Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
By virtue of their gender difference, male and females can get married.
If sterilization is part of the marriage, then the couple is marrying for all the wrong reasons (usually money or some other trite reason), but since the gender difference is still present; thus, the potential for procreation still manifests, the marriage should be allowed to proceed.
Because Mother Nature demands it of us.
Remember, when considering the topic such as marriage, we must consider only the rule, never the exception.
When we start asking things like, "Why can't I marry a hippopotamus? A hippo will keep my kid warm just like a wife can" we are introducing exceptions to the ideal rule, which detracts from good lawmaking.
Because Mother Nature demands it of us.
Remember, when considering the topic such as marriage, we must consider only the rule, never the exception.
When we start asking things like, "Why can't I marry a hippopotamus? A hippo will keep my kid warm just like a wife can" we are introducing exceptions to the ideal rule, which detracts from good lawmaking.
There you go worshipping Gaia again.
------------------------
We're talking kids here now.. not marriage.
The fact that children grow up in families with single parents or with same sex parents prove there is not gender difference required for a child to be raised to the age of 18.
Face it. If your youngest daughter were to come home with an elephant, you'd say, "cool elephant! So where are you gonna keep your new pet?" And if she were to say, "He's not my pet mom, he's my fiance", you'd likely throw a fit.
Again, sound lawmaking demands we take the ideal into consideration and reject the exceptions to the rule.
...what?
Are you saying that a single parent cannot adequately raise a child because the gender difference of the parent does not exist?
This is ad hominem thinking. Can you rephrase the question?
(Ad hominem thinking manifests itself when someone who wants medical marijuana to be legal gets accused of being a drug trafficker.)
Why does the second require a male and a female? Numerous studies over the past four decades have consistently shown same-sex couples are just as good at raising children as opposite-sex couples. Indeed, children raised by female-female couples show a slight statistical advantage over those raised by male-female and male-male couples.Because procreation is more than just a nine-month process.
Procreation is a two-step process, as I illustrated above:
Both require the gender difference.
- The first step in procreation is the first 9 months.
- Procreation would be meaningless unless the child is taken care of after the birth. For this reason, the second step of procreation involves the raising of the child up until his or her 18th year.
Which has nothing to do with my post.
Please stop claiming a similarity between attraction to other humans and attraction to non human animals.
and please explain your calling on gaia as the ruler over our lives.
The error is easy to produce because
"being in love" does very often, in Western Europe, precede marriages which are
made in obedience to the Enemy's designs, that is, with the intention of
fidelity, fertility and good will; just as religious emotion very often, but not
always, attends conversion. In other words, the humans are to be encouraged to
regard as the basis for marriage a highly-coloured and distorted version of
something the Enemy really promises as its result. Two advantages follow. In the
first place, humans who have not the gift of continence can be deterred from
seeking marriage as a solution because they do not find themselves "in love",
and, thanks to us, the idea of marrying with any other motive seems to them low
and cynical. Yes, they think that. They regard the intention of loyalty to a
partnership for mutual help, for the preservation of chastity, and for the
transmission of life, as something lower than a storm of emotion.
Why does the second require a male and a female? Numerous studies over the past four decades have consistently shown same-sex couples are just as good at raising children as opposite-sex couples. Indeed, children raised by female-female couples show a slight statistical advantage over those raised by male-female and male-male couples.
So yeah, why can't gay couples raise kids?
This is ad hominem thinking. Can you rephrase the question?
(Ad hominem thinking manifests itself when someone who wants medical marijuana to be legal gets accused of being a drug trafficker.)
Because procreation is more than just a nine-month process.
Procreation is a two-step process, as I illustrated above:Both require the gender difference.
- The first step in procreation is the first 9 months.
- Procreation would be meaningless unless the child is taken care of after the birth. For this reason, the second step of procreation involves the raising of the child up until his or her 18th year.
Then stop bringing up such silly strawmen and address the specifics, i.e. a single parent or two same sex parents are just as capable of bringing up a well balanced, well adjusted child as two opposite sex parents.Because Mother Nature demands it of us.
Remember, when considering the topic such as marriage, we must consider only the rule, never the exception.
When we start asking things like, "Why can't I marry a hippopotamus? A hippo will keep my kid warm just like a wife can" we are introducing exceptions to the ideal rule, which detracts from good lawmaking.
But if you go over to the I'd be exstatic to have a gay child thread, you'd realise that most the people who posted there are terrified of what schoolyard bullies and the like would do to their gay children.
This automatically presumes any "gayness" will be dealt with severely. That means taht any child reared in a gay household will have to face heretofore unknown and very substantial emotional abuse by his peers.
Thus, gay families can be thought of as a kind of child abuse.
Now let's get back on topic.
I've read quite a bit of C.S. Lewis. He has spoken several times on marriage. (Perhaps in Screwtape?). Yes I am almost sure it is Screwtape. He was contrasting the idea of 'being in love' as the modern reason for marriage with other older reasons, like mutual support. I think he mentions prodgeny, but I'm not sure and I am sure it was not the only reason. I'll try to look it up.
Here it is:
Actually rereading this I am amused as much of the anti 8 commercials use the theme that people should be allowed to marry who they want (who they love).
Then stop bringing up such silly strawmen and address the specifics, i.e. a single parent or two same sex parents are just as capable of bringing up a well balanced, well adjusted child as two opposite sex parents.
But if you go over to the I'd be exstatic to have a gay child thread, you'd realise that most the people who posted there are terrified of what schoolyard bullies and the like would do to their gay children.
This automatically presumes any "gayness" will be dealt with severely. That means taht any child reared in a gay household will have to face heretofore unknown and very substantial emotional abuse by his peers.
Thus, gay families can be thought of as a kind of child abuse.
Now let's get back on topic.
I'd hate to agree with you HR, but I took a ton of flak in a News & Current Events thread about a proposition regarding a school for gays. I stated that bullies are a part of human nature and won't go away, and didn't mysteriously appear in schools when gays started turning up. I pretty much got my head torn off when I stated my position of "Suck it up and quit being such a wuss." Now kids want to answer bullying with school shootings and suicide, what the hell?
Are you saying that a partnership for mutual support does not/can not = being in love?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?