. While were at it, I bet you linger on disgust more than joy. That's ok, it's not your fault, you were born with that predisposition. Sad, but hey, I'm tolerant that way. http://www.motherjon...ysiology-ideology Gotta pity those who's lives are spent suffering,and simply cannot see the joy in the world, especially when they can't do anything about it Collapse All History
Post #388,284 by mmoffitt 4/7/14 1:25:13 PM 4/7/14 1:29:51 PM Reply	Here's a geniune gay perspective for you. Emphasis Mine because he describes my position on the matter. The gay activists of yesteryear asked government to leave them alone. Their political program centered on decriminalizing homosexual relations between consenting adults. But today, as tolerance of homosexuality grows, gay activists are increasingly turning to government to impose their agenda on society. Though state power has been used as a bludgeon against gay people since at least the Middle Ages, suddenly todayÂs gay leaders seem to be picking up the club themselves, saying, ÂNow itÂs our turn.Â This is a great ironyÂand a potential cause of trouble for homosexuals and turmoil for America. The birth of the gay liberation movement in America can be dated to the evening of June 27, 1969, when patrons of the Stonewall Inn, a homosexual bar in Manhattan, resisted a police attempt to close the place down. For three days a neighborhood rebellion effectively kept the police from carrying on the ancient tradition of shaking down gay bars and busting the ones that didnÂt pay up. In the official complaint, the operators of the Stonewall were cited for not having a liquor license. But even if they had applied, it is doubtful their request would have been granted: the state licensing bureau was notoriously hostile to gay establishments. The first modern gay protesters, then, were rebelling against regulation. Indeed, liberation from government generally was a central idea of gay liberation. But something happened to divert the gay movement from this original goal. Today, the so-called gay rights movement sees government as the agency, not the enemy, of liberty. From socialized medicine to anti-discrimination legislation to mandatory ÂtoleranceÂ lessons in the schools, there is no scheme to increase the power of government these alleged freedom fighters do not endorse. As long as homosexual acts between consenting adults are illegal in some states, I believe organizations dedicated to their repeal have a legitimate place in the constellation of human rights causes. Beyond this strictly limited goal, however, a political movement based on sexual orientation is a grotesque aberration. The fact that the gay rights movement has taken on an increasingly authoritarian style is the inevitable result of basing political allegiances on clan loyalties instead of philosophical principles. In a free society there are no gay rights, only individual rights. For homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, these rights boil down to a single principle: the right to be let alone. Politically, the gay rights movement must return to its early libertarian roots. This would begin the vital process of depoliticizing homosexuality and defusing a dangerous culture war the gay minority can never win. Even the state ÂneutralityÂ that gay ÂcentristsÂ like Andrew Sullivan advocate would force government treatment of homosexuality as on a par with heterosexuality, as seen in SullivanÂs demands for gay pseudo-ÂmarriageÂ and open gays in the military. True neutrality, however, would involve not recognition but indifference, inattention, inaction. A neutral state would neither penalize nor reward homosexual behavior. It would neither forbid nor would it grant legal status to homosexual marriage. In a military setting, a neutral state would subject all sexuality to the same rigorous regulation. ... The obsession with Âcoming out,Â and the essentially feminine self-centeredness such a ritual implies, is surely another aspect of the gay movement that has to go. Do we really need to know the sexual proclivities of our neighbors and co-workers, or even our brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles? To expect approval or official sanction for so personal a matter as sexuality is a sign of weak character. To unblushingly ask (nay, demand) such approval in the form of some act of government is an act of unparalleled bad taste. It is also a confession of such a devastating lack of self-esteem, of inner emptiness, that its public expression is hard to fathom. Self-esteem is not a quality to be sought from others, nor can it be legislated into existence. http://frexpression....cries-gay-rights/ See, not everyone embraces your GroupThink. Some people - gay and straight alike - actually think. Edit: Missed part of quote. Edited by mmoffitt April 7, 2014, 01:29:51 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #388,285 by Another Scott 4/7/14 1:31:21 PM Reply	I'm reminded of a certain Anatole France quote... Yes, total blindness and indifference to immutable characteristics would be great. We don't live in such a world. The rights of minorities must be protected from the majority. If everyone isn't being treated equally, then the law must step in to make it possible for everyone to be treated equally. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #388,286 by drook 4/7/14 1:32:37 PM Reply	Bull** Being polite in the subject line, but that's a steaming pile of shit. Even the state ÂneutralityÂ that gay ÂcentristsÂ like Andrew Sullivan advocate would force government treatment of homosexuality as on a par with heterosexuality, as seen in SullivanÂs demands for gay pseudo-ÂmarriageÂ and open gays in the military. True neutrality, however, would involve not recognition but indifference, inattention, inaction. A neutral state would neither penalize nor reward homosexual behavior. It would neither forbid nor would it grant legal status to homosexual marriage**. First, if you don't grant legal status to it, then you are de facto forbidding it. Second, by calling it "gay pseudo-'marriage'" he's clearly saying that "gay marriage" is not "real marriage". If you don't want the government to grant legal status to homosexual marriage, equality would mean you don't grant legal status to straight marriage either. Show me the anti-gay marriage activists calling for that? And oh by the way ... force government treatment of homosexuality as on a par with heterosexuality Yes, on a par with ... equal. That's the point. -- Drew
Post #388,288 by mmoffitt 4/7/14 1:38:36 PM Reply	Both result in children, then?
Post #388,289 by Another Scott 4/7/14 1:45:19 PM Reply	Reproduction is not a requirement of marriage.
Post #388,291 by mmoffitt 4/7/14 2:58:04 PM Reply	Not the point I was addressing. force government treatment of homosexuality as on a par with heterosexuality Yes, on a par with ... equal. That's the point. That's what I was replying to. We've killed that other horse. ;0)
Post #388,295 by mmoffitt 4/7/14 3:54:24 PM Reply	Related: USSC declines review of photography case. Washington (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected review of a closely watched religious liberty appeal over a business owner's right to deny services to gays and lesbians. Without comment Monday, justices denied the petition of a New Mexico photographer who was sanctioned under state law for refusing to document a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony. The court's refusal to intervene means those financial penalties stand. The case would have given the high court an opportunity to debate a pair of hot-button social issues: faith in the marketplace and same-sex marriage. The court has been tackling separate appeals on both fronts. At issue here was how to classify the owner's refusal to offer her services -- as constitutionally protected speech or "commercial conduct" subject to government regulation. http://www.cnn.com/2...x.html?hpt=hp_bn3 IOW, you will all say it's "normal." Pussies. Don't have the courage of their convictions.
Post #388,299 by crazy 4/7/14 4:58:52 PM Reply	ahh, so sad In the olden days, your disgust and anger was a good survival mechanism. Too bad it is a negative for today's society. Looks like an evolutionary dead end.
Post #388,304 by mmoffitt 4/8/14 8:11:52 AM Reply	HA! I don't think homosexuality is a particularly strong instrument for evolution. Your biology may differ from mine.
Post #388,306 by Another Scott 4/8/14 8:18:01 AM Reply	Re: HA! http://www.newscient...html#.U0PoklfZf9s Homosexual behaviour has been observed in hundreds of species, from bison to penguins. It is still not clear to what extent homosexuality in humans or other animals is genetic (rather than, say, due to hormonal extremes during embryonic development), but there are many mechanisms that could explain why gene variants linked to homosexuality are maintained in a population. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #388,307 by mmoffitt 4/8/14 9:52:15 AM Reply	But in no species does it result in a next generation. HTH.
Post #388,310 by Another Scott 4/8/14 10:33:11 AM Reply	Evolution is driven by genes, not individuals. Genes "want" to survive. Similar or identical genes are carried by related individuals. Anything that helps the genes survive their environment for another generation have an evolutionary bias toward continuing. You noticed the part in that article about a potential benefit for female fertility in genes that were associated with homosexuality? Evolution doesn't care if an individual specimen doesn't reproduce. The species can benefit even if the individual has no offspring. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #388,311 by mmoffitt 4/8/14 12:02:03 PM Reply	Wow. Really? So, exactly how does a homosexual couple engaged in their normal sexual relations pass on those genes? Or are you suggesting that we should develop methods that allow the genes of a homosexual couple to be spread to the next generation through some sort of recombinate DNA methods, surrogate mothers (for male homosexual couples) or artificial wombs of some sort? Assuming we develop the science necessary, will it be fair for female homosexual couples to be only capable of producing female offspring? Or should we also develop methods to convert an X chromosome to a Y chromosome so that female homosexuals "can have" boys? I'm being silly, of course, since the genes from homosexuals are naturally (in an evolutionary sense) being passed on anyway - according to you.
Post #388,314 by Another Scott 4/8/14 12:23:14 PM Reply	If they're not passed on, why do they exist? Doesn't the existence of homosexuality in nature disprove your apparent belief that it's an evolutionary dead end? From the NS linky above: It has also been suggested that homosexuality boosts individuals' reproductive success, albeit indirectly. For instance, same-sex partners might have a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and getting access to the opposite sex. In some gull species, homosexual partnerships might be a response to a shortage of males - rather than have no offspring at all, some female pairs raise offspring together after mating with a male from a normal male-female pair. Another possibility is that homosexuality evolves and persists because it benefits groups or relatives, rather than individuals. In bonobos, homosexual behaviour might have benefits at a group level by promoting social cohesion. One study in Samoa found gay men devote more time to their nieces and nephews, suggesting it might be an example of kin selection (promoting your own genes in the bodies of others). Passing on genes is about more than impregnation. It's about having the group thrive better than other groups in that niche. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #388,315 by mmoffitt 4/8/14 1:12:59 PM Reply	We're past each other. But, I'll answer. You know darned well how I think it might be possible for a still unknown genetic tendency toward homosexuality to be propagated in a heterosexual species (excluding the pregnancies derived from homosexual males and/or females having heterosexual sex). You also know darned well that I can have no factual basis to believe what I believe about this because there are no known genetic markers for homosexuality. Since you asked, I'll repeat myself. I believe - like the rest of the world believed until 1973 when political pressure was applied based upon a trivially small study - that a genetic predisposition to homosexuality exists and that the genes yielding the homosexual phenotype are related to the genes associated with mental illness.
Post #388,317 by Another Scott 4/8/14 2:03:51 PM Reply	Yeah, we're talking past each other. Trouble is, genes aren't binary. As the article points out, genes that cause sickle cell disease also help to increase the chance of survival of malaria. The benefits of having genes that increase homosexual tendencies may have other benefits that aren't immediately apparent. (That's one of the reasons why eugenics is not just evil, it's stupid.) "Mental illness" is a big minefield. Just about every woman was lumped in that category at one time (and not that long ago). Dirac may have been autistic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac "Fixing" homosexuals didn't end well in at least one famous case - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing Understanding changes. The world becomes a tiny, confining place when we try to force it into boxes. Treating everyone equally, with equal benefits from - and responsibilities to - society (when possible), is the best approach. Cheers, Scott.
Post #388,391 by boxley 4/9/14 8:55:15 PM Reply	howsabout gay male help tend the fire so orc and ug can bump uglies more often? Male strength female nurturing instincts helps a tribe Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #388,319 by pwhysall 4/8/14 5:42:46 PM Reply	So what? As a species, we're way past what is or is not a strong instrument for evolution. The bottom line is that you're totes too interested in what other people do with their icky bits, and you need to mind your own business.
Post #388,345 by mmoffitt 4/9/14 8:34:59 AM 4/9/14 8:36:37 AM Reply	Not at all! It is none of my business. And I don't want to incessantly hear about it. I find it stupid beyond description the popularity of "coming out." What egotism! And who the fuck cares in the first place? Why is it "news" when someone wants to brag about their orientation? I live in a fairly sparsely populated area. My next door neighbor is a very close, almost family, type of friend. She's happens to be homosexual - as do many of her friends who come up to the lake and fish, play and party with us. Her orientation matters not one bit to me, nor is it any of my business. When I think of her or any of the folks I've met through her, I do not think of them as my "gay friends" or my "homosexual friends" any more than I think of my best friend of more than 30 years as my "heterosexual friend." In this same way I do not think of the cousins I have who are homosexuals as my "homosexual cousins" but instead think of them only as "cousins" just as I would if they where heterosexual. From my POV, that attribute (sexual orientation) has fuck all to do with what matters about a person and it is beyond stupid to single a person out based upon that ultimately rather meaningless attribute. Moreover, it is idiotic beyond description to define a protected class under the law by that single, irrelevant attribute. My railing about so-called "marriage equality" really boils down to semantics. First, a homosexual couple's relationship is not the same as a heterosexual couple's relationship. That doesn't mean I think one is superior to the other (and I don't) but they are different. A homosexual couple's "marriage" can NEVER result in offspring who share DNA with each member of the couple. A heterosexual couple's "marriage" can, and most often does. Hence, they are not the same relationship. So, I object to using the same noun to describe different things. Second (and this really annoys me) is the fantastically inane idea that "marriage is a civil right." That is indefensible complete horseshit. If this whole "marriage equality" question had instead been posed as, "Should homosexual civil commitments (or whatever phrase) receive all benefits under the law and be recognized as being the equal of marriage?" you'd have heard nary a peep from me. Edit: sp Edited by mmoffitt April 9, 2014, 08:36:37 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #388,349 by pwhysall 4/9/14 10:52:49 AM 4/9/14 10:54:27 AM Reply	You miss the point in grand style. You don't have to worry about being beaten to death because of your sexual orientation. You don't have to worry about being fired because of your sexual orientation. You don't have to worry about being disowned by your parents and family because of your sexual orientation. First, a homosexual couple's relationship is not the same as a heterosexual couple's relationship. That doesn't mean I think one is superior to the other (and I don't) but they are different. A homosexual couple's "marriage" can NEVER result in offspring who share DNA with each member of the couple. A heterosexual couple's "marriage" can, and most often does. This is bollocks and you know it, because sterile people can get married. Y'know, sterile people who can NEVER have offspring who share DNA with each member of the couple. tl;dr: check your privilege. Edited by pwhysall April 9, 2014, 10:54:27 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #388,355 by mmoffitt 4/9/14 11:31:04 AM Reply	This has confused me since I was 12. And I still don't understand it and I think it highly unlikely that I ever will. I say this as someone who has been married for more than 30 years to the same woman. Why in the name of all that is holy would a sterile couple (or fertile couple who don't want children for that matter) get married? It defies reason.
Post #388,359 by malraux 4/9/14 11:51:56 AM Reply	Taxes and legal rights. Same reasons a gay couple might wish to get married. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #388,361 by drook 4/9/14 11:55:51 AM Reply	And how about ... It's long been the culturally-accepted way of publicly proclaiming your devotion to the person you love. -- Drew
Post #388,366 by mmoffitt 4/9/14 12:45:03 PM Reply	Don't know about you, but our taxes went up. Remember the "marriage penalty"? Might pre-date you. That was back when it was understood by everybody that marriage caused a financial hit to society, made up by taxing married couples higher - until they had kids.
Post #388,371 by malraux 4/9/14 2:41:06 PM Reply	Oh, right. Gay people would never adopt a kid. You sidestepped the other reason as well, Bryce. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #388,373 by pwhysall 4/9/14 3:16:51 PM Reply	Bryce is the reason? I don't wanna know.
Post #388,375 by mmoffitt 4/9/14 4:12:08 PM Reply	Name calling? Incredibly, I apparently have still not made clear that I have no objection to gay couples enjoying all the legal rights, privileges and responsibilities as married couples. Since I had issue with the accuracy of only one of the two things you mentioned, my reply was directed at the one of the two with which I took issue.
Post #388,379 by Another Scott 4/9/14 4:40:17 PM Reply	"No objection"?!? Your argument here seems to be too subtle and too strident at the same time. You seem to me to be objecting a great deal to gay people coming out with fanfare, or getting married, or expecting to be treated as a customer when they want a service from a company. How is that not "objecting"? It's an understandable position to dislike and argue against the concept of gay marriage. Or even "sterile marriage". :-/ But to simultaneously say that you've got no objection to people being treated equally doesn't make any sense. IMHO. People are treated equally, or they're not. "Separate but equal" isn't equal. What am I missing? Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #388,380 by mmoffitt 4/9/14 4:45:58 PM Reply	Maybe one of my posts? If this whole "marriage equality" question had instead been posed as, "Should homosexual civil commitments (or whatever phrase) receive all benefits under the law and be recognized as being the equal of marriage?" you'd have heard nary a peep from me. http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=388345 My father used to have a saying, "Let's agree to call a spade a spade." I just don't want to call a spade a shovel.
Post #388,384 by crazy 4/9/14 4:56:44 PM Reply	Doesn't matter We went through this with Beep. Separate but equal does not work, many thousandS laws and millions of contracts would need to be rewritten then litigated. So no point in building that straw man, it would never happen and merely a distraction.
Post #388,363 by crazy 4/9/14 12:20:38 PM Reply	Cornerstone cultural significance Most of us are raised with that as part of our life goals. Get a good education, get a good job, find someone to share the rest of our lives with, gather in social groups (couple hang with couples), get married, raise kids with the same values, grow old, play with grandkids. Not all of us want all of this, but we are well programmed to at least achieve what we can within our own abilities and desires. I already had kids before I was married to my current wife, both from previous marriage and with her. And then I got snipped. And then I got married. It was probably the highlight of my life. I was watching the wedding video yesterday. Drook, Scott, you looked good. There will be no more kids. Me getting married did not change any of the current kid's status (at least that I'm aware of). So, as someone who got married simply because I was (and still am) in love, I understand the desire of others, no matter what gender, to do so. Beyond that, I can envision end-of-life issues where I'd want her voice to trump my families. Marriage gives her that right without forcing any additional paperwork that can be challenged in court, which is a very common problem with gay couples, especially when the birth family is anti-gay and kicks the partner out of the hospital room. I know you don't care, since it is all so alien to you. You'll keep fighting and bringing it up, and we'll keep countering, since you will never see the world through another set of eyes. Oh well. BTW, your use of the phrase "all that is holy" is pretty telling.
Post #388,367 by mmoffitt 4/9/14 12:46:48 PM Reply	Heh. I wouldn't read too much into that meaningless intensive. ;0)
Post #388,368 by mmoffitt 4/9/14 12:55:45 PM Reply	You know what I find funny? No one has ever asked my sexual orientation and I have never felt compelled to tell them. So, no, I don't worry about things on your list because my sexual orientation is no one's business but my wife's.
Post #388,369 by crazy 4/9/14 1:00:27 PM Reply	Ahh, default priviledge 30 years marriage with kids, at least based on your posts. Predates any legal gay marriage. Easily assumed with very little change for argument.
Post #388,372 by pwhysall 4/9/14 3:08:59 PM Reply	That's because you're the default. No-one needs to ask your orientation, because their assumption - that you're straight - is the correct one. Check. Your. Privilege.
Post #388,383 by drook 4/9/14 4:56:11 PM Reply	Brendan Fraser movie "School Ties" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105327/ A Jewish boy goes to an elite prep school in the 1950's and hides his religion until a jealous bigot forces it out in the open. His character is David Green. He's dating a girl named Chris Reese. When David is outed, Chris angrily asks him why he never told her he was Jewish. He says she never asked. She says he should have told her anyway. Then there's this exchange: David Green: You never told me what religion you are. Chris Reese: I'm a Methodist. David Green: A Methodist. And all this time I didn't know it. -- Drew
Post #388,351 by drook 4/9/14 10:57:46 AM Reply	The law calls it "marriage" As long as there is a legal thing called "marriage" that straight people are allowed to do, you have to let gay people do the same thing and call it the same thing. Let me repeat the important part with emphasis, in case you missed what I'm saying: As long as there is a legal thing called "marriage". By contrast, there is a thing some churches do called "baptism". I'm not aware of any laws that refer to baptism. If your church doesn't want to do that to gay people it's their right. If you don't want gays to use the term "marriage", first you've got to get the law to stop using it. -- Drew
Post #388,356 by mmoffitt 4/9/14 11:33:53 AM Reply	Then why isn't my mother called a father? There's a legal definition of father ( http://definitions.u...m/l/legal-father/ ). Isn't she being a victim of discrimination, too?
Post #388,358 by drook 4/9/14 11:48:01 AM Reply	Because she is the birth mother This is a great example. Women can carry babies, men can not. The biological difference is inherent to the activity being legally defined. The act of getting married has no biologically distinguishing characteristics. Yes, the frequent follow-on activity to marriage is procreation, but the marriage act itself does not require it. Does your wife know that you don't want to be married? -- Drew
Post #388,362 by Another Scott 4/9/14 12:10:18 PM Reply	rofl.
Post #388,365 by mmoffitt 4/9/14 12:43:57 PM 4/9/14 12:53:06 PM Reply	Bzzzt. Two daughters. HTH. But if 30+ years ago the love we shared (and share) did not rise to the level where we wanted to have children together, it would never have occured to me to propose. OTOH, if I knew I was sterile and still loved her enough to want to have kids together, I still would not have proposed. I would not have wanted to cheat her out of the single greatest joy anyone can ever have - becoming a parent. Edit: Revise and Extend. Edited by mmoffitt April 9, 2014, 12:53:06 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #388,370 by crazy 4/9/14 1:26:25 PM Reply	Maybe you sell yourself short. Maybe not. Challenge: Ask your wife: If you had the choice between marrying me and having no kids VS marrying someone else and having kids, which would you choose? I will do the same tonight and post results.
Post #388,374 by crazy 4/9/14 3:39:31 PM Reply	ok If I was sterile she would have married me anyway.
Post #388,378 by mmoffitt 4/9/14 4:36:38 PM Reply	Interesting question. I flipped this on myself. "If I knew she were sterile, ..." and I honestly can't answer. Having spent the majority of my life with a woman I was fortunate enough to meet purely by chance, having had two beautiful daughters with her and for about a million other reasons, I find myself completely unable to imagine a life spent without her. I cannot put my mind in the condition it was in at age 22, before almost 31 truly remarkable years, before 2 perfect children, before the hundreds of shared life experiences. In short, I cannot fathom living without her and I cannot recall with any clarity what my life meant before meeting her. It would be easy for me to answer, "Of course I'd still marry her" but the truth is, 31 years ago, I just don't know. We've been cleaning the basement and unearthed a lot of old papers that I'd written back in college. Going from some of what I'd written back then, I considered marriage in the absence of the possibility of biological children frivolous (I still have, in large measure, that view). So while I'm pretty clear that if I were sterile, I wouldn't have asked. I cannot say with any certainty that if I knew she were sterile (31 years ago) I would ask anyway.
Post #388,382 by crazy 4/9/14 4:53:32 PM Reply	not what I asked Your previous point was that if YOU were sterile you would not ask her to marry you because that would deny HER children. So my point was what would SHE have preferred? Would she rather have a life with you with no kids, or a life with someone else with kids? My wife was very clear. She wanted ME. Kids were a side benefit. On the other hand, your questioning whether you would have married her if she was sterile makes you seeking a brood mare. And now you think maybe not. Or maybe. So then that questions is: do you love her for herself or her ability to give you kids? Is she merely a means to an end, or your true desire? Be careful, she might read this someday.
Post #388,385 by drook 4/9/14 4:59:00 PM Reply	What's wrong with adoption? -- Drew
Post #388,387 by crazy 4/9/14 5:03:13 PM Reply	game over If he says no to adoption and he'd not have married his wife, he makes her a worthless pawn in his life, merely a means to reproducing his genes. If he says yes to adoption, then he has to allow for gay marriage since they can adopt. He will not answer directly, but he'll give some equivocating blather.
Post #388,424 by crazy 4/10/14 6:43:16 PM Reply	told ya At least he accepts his world view makes no sense in the world he actually lives in.
Post #388,423 by crazy 4/10/14 6:43:12 PM 4/10/14 6:45:24 PM Reply	double post - slow iwethey At least he accepts his world view makes no sense in the world he actually lives in. Edited by crazy April 10, 2014, 06:45:24 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #388,390 by hnick 4/9/14 6:55:26 PM Reply	Hmmm... My first wife bagged me after 10 years marriage after my first year at Case. I didn't want to have kids until I had an education and a career going. She figured her clock was ticking and bugged out; dropped a frog 15 months later. My current wife and I got married after I graduated and got a real job. We'll be married 30 years in November. We were both pushing 34 when we got married. After a year we bought a 4 bedroom house assuming 2 kids. Kids never happened. I'm not heart broken, but the alternative would have been ok. I'm fine with both situations. My primary relationship is with my wife. In both cases I wanted them to be happy. They both are (I think. I haven't seen #1 in about 28 years.) I consider that everyone deserves a sustaining relationship with somebody they love. That relationship should be equally supported by society, by which I mean that automatic next of kin status applies as well as tax benefits and all the other bells and whistles. I have gay friends and extended family. I would not wish them to be second class citizens because of the way they are wired. That's about all I got... YMMV (and obviously does...) "Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable." ~ AMBROSE BIERCE (1842-1914)
Post #388,409 by mmoffitt 4/10/14 2:35:10 PM Reply	Mine doesn't really vary much. Actually, your stated experience is completely in line with my thoughts: It is rational to get married with the expectation of children. My wife and I were married 7 years before our first was born for precisely the same reason you "didn't want to have kids." That is, I was still in school. I concur with you that everyone should have a sustaining relationship. Where we differ (perhaps) is that our shared value that everyone deserves such a relationship necessarily means that everyone should have the right to marry. I see "marriage" and "committed relationship" as two distinct things (Aside: I am supported by the evidence in this as roughly 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce. It immediately follows that 1/2 of all marriages have nothing at all to do with sustaining relationships). At least until this new type of marriage was defined, I think I can say without objection that going into a marriage you know, intellectually, that you've only got a 1 in 2 shot at having it last. Given the enormous personal toll, financial toll and legal toll a divorce entails, that's quite a risk. So, for the couple with no expectation of children, I cannot see why they would assume it. The tax advantages are negligble. The end-of-life, inheritance and similar concerns can be achieved with relatively painless boiler plate Durable POA documents and wills. Sure, there's outlier benefits like pension plans that only pay a spouse survivor benefits, but those are few and far between and the last of a dying breed. Further, for at least 1/2 of those entering such a relationship, the inevitable termination of the relationship would be greatly simplified and far less painful financially and otherwise. Which is easier? Tearing up a couple of POA documents and editing a couple of wills? Or a divorce? So, marry in the absence of intent or desire for children? Why bother? When I said I wasn't sure if I'd have asked my wife to marry me if I knew she were sterile, some took that to the fantastically inaccurate conclusion that I was saying I wasn't sure if I'd have wanted to spend my life with her. Of course I would have. But that does not mean (or require!) that we wed. That Marriage != committed relationship in the presence of marriage's failure rate is obvious to all but the most myopic of minds.
Post #388,430 by hnick 4/10/14 8:02:46 PM Reply	Call it a flapjack for all of mine... Where we differ (perhaps) is that our shared value that everyone deserves such a relationship necessarily means that everyone should have the right to marry. I see "marriage" and "committed relationship" as two distinct things My point is that two people in love who publicly and ostensibly permanently define their relationship, should have exactly equal rights and liabilities with respect to family identity, property, and tax laws. If you want to make the claim that marriage is a religious function, then remove all legal power from it; it's the same as going to church with your whatever. Put the family breaks in a civil relationship. Which the clergy already have the power to do. They require marriage licenses and such. They are doing a civil ceremony anyway. Treat them equally and I'm happy. Everybody should be able to pick who they are happy with and not be penalized if Mrs. Grundy doesn't like it. "Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable." ~ AMBROSE BIERCE (1842-1914)
Post #388,434 by Another Scott 4/10/14 8:45:26 PM Reply	Well said.
Post #388,445 by mmoffitt 4/11/14 9:30:51 AM Reply	Then we agree, I think. Me: If this whole "marriage equality" question had instead been posed as, "Should homosexual civil commitments (or whatever phrase) receive all benefits under the law and be recognized as being the equal of marriage?" you'd have heard nary a peep from me. You: Put the family breaks in a civil relationship. ... Treat them equally and I'm happy. I may be thick (and I don't understand the meaning of your subject), but I don't see a material difference in those sentiments.
Post #388,436 by pwhysall 4/11/14 3:55:09 AM Reply	You keep asking this question. People keep answering it. Are you going to just keep asking it until the rest of the world breaks down and goes "Oh, OK, Mike. Fuck it. You're completely right. Marriage without children is pointless."?
Post #388,448 by mmoffitt 4/11/14 9:46:54 AM Reply	Hmmm... I still don't understand why anyone would want to marry in the absence of a desire or ability to have children. 30 years ago, I would have thought that no one would marry today. The prime reason (back then) I thought marriage before children was a good choice was because, back then, children born out of wedlock were stigmatized and that never seemed fair to me. Cohabitation in the absence of marriage was another violation of social mores back then. But I could see that changing. In 30 years, I thought it would be gone completely and there would be no reason for anyone to get married. A couple is either committed to one another or it is not. Being "married" speaks fuck-all to the level of committment. At best, marriage encumbers the dissolution of a relationship. And it doesn't even do a very good job of that since a 50% failure rate is nothing to brag about. But it clearly does nothing to strengthen nor define a level of committment.
Post #388,453 by Another Scott 4/11/14 10:17:48 AM Reply	A few things... 1) The US divorce rate has never been 50% and has been falling since ~ 1980 - http://www.nytimes.c.../19divo.html?_r=0 Interestingly, divorce rates fall dramatically with increased education. Since education levels continue to increase over time, divorce rates are likely to keep falling. 2) You're posting a whole bunch of binary choices. People get married and divorced for lots of reasons - not simply lack of "commitment". My dad knew a couple that lived together for 15 years (and had kids IIRC) and then got married. Why? Health insurance. Similarly, sometimes there are sensible financial or reasons other than "commitment" why people get divorced. E.g. People often change after a few decades and want to do other things with their lives. People who make those choices aren't somehow, (probably the wrong words here) morally defective. 3) Just because you don't understand why people would make other choices doesn't mean that their choices aren't legitimate. People are different and have the right to make choices that are sensible for them. If someone wants to be married, and they don't want kids, and they end up getting divorced 20 years later, they aren't somehow worse people than people who don't marry, do have kids, and stay together for the rest of their lives. You can't determine anything about commitment from the two cases - you can have a cowed spouse and a wife-beater in either case. You don't know. They've simply made different choices about marriage. 4) Having some paper that says you've got Durable Power of Attorney and so forth for your family member is supposed to be legally sufficient in many cases, but in practice it isn't always. And even in cases when it is, it's a hassle in terms of time and money. (Personal experience here with J's parents.) If "marriage" means something different for hetero couples than for gay couples, then "civil commitment" isn't good enough. Separate but equal isn't. We've got lots of history showing that to be a fact. Society should let people make their own choices and not say they can't. Treating people equally is just and more efficient. What I agreed with most about Hugh's post was: My point is that two people in love who publicly and ostensibly permanently define their relationship, should have exactly equal rights and liabilities with respect to family identity, property, and tax laws. When are you going to finally accept the brilliance of my arguments?!?! ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #388,470 by mmoffitt 4/11/14 12:55:23 PM Reply	How can we agree? We aren't even arguing the same issue. ;0) To your quoted point, I'm not arguing that such should not be the case. I'm arguing with you (if at all) about whether or not "marriage" should be the sole method of achieving that equality. I don't think it should, but as Ashton pointed out, it might have to be given the current "real world" situation. I don't think people who divorce are defective, bad or morally inferior in the least. I do think it's pretty clear their choice to marry was ill advised assuming the traditional until death do you part. If marriage is evolving (or has evolved) to mean "a temporary living arrangement carrying some legal benefits" then IMO marriage has outlived its usefulness, not withstanding the fact that it never really lived up to its stated ideal for everyone who entered into it. I don't think it is fair to the legions of single mothers out there (or cohabitating gay couples for that matter) to define "family" solely through wedlock, so I reject the notion that only through wedlock can a family truely be said to exist or be accepted as such by society. I concede I might be outside the "real world" again in that sentiment. Cheers, Mikem Oh, and thanks for the nitpick about 50 percent. 41 percent then, or whatever it is. ;0)
Post #388,474 by folkert 4/11/14 1:03:37 PM Reply	That nitpick is 34,200,00 HTH. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #388,479 by Another Scott 4/11/14 2:57:10 PM Reply	The nits, they must be picked!
Post #388,512 by mmoffitt 4/12/14 8:43:09 PM Reply	Math is not your strong suit is it? But, no matter. ;0)
Post #388,399 by Ashton 4/10/14 6:08:10 AM Reply	Your objection to, 'taking sex-orientation as any big deal' would be laudable and appropriate within a genuinely Open Society (Karl Popper's or any variant.) Your attitude, as several times stated: pre-supposes a level of maturity (aka real-Adulthood) which--I believe many of us might agree --does Not describe the dis-USA at any time within its tenuous and oft-solipsistic history. IMO thus, you are attached to an Unrealistic assessment of your actual environment 'here', and this, I believe, is the main source of the rebuttals you have received in our (rarefied!) IWE mini-environment. I submit that the 'dis-USA' is an environment of daily duplicity [think: the mandatory lying of bizness and all other examples of hypocrisy, duplicity and outright premeditated Lying] which are so common that, like the Goldfish: we hardly ever Notice. That being the case: [see all the cogent arguments already made well-enough, as to Why] I Agree with Your Point! ... but only within a Sane Society. Not THIS one. You Lose--not because your sentiments are Wrong, but because they are appropriate only to a zeitgeist quite Foreign to the deteriorating 'society', extant as-we-speak. ie This Had-to-be a Big DealÂ Rest case. Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
Post #388,407 by mmoffitt 4/10/14 2:11:01 PM 4/10/14 2:11:53 PM Reply	I hate to admit it, but you're right. For all of the reasons you listed. I yield to the better argument. Edit: I'm slipping, I can't spell "but" or type "yield" Edited by mmoffitt April 10, 2014, 02:11:53 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #388,352 by Another Scott 4/9/14 10:59:07 AM Reply	Hmm... A homosexual couple's "marriage" can NEVER result in offspring who share DNA with each member of the couple. A heterosexual couple's "marriage" can, and most often does. Hence, they are not the same relationship. http://www.cnn.com/2...ivf-mitochondria/ U.S. health officials are weighing whether to approve trials of a pioneering in vitro fertilization technique using DNA from three people in an attempt to prevent illnesses like muscular dystrophy and respiratory problems. The proposed treatment would allow a woman to have a baby without passing on diseases of the mitochondria, the "powerhouses" that drive cells. Also, too, I guess Richard Mayhew doesn't have a "real" marriage in your eyes any more? http://www.balloon-j...6/snipping-costs/ <sigh> Cheers, Scott.
Post #388,290 by drook 4/7/14 1:59:15 PM Reply	Why do you need the government to recognize that difference? -- Drew
Post #388,292 by mmoffitt 4/7/14 2:58:56 PM Reply	Why do you need the government to say there isn't one?

Welcome to IWETHEY!