• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

theREALkoreaboy said:
no they aren't. because by definition a gay relationship can't produce children. it isn't really a societal necessity for gay couples to stay together to rear children they can't have.
Click to expand...

I'm going to ask for (a fifth) time: if the only purpose of marriage is for procreation, and you would thereby exclude gays from marriage on that sole basis, would you also exclude the infertile and impotent from having marriages? They would be unable to produce children.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
no. i'm not advocating that. i have never argued that divorce should be banned in all circumstances. if parties in the marriage are suffering from significant and repeated physical, sexual, or psychological abuse they should be able to free themselves from that marriage. but i think many, i would probably say even a majority, of divorces arent as a result of significant or repeated abuse. they are because someone got bored, or their eye wandered, or they found it too hard, or they wanted the "freedom" to do what they wanted without being "tied down" by kids or their spouse, so they split. and because traditional marriage has been significantly corroded, more and more people have found it very easy to do that. and they justify it on very selfish grounds, by using language like "i wasn't happy", or "i needed my freedom", or "i loved myself more than i loved my spouse", or "i needed to find myself outside the marriage", or any other variation of that kind of narcissistic BS.
Click to expand...

I submit that you have no ****ing clue what you're talking about here or what it's like to be a kid with parents who "stayed together for the kids" in a very unhappy marriage.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
no. i'm not advocating that. i have never argued that divorce should be banned in all circumstances. if parties in the marriage are suffering from significant and repeated physical, sexual, or psychological abuse they should be able to free themselves from that marriage. but i think many, i would probably say even a majority, of divorces arent as a result of significant or repeated abuse. they are because someone got bored, or their eye wandered, or they found it too hard, or they wanted the "freedom" to do what they wanted without being "tied down" by kids or their spouse, so they split. and because traditional marriage has been significantly corroded, more and more people have found it very easy to do that. and they justify it on very selfish grounds, by using language like "i wasn't happy", or "i needed my freedom", or "i loved myself more than i loved my spouse", or "i needed to find myself outside the marriage", or any other variation of that kind of narcissistic BS.
Click to expand...

Well it's a good thing for the marriages and all parties involved if the union ends on such bases, no? Would you want to say in a union with someone like that?

Why would you wish to submit children to a toxic environment in which all parties are unhappy?
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
well, i see my goal here is being met. you youngins are starting to read, think, make connections, and see repeated patterns of historical thought. bravo.
Click to expand...

...

That's been the case for years on this forum. You need to start understanding the mechanisms of cause and effect throughout history in order to comprehend its outcomes.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
no. i'm not advocating that. i have never argued that divorce should be banned in all circumstances. if parties in the marriage are suffering from significant and repeated physical, sexual, or psychological abuse they should be able to free themselves from that marriage. but i think many, i would probably say even a majority, of divorces arent as a result of significant or repeated abuse. they are because someone got bored, or their eye wandered, or they found it too hard, or they wanted the "freedom" to do what they wanted without being "tied down" by kids or their spouse, so they split. and because traditional marriage has been significantly corroded, more and more people have found it very easy to do that. and they justify it on very selfish grounds, by using language like "i wasn't happy", or "i needed my freedom", or "i loved myself more than i loved my spouse", or "i needed to find myself outside the marriage", or any other variation of that kind of narcissistic BS.
Click to expand...


The 'tradition of marriage' was never designed for the doubling of life expectancy over the last 150 years.
 
JaysCyYoung said:
Well it's a good thing for the marriages and all parties involved if the union ends on such bases, no? Would you want to say in a union with someone like that?

Why would you wish to submit children to a toxic environment in which all parties are unhappy?
Click to expand...

Because he's Catholic. Guilt and suffering is kind of their thing.
 
JaysCyYoung said:
:drink

It's no surprise of course that liver damage as a result of chronic alcoholism has also become problematic over the same time span.
Click to expand...

In all seriousness. The "institution of marriage" meant a lot more before two major societal changes:

1) The massive increase in life expectancy

2) The entrance of the majority of women into the work force

Those 2 factors significantly altered the traditional marital structure that KB pines for. No longer did a woman have to be subservient to her husband when she could support herself. No longer did the idea of staying in a marriage just to be with someone in old age seem reasonable...If you divorced at 40 years old in the 30's, you had on average, 15 years of life left. You were staring "old age" in the face already. At 40 now, you're probably not even halfway there if you eat well and exercise. That's a long time to spend with someone you're not happy with....a long, long damn time.
 
so you think people should stay together despite legitimate differences?

people should stay together if there is abuse? if there is constant cheating? if the people find they don't want the same things? if they don't love each other anymore?

theREALkoreaboy said:
i think it is far, far more important for society, for the greater good, and for children that marriages stay together than for each party to "feel free to lead their own life" satisfying their own wants, desires, or whims.
Click to expand...
 
believe me, i rarley hear any real, serious relationship, let alone a marriage end because someone simply needed their freedom. you know you are being disingenuous here.

you might hear that kind of thing in open relationships and in people that weren't all that serious to begin with. im not saying the freedom thing is never used but its rare.


theREALkoreaboy said:
no. i'm not advocating that. i have never argued that divorce should be banned in all circumstances. if parties in the marriage are suffering from significant and repeated physical, sexual, or psychological abuse they should be able to free themselves from that marriage. but i think many, i would probably say even a majority, of divorces arent as a result of significant or repeated abuse. they are because someone got bored, or their eye wandered, or they found it too hard, or they wanted the "freedom" to do what they wanted without being "tied down" by kids or their spouse, so they split. and because traditional marriage has been significantly corroded, more and more people have found it very easy to do that. and they justify it on very selfish grounds, by using language like "i wasn't happy", or "i needed my freedom", or "i loved myself more than i loved my spouse", or "i needed to find myself outside the marriage", or any other variation of that kind of narcissistic BS.
Click to expand...
 
MindzEye said:
With that logic, we would have never ended institutionalized slavery...it lasted 1000's of years.
Click to expand...

yes, but why? slavery was far, far more beneficial in an immediate, material sense to the people who practiced it than "traditional marriage" was/is. to have power of life and death over another human being, and to be able to compel that person with very little cost to yourself to help you satisfy your needs and wants is a massively beneficial thing. so even though we all now recognize it as being repugnantly immoral, it lasted for a very long time until western morality overpowered it because it was extraordinarily useful to people in a very greedy sense.

this just makes the argument defending traditional marriage even MORE powerful. traditional marriage is MUCH less obviously beneficial to people than slavery was. in fact, a very strong argument could be made that it would be MUCH better if we could be free to run around f*cking everything we see for the pleasure of it and to pass along our genes as widely as possible. one can see the allure of seeing some really hot chick with great cans and a tight a$$ walk by, and just knocking her down and trying to impregnate her. the much less immediately beneficial thing (but much more MORAL thing) would be to build a relationship with her, treat her as an equal, pair bond with her for life, raise a family, stick around and take care of them, and NOT be able to knock down and f*ck the next really hot chick with great cans that might walk by. it is benefical for society because it shortcircuits a lot of the violence that arises in the state of nature by running around and f*cking everything you can while fighting off competitors, and it provides huge benefits for offspring who have two committed parents to raise them to maturity, even when that gets hard and when it gets in the way of one of the parties in the marriage running around satisfying their immediate needs with whomever.

slavery was MUCH easier to keep around for a long time because it was so obviously beneficial in an immediate sense, even though it was immoral. traditional marriage is MUCH harder to keep around because in many ways, it actually goes against some of our more primal interests. only a moral society has been able to protect it.
 
most people are not going to be open with you about the exact reason. they say general stuff like that. If you aren't a really really close friend, they aren't going to go into the fact that the guys wife cheated on him 50 times, that she spent all the money that he had, that she was having sex with her student, etc

theREALkoreaboy said:
oh puhlease. i could give you at least a half dozen examples of this happening just in my immediate peer group.
Click to expand...
 
MindzEye said:
In all seriousness. The "institution of marriage" meant a lot more before two major societal changes:

2) The entrance of the majority of women into the work force
Click to expand...

very true. but you DO understand that this would have been impossible without the rise of traditional marriage, right? traditional marriage was probably the first institution that was much more beneficial for WOMEN, because it turned men away from satisfying their primal urges and brought them into much more equal, longterm pair bonds with them. its one of the reasons why i have always wondered why more women aren't fighting tooth and nail to defend traditional marriage. without traditional marriage, western women would NEVER have achieved the status they enjoy in our society today.
 
The best for kids is to live in stable, loving environments, where their needs can be taken care of. Marriage in no way gurantees that..in fact, it's usually the reason kids turned out f'ed up.

The worst lessons you can teach your kids is to do things for the sake of doing them even if they aren't working and you have better options to live a more happier life.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
yes, but why? slavery was far, far more beneficial in an immediate, material sense to the people who practiced it than "traditional marriage" was/is. to have power of life and death over another human being, and to be able to compel that person with very little cost to yourself to help you satisfy your needs and wants is a massively beneficial thing. so even though we all now recognize it as being repugnantly immoral, it lasted for a very long time until western morality overpowered it because it was extraordinarily useful to people in a very greedy sense.

this just makes the argument defending traditional marriage even MORE powerful. traditional marriage is MUCH less obviously beneficial to people than slavery was. in fact, a very strong argument could be made that it would be MUCH better if we could be free to run around f*cking everything we see for the pleasure of it and to pass along our genes as widely as possible. one can see the allure of seeing some really hot chick with great cans and a tight a$$ walk by, and just knocking her down and trying to impregnate her. the much less immediately beneficial thing (but much more MORAL thing) would be to build a relationship with her, treat her as an equal, pair bond with her for life, raise a family, stick around and take care of them, and NOT be able to knock down and f*ck the next really hot chick with great cans that might walk by. it is benefical for society because it shortcircuits a lot of the violence that arises in the state of nature by running around and f*cking everything you can while fighting off competitors, and it provides huge benefits for offspring who have two committed parents to raise them to maturity, even when that gets hard and when it gets in the way of one of the parties in the marriage running around satisfying their immediate needs with whomever.

slavery was MUCH easier to keep around for a long time because it was so obviously beneficial in an immediate sense, even though it was immoral. traditional marriage is MUCH harder to keep around because in many ways, it actually goes against some of our more primal interests. only a moral society has been able to protect it.
Click to expand...

All of that is cute....but there's a glaring parallel that you intentionally avoid. The reason slavery was abolished was because it was morally wrong to withhold the equality rights of another human being ("Now I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil"...to quote Lincoln). The reason gay marriage will be made law is that it is morally wrong to withhold the equality rights of another human being.

I'm not arguing that marriage is evil and wrong, pointless or otherwise. It serves a significant purpose in our society for those who choose to undertake it. There are no valid reasons however, to maintain the exclusion of homosexuals from that undertaking. There are no criteria of the traditional marriage that gays cannot perform in this day and age. None, zero. All that is barring them from it, is the faux morality of those who believe that what they do, is wrong.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
very true. but you DO understand that this would have been impossible without the rise of traditional marriage, right? traditional marriage was probably the first institution that was much more beneficial for WOMEN, because it turned men away from satisfying their primal urges and brought them into much more equal, longterm pair bonds with them. its one of the reasons why i have always wondered why more women aren't fighting tooth and nail to defend traditional marriage. without traditional marriage, western women would NEVER have achieved the status they enjoy in our society today.
Click to expand...

again, I'm not arguing against the institution of marriage, or it's place in our evolution as a society, simply that there is a valid argument for excluding homosexuals from being within the definition. That's all I'm arguing against.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top