Gay Marriage- a general discussion.

[Nym90]

Ouch....

[Nym90]

Angus--

Good point about sharper disagreements in the East. I completely agree, the parties here in Michigan are probably more divided than in California. Though there are a lot of moderates in both parties still too, neither NineIron or myself are necessarily representative of our parties in Michigan.

Overall, in the Midwest, both parties are probably more socially conservative but more economically liberal than their California counterparts. Of the four basic regions of the country (Northeast, South, Midwest, West) the Northeast is the most liberal, the South the most conservative, the Midwest the most populist, and the West the most libertarian, I'd say.

[Nym90]

Brambila-

So you'd ban marriages for people who can't have children? Those who are disabled, or too old to have children? If a woman is close to menopause, does she have to provide proof that she still has her period?

Actually, at one time, the mentally retarded, disabled, etc. were banned from marrying.

My father is a quadriplegic, paralyzed from the middle of the chest down, and he got married after becoming one. Why shouldn't my father have been allowed to marry my stepmother?

[Nym90]

Well, it still helps create a more stable home, regardless of whether or not they have any biological children between them. I'm definitely glad they are married.

What about people who can't have kids of their own but choose to adopt? Should they be allowed to marry?

[Nym90]

Haha. That last passage is pretty good Jmfc, I must admit.

Which passage is that? I'll have to check it out.

I'll take your side in this debate, too Jmfc. I must take full advantage of my few opportunities to do so. Sex is about a lot more than just children.

I really wonder where the idea that it's only about having kids even came from, since it isn't rooted in the Bible or anywhere else that I can see, and really makes no logical sense either.

Personally, I definitely see marriage as being about a lot more than having kids. It's about making a lifelong committment to be with only one person, forever. The ultimate committment that you can make. Why should that be reserved only for those who want to have children? It should be possible for all couples who love each other enough to be willing to make that commitment to one another to be able to do so, and it's in the best interests of society to give benefits to those who are married, as it is desireable to encourage people to make lifelong monogamous commitments to one another and to avoid promiscuity.

My father and stepmother love each other dearly and are 100% committed to each other for life. The fact that the marriage can never be consummated detracts from it not at all, in my opinion. If anything, it strengthens the bond. I'd take great offense to anyone saying that their marriage deserves some kind of lower status due simply to my father's paralysis, which is entirely beyond his control.

[Nym90]

Haha. That last passage is pretty good Jmfc, I must admit.

I'm just glad you read such a long post.

What's that supposed to mean?

Let me guess...the fact that I can't figure it out for myself shows that I've answered my own question?

[Nym90]

Ah, ok. Well don't worry, I read most of your posts, even if they are long, and even if I don't contribute to the thread. You aren't wasting your time typing them out.