John Adams Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 I'd be for that. Then why are you willing to stand in the way of churches being allowed to marry people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 I, like many of my generation, fail to see the benefit and tangible realistic expectations of marriage. Being with the same person for the rest of your life? Seems far fetched from a child of divorce. I dunno, that's just me. The days of the male/female/2 kids/dog nuclear family are WAY over, if ever they really existed in the first place. If you're a child of divorce, then you know how awful divorce is to a kid (Assuming you were a kid when it happened). The institution of marriage may be outdated but providing a consistent, loving, relatively unchanging environment to raise a kid is pretty damn important. To that end, having consistent parent (or parents) matters a lot. When kids have two homes, multiple parents, multiple parent boy/girlfriends, and mutliple sets of rules, the kids end up mental. Like you, probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Then why are you willing to stand in the way of churches being allowed to marry people? Because what the church does and what the state does are completely different. Two different functions altogether. Despite what you may think, I am probably MORE for church/state separation than the non-faithful. Secular government and politics are a pollutant in the church, IMO. The church defines marraige. The state defines the benefits, so why can't the state create a separate, secular class of union? And it's not ME standing in the way. Like you said, the Episcopals, UCC, etc. all approve gay unions. My church doesn't nor do many others on scriptural grounds. Some churches have little to do with the Bible, quite frankly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 whats your point, homie? Maybe he got lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Like you, probably. Ouch. But I agree with your post. I think when people make the commitment to have a child, they need to see that commitment through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Because what the church does and what the state does are completely different. Two different functions altogether. Despite what you may think, I am probably MORE for church/state separation than the non-faithful. Secular government and politics are a pollutant in the church, IMO. The church defines marraige. The state defines the benefits, so why can't the state create a separate, secular class of union? And it's not ME standing in the way. Like you said, the Episcopals, UCC, etc. all approve gay unions. My church doesn't nor do many others on scriptural grounds. Some churches have little to do with the Bible, quite frankly. But when you make a law that says "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," you support Church regulation by the state. You're allowing the state to tell Episcopalians (and others) how they recognize marriages. I wonder how many people are happy with that step. Maybe the next step is, "Cannibalism is no longer allowed, even if it's miraculous cannibalism where bread and wine are transfigured into flesh and blood before consumption." Think the the Catholic Church would have a problem with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 what's this doing here...back you go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Ouch. But I agree with your post. I think when people make the commitment to have a child, they need to see that commitment through. Maybe an ouch. I am one of those !@#$ed up kids of divorce and having met almost no kids who aren't !@#$ed up in some way as a result of divorce, it seems a safe assumption. About the only instances where it is justified and the kid is better off is where there is physical and drug abuse. Divorce is brutal for kids. You can still love them. You can not fight and use the kids as pawn. you can pick your next mate well. It's still a train wreck for kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted August 5, 2010 Author Share Posted August 5, 2010 what's this doing here...back you go... booooooo, oh well, it was a good thread while it lasted. here is where i dip out. no PPP ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 booooooo, oh well, it was a good thread while it lasted. here is where i dip out. no PPP ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 But when you make a law that says "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," you support Church regulation by the state. You're allowing the state to tell Episcopalians (and others) how they recognize marriages. I wonder how many people are happy with that step. Maybe the next step is, "Cannibalism is no longer allowed, even if it's miraculous cannibalism where bread and wine are transfigured into flesh and blood before consumption." Think the the Catholic Church would have a problem with that? I see your point in the first paragraph. Excellent one, btw. I know the Catholic Church would have a problem with that. Mine wouldn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Maybe an ouch. I am one of those !@#$ed up kids of divorce and having met almost no kids who aren't !@#$ed up in some way as a result of divorce, it seems a safe assumption. About the only instances where it is justified and the kid is better off is where there is physical and drug abuse. Divorce is brutal for kids. You can still love them. You can not fight and use the kids as pawn. you can pick your next mate well. It's still a train wreck for kids. Indeed, because children internalize the divorce. Somehow, in their minds, it's BECAUSE of them. And that's the criminal shame of the destruction of the institution of marraige in this country. There are now GENERATIONS of children who've suffered that pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Typically I'm not a big fan of "It's a (fill in the blank) thing, you wouldn't understand," but the simple truth is that I get more enjoyment, pride and sense of accomplishment from my marriage and family than any other thing I've ever experienced/accomplished in my life; not career, not salary, not awards...nothing even comes close. There's no way I would expect you to understand that, but suffice it to say that I came from a family that dealt with more than just a divorce and was forever soured on the ideas of marriage and a family. Then, one day, it all made sense to me. Doesn't mean it's that way for everyone, but I'd suggest that keeping your mind open to it is never a bad thing. Personally I think conservatives (myself) need to bend on this issue. Much bigger fish to fry. I don't see anything wrong with allowing civil unions among gays. I don't how I feel about gay couples raising kids, but that probably goes more to the quality of the parents than their gender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 booooooo, oh well, it was a good thread while it lasted. here is where i dip out. no PPP ever. Such delicate flowers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Such delicate flowers. I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man. Fill your hands, you son of a B word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man. Fill your hands, you son of a B word. pshaw. can be done with a wave of a pinkie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Indeed, because children internalize the divorce. Somehow, in their minds, it's BECAUSE of them. And that's the criminal shame of the destruction of the institution of marraige in this country. There are now GENERATIONS of children who've suffered that pain. Even where they don't feel the responsibility for the divorce (I never had that), the confusion over parents dating, step-parents, step- and half-siblings is a mess. Compound that with having 2 legitimate parents who have different rules is brutal. And who among step-parents makes and enforces rules...and why should I listen to Jane the girlfriend...she's not mommy. And then the issue that one parent is "off" while the other one is on is hard for a kid. "What's daddy doing when he's not responsible for me? What's that "free of little Jimmy" life like?" And then the holidays, grandparents, etc. And all that before the kid grows up. As an adult, I have to deal with hosting holidays, spending time with my daughter. Now it's just incredibly annoying and I am in control but it's always stressful. In short: Divorce sucks. Quick: Call the Waaah-mbulance. But to Peev, the point is that while marriage may be antiquated, parents of children (M-F, M-M, F-F) living together is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Personally I think conservatives (myself) need to bend on this issue. Much bigger fish to fry. I don't see anything wrong with allowing civil unions among gays. I don't how I feel about gay couples raising kids, but that probably goes more to the quality of the parents than their gender. This has really become a non-issue for me. And that includes the idea of gay couples raising children. There are plenty of straight couples doing a horrible job raising their children, and it's not because they're straight. On the other hand, the press-driven rhetoric from the far right and far left makes this an ugly issue. When one side is saying stupid stuff like "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" and the other side is prancing in street parades dressed like a Village People cover band, it makes it so hard for the issue to advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 pshaw. can be done with a wave of a pinkie. hmmm....you one of those guys who's against clapping at Bills camp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Even where they don't feel the responsibility for the divorce (I never had that), the confusion over parents dating, step-parents, step- and half-siblings is a mess. Compound that with having 2 legitimate parents who have different rules is brutal. And who among step-parents makes and enforces rules...and why should I listen to Jane the girlfriend...she's not mommy. And then the issue that one parent is "off" while the other one is on is hard for a kid. "What's daddy doing when he's not responsible for me? What's that "free of little Jimmy" life like?" And then the holidays, grandparents, etc. And all that before the kid grows up. As an adult, I have to deal with hosting holidays, spending time with my daughter. Now it's just incredibly annoying and I am in control but it's always stressful. In short: Divorce sucks. Quick: Call the Waaah-mbulance. But to Peev, the point is that while marriage may be antiquated, parents of children (M-F, M-M, F-F) living together is not. You an only child as well? I know my mom as the older sibling in a divorce felt like a surrogate parent many times as her mother tried to keep food on the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts