Register to Comment
Page 70 of 136 FirstFirst ... 20 606869707172 80 120 ... LastLast
Results 691 to 700 of 1352
Like Tree501Likes
  1. #691
    livingstone livingstone is offline
    livingstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,435

    Quote Originally Posted by Ellen Ripley View Post
    It illustrates the principle.
    The principle is that when you discuss access to a finite resource, prioritisation is necessary based on agreed criteria.

    That's not applicable to marriage.

    But it's noticeable that you can't point to a single example of how someone in a pre-existing marriage would notice that their marriage has been 'destroyed' as claimed by half nelson. The fact that you lot can't provide a single practical negative experience of those in pre-existing marriages is pretty damning to your claims.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #692
    Roll_On Roll_On is offline

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    16,814

    Quote Originally Posted by Ellen Ripley View Post

    There is no reason not to extend marriage to encompass all loving relationships-- why not include elderly cohabiting siblings who are celibate, for example? Doesn't their relationship deserve support and recognition from the State? Is their commitment not just as binding as a SSM marriage, and how is marriage now different from any other 'ordinary' friendship, if it's not primarily about children?
    A person might be forgiven for thinking that it's all part of a long term plan--a movement to abolish Marriage altogether..
    Because of sex and romance
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #693
    FunkyBoogaloo FunkyBoogaloo is offline
    FunkyBoogaloo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,071

    Quote Originally Posted by Ellen Ripley View Post
    It illustrates the principle. Fairness doesn't always mean being totally non-discriminatory and allowing everyone access to everything they think they need, assuming it will automatically benefit society. SSM has broadened the options of a small section of society at the expense of eroding the institution itself.

    The requirements for marriage are now so fundamentally altered that it has become solely about fulfilling the wishes of the parties involved, and over time the way that people view it will also change. Marriage will not be seen as a lifelong commitment to fidelity and the raising of children by a husband and wife.

    There is no reason not to extend marriage to encompass all loving relationships-- why not include elderly cohabiting siblings who are celibate, for example? Doesn't their relationship deserve support and recognition from the State? Is their commitment not just as binding as a SSM marriage, and how is marriage now different from any other 'ordinary' friendship, if it's not primarily about children?
    A person might be forgiven for thinking that it's all part of a long term plan--a movement to abolish Marriage altogether..
    Oh, of course.

    The long term plan is to abolish marriage. It's a dastardly plot by the gay maffia. First we spend years arguing for legitimate access to the institution. Then, when we get it, we smash it to bits.

    Mwahahahahahahahaha!




    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #694
    gerhard dengler gerhard dengler is offline
    gerhard dengler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    42,925

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyBoogaloo View Post
    Oh, of course.

    The long term plan is to abolish marriage. It's a dastardly plot by the gay maffia. First we spend years arguing for legitimate access to the institution. Then, when we get it, we smash it to bits.

    Mwahahahahahahahaha!

    Another homosexual.

    Who'da thunk it.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #695
    FunkyBoogaloo FunkyBoogaloo is offline
    FunkyBoogaloo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,071

    Quote Originally Posted by gerhard dengler View Post
    Another homosexual.

    Who'da thunk it.
    That's right jewhater. We're everywhere!



    As an aside homosexuals wouldn't be here if heterosexuals like you didn't keep producing us.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #696
    gerhard dengler gerhard dengler is offline
    gerhard dengler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    42,925

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyBoogaloo View Post
    We're everywhere!
    Yeah, far to many multi accounts allowed post to this site.

    Primary schools to finally be free of religion?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #697
    FunkyBoogaloo FunkyBoogaloo is offline
    FunkyBoogaloo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,071

    Quote Originally Posted by gerhard dengler View Post
    Yeah, far to many multi accounts allowed post to this site.
    I'm one account, y'spoofer.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #698
    livingstone livingstone is offline
    livingstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,435

    Quote Originally Posted by Roll_On View Post
    Because of sex and romance
    None of that matters according to to this lot.

    Marriage is only about children, apparently. And yet, in 2011, 31% of married couples were childless, compared to 69% that had children (including adult children).

    Of the 31% of childless couples, 11% had a woman over 65, and 13% included a woman over 45.

    That's 93,000 married couples with a woman over 65 who did not have children (including adult children). Yet Ellen expects us to believe that adding another 1,000 couples who would not procreate naturally together, has fundamentally altered the meaning of marriage.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #699
    silverharp silverharp is offline
    silverharp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    11,186

    Quote Originally Posted by livingstone View Post
    None of that matters according to to this lot.

    Marriage is only about children, apparently. And yet, in 2011, 31% of married couples were childless, compared to 69% that had children (including adult children).

    Of the 31% of childless couples, 11% had a woman over 65, and 13% included a woman over 45.

    That's 93,000 married couples with a woman over 65 who did not have children (including adult children). Yet Ellen expects us to believe that adding another 1,000 couples who would not procreate naturally together, has fundamentally altered the meaning of marriage.
    there are 2 prongs, one being children and tied into that secondly that it being a welfare scheme for women. I'd hazard that that it was reasonably consistent that a marriage couldnt be annulled if the woman couldn't or didn't have children after being married but funnily enough in Irish law a marriage can be annulled if the man cant have sex (it probably doesn't mention men in particular but the mechanics imply its male centered clause)
    Particular women not having children doesnt change the nature of marriage as it was always thus. So yes it is a change, its actually positive for men though as it might start to water down obligations men have towards women if a marriage goes tits up. its less tenable now to argue that the man should always lose custody and assets in a divorce when the same judge wont have the same go to person to screw over in gay marriage divorce
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #700
    livingstone livingstone is offline
    livingstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,435

    Quote Originally Posted by silverharp View Post
    there are 2 prongs, one being children and tied into that secondly that it being a welfare scheme for women. I'd hazard that that it was reasonably consistent that a marriage couldnt be annulled if the woman couldn't or didn't have children after being married but funnily enough in Irish law a marriage can be annulled if the man cant have sex (it probably doesn't mention men in particular but the mechanics imply its male centered clause)
    Particular women not having children doesnt change the nature of marriage as it was always thus. So yes it is a change, its actually positive for men though as it might start to water down obligations men have towards women if a marriage goes tits up. its less tenable now to argue that the man should always lose custody and assets in a divorce when the same judge wont have the same go to person to screw over in gay marriage divorce
    That doesn't make a whole pile of sense. Punctuation and grammar are your friend.

    The fact remains that there are some 93,000 married couples in Ireland which are childless and where there is pretty much zero chance of them having children (and a further 108,000 married couples without children where there is a low - but not quite zero - chance of them having children).

    Ellen's case is that adding 1000 more couples to the institution of marriage where they will not have children - about 0.5% increase in the number of marriages which will not produce a child - suddenly destroys the institution. It's a nonsense.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment