Quote# 40025

*on gay marriage legal in california*

This ruling is nonsensical, given what marriage is. Marriage is the legally binding life-long contract between two sexual partners that exists strictly because the sexual activity produces children who require long-range nurture and education.

America is full of idiots who don't even know what makes the "marriage" relationship distinct from all other human relationships. The procreation of the citizenry is what makes "marriage" unique among all human relationships. The long-range aspect of the "marriage contract" arises from the right children have to be nurtured into adulthood by the sexual partners that created them.

Likewise, the state has an interest in protecting and preserving the machinery that creates and nurtures the citizenry of which it is comprised.

Preteristvision, aol news 46 Comments [5/28/2008 12:48:28 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom

Joe-Bob

And if that were actually the basis for marital benefits I would agree with you. Problem is we allow people to receive these benefits when they are:
1) too old to have children
2) infertile
3) openly do not want children
4) financially capable of easily rearing the children without any of these benefits.

Also, there are non-child related benefits to marriage. These include:
1) The right to make hospital decisions if the other partner becomes incapacitated
2) The right to just visit the other partner in a hospital
3) Tax discounts on sharing a house
4) The right to receive the assets of the estate in the absence of a will
5) The right to medical and dental benefits from the partner's insurance plans
Etc., Etc.

How does this square with what you just wrote?

5/28/2008 12:55:11 PM

Bass X0

Not every married couple has children. There's no rule making a man and wife have children if they get married. A childless gay couple is no different to a childless straight couple.

5/28/2008 12:56:28 PM

Paschal Wagner

Procreation, producing, machinery, contract...

Corporate Speak For Jesus!

5/28/2008 12:56:42 PM

Deep Search

'The long-range aspect of the "marriage contract" arises from the right children have to be nurtured into adulthood by the sexual partners that created them.'

Since when did children have that right? And it's been said a million times that, hey, gay people can have biological kids, too.

5/28/2008 1:12:15 PM

Katsuro

Is he implying that if gays couldn't marry they'd just go and marry a woman instead and have kids with her?

5/28/2008 1:19:09 PM

aaa

You sound like a corporate drone.

5/28/2008 1:30:21 PM

Allegory for Jesus

"Marriage is the legally binding life-long contract between two sexual partners that exists strictly because the sexual activity produces children who require long-range nurture and education."

Actually, marriage does and has existed for a variety of reasons over the centuries. Producing children is no longer necessary nor is it true of every marriage. Most people get married out of love, and some either do not want children or incapable of having any due to age or infertility. Does that make their marriage invalid?

"The procreation of the citizenry is what makes "marriage" unique among all human relationships"

And if you looked around, you would realize that procreation and marriage are no longer as linked as they used to be. As much as you people deplore sex "before" marriage, it happens, and children are born from it. And yet, there is no guarantee that the people involved get married. Why? Well the first reason could be that sexual relationships, i.e. procreation, do not necessarily overlap with intimate, loving relationships, i.e. marriage as it should be in order to last. The second reason is simply because there is no compelling reason for copulating couples to marry given the high incidence of divorce, and when co-habitation works in well enough like a marriage relationship, though without the legal rights.

"The long-range aspect of the "marriage contract" arises from the right children have to be nurtured into adulthood by the sexual partners that created them."

Not really the "right" that children have to be raised by their parents, but rather the fact that the parents of a child are responsible for giving birth to the child, and thus need to take care of it, because (most likely) no one else will. However, if there is someone who can raise the child and is willing (adoption), parents are more than free to dump the child on them, with the child's "rights" intact. In reality, the marriage contract may have served the purpose of assuring the production and raising of children, but it no longer needs to serve that purpose in our society, where it has changed into an agreement between two people in love with one another who want to live the rest of their lives together, and get certain legal rights due to that. That's what marriage is now; it is no longer a reproduction quota, if it ever was.

5/28/2008 1:31:02 PM

Ambrielle

I thought procreation was pretty much the most primitive of motivations? Humans are supposed to be capable of love, companionship and comfort to partners, none of which precludes homosexuality, and is supposed to be prized in marriage.

5/28/2008 1:34:41 PM

Waiting for God

All the benefits Joe-Bob has already cited plus the fact that there is nothing in your speech which precludes homosexuals getting married.

You say marriage is a life-long partnership between to sexually active people - does that mean when your old and stop having sex you should get divorced? -, two sexually active males/females/she-males? You didn't specify a man and a woman. Two females can raise a child with just as much difficulty as a man and a woman, how do I know? I was raised by two women.

I love the 'long-range nuture' makes me think of a person patting a child on the head using a broom handle from the other side of the room with an attached fake foam hand.

Marriage isn't anything special, when two people love each other, they can decide they are going to make a commitment to spend the rest of their lives together, not that it means much these days what with the quicky divorce but it's still a commitment which is recognised by society and brings benefits such as those mentioned by Joe-Bob above. Why do you not want two men or two women who choose to make this commitment to each other not to receive those benefits, they are going to live together indefinately anyway, they may as well be given the chance to be as happy/miserable as every other married couple.

Children cannot choose their parents so this voids your second to last point, if they could how many do you recon would you have?

As for the state having an interest in protecting itself, this is a huge pile of bullshit as the state can keep its nose firmly out of the private business of individuals when they are breaking no laws and hurting no-one.

I name thee, Douchetard!

5/28/2008 1:58:42 PM

Thammuz

that exists strictly because the sexual activity produces children who require long-range nurture and education
And this proves you're a fucking idiot and misogyn

5/28/2008 2:06:09 PM

DinDC

Hmm... How quaint.

Gay folks are not the ones making all the babies who are abused, abandoned or aborted, but if "marriage" is ALL about procreation, then I think there needs to be some serious reconsideration about the status of the heterosexual blow job.

5/28/2008 2:25:13 PM

Princess Rot

Does anyone else think Preteristvision sounds like a robot? Its like someone spilled water on his circuits and all he can do is repeat: "Marriagegaygaygay...Legalbindingcontract...Procreationprocreationcitizenmachinery... gaygaygaygay" until he dries out and sits there, sparking from the neck.

5/28/2008 2:32:10 PM

Moondog

Marriage is the legally binding life-long contract between two sexual partners that exists strictly because the sexual activity produces children who require long-range nurture and education.
So, when a couple wants to gedt married, the medical exam should go beyond STDs and make sure both are fertile? Wouldn't want any childless couples slipping by us now, would we?

5/28/2008 3:02:48 PM

Delmania

So, Preteristvision is ignoring heterosexual couples who have taken the vows, filled out the paperwork, and choose to remain childless?

5/28/2008 3:23:31 PM

tmr

You really tried to write something intelligent, I think. You used lots of words and phrases to attempt to sound like you knew something. But, when you use them incorrectly, your ignorance shines through brightly.

You are right in one aspect though; America is, unfortunately, full of idiots. Bigoted idiots just like you.

5/28/2008 3:40:52 PM

Beeblebrox

Marriage is the legally binding life-long contract between two sexual partners that exists strictly because the sexual activity produces children who require long-range nurture and education.

I guess since my wife and I haven't had kids in nearly 12 years our marriage is invalid, eh? Conversely I expect you'd tell me that my relationship with the woman I did have a kid with in 2000 at the tail end of an extremely spectacular and self-destructive nervous breakdown is valid since it did produce a child.

America is full of idiots who don't even know what makes the "marriage" relationship distinct from all other human relationships.

This is true but most of those idiots are wearing crosses around their necks and meeting up at church on Wednesdays and Sundays.

The procreation of the citizenry is what makes "marriage" unique among all human relationships.

Wrong. Any person can get together with any other person and reproduce. I can definitively prove that the lack of a marriage certificate does absolutely nothing to render sperm inactive. Just give me your sister's address and I'll get to work on creating that proof.


5/28/2008 3:59:10 PM

SWGM

"The long-range aspect of the "marriage contract" arises from the right children have to be nurtured into adulthood by the sexual partners that created them."

Oh, yeah, I remember that one from the Costitution! That's in there with the amendment about quartering troops, right?

5/28/2008 4:04:49 PM

Mike

Marriage is the legally binding life-long contract between two sexual partners that exists strictly because the sexual activity produces children who require long-range nurture and education.

Uh... what about people who can't have children. What about them?


5/28/2008 4:45:39 PM

Reverend Davidius

I thought marriage was just two consenting adults wanting to spend their lives together. You make it sound like a potentially regretable pact of procreation.

Lets make a deal, ok? Anyone can marry anyone, and you only have to recognise the marriages that you approve of, allowing any who wish to share their lives and tax benefits to do so, and allowing you co continue your life of ignorance.

@Delmania - no, they're just spermicidal mainiacs and egg wasters, because EVERY reproductive cell must go into making a baby.

5/28/2008 5:12:35 PM

ArmandT

In ancient history a lot of marriages were performed as a political thing; a king would offer his daughter away as an offering or something. Sometimes there wasn't even sex involved.

And in any case, WE'RE NOT FUCKING MINDLESS BREEDING MACHINES!!!!

5/28/2008 5:15:55 PM

Osiris

What can I say. When you believe in a God who expects you to be his mindless breeding machines so he can have more followers to stroke his massive ego, you kind of loose perspective on human worth.

5/28/2008 5:30:09 PM

CT

Marriage is the legally binding life-long contract between two sexual partners that exists strictly because the sexual activity produces children who require long-range nurture and education.

I'm sorry, my ex-wife is infertile... as we could never have had children, no matter how much we fucked, can I assume that our marriage (which was a classic, biblical marriage, before anyone asks) wasn't actually a marriage at all?

Then again, it was a UK marriage... so maybe it doesn't count as the marriage you're talking about. But, my current partner was married in the US and her partner was infertile...

So, can we assume her marriage didn't count? (which would be good, since she wouldn't have to deal with the divorce then) Or can we assume that you've gone and changed what marriage means YET A-FUCKING-GAIN??

5/28/2008 5:45:01 PM

dpareja

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/080527/K052704AU.html

So, should they be getting married?

5/28/2008 5:52:07 PM

Lefty Link

Not everyone has to have kids during marriage, and not everyone wants to. If you want to do that, fine. Have 20 kids and screw 'em all up. It's none of your business what other people do in their marriage.

5/28/2008 7:53:37 PM

Old Viking

Bruto marry. Go bounce-bounce. Make baybee. Go hebbin.

5/28/2008 8:18:15 PM

1 2 | top: comments page