massachusetts

[Artisan]

My spouse and I stayed up late: We had flashlights, canned food and bottled water left over from Y2K and a case of duct tape left over from last year. We waited for the stroke of midnight - expecting the immanent collapse of the nuclear family and erosion of decent family values to take hold with Massachusetts at an armageddon-like epicenter of a resounding shock wave of moral depravity culminating in the downfall of western civilization.

I guess I missed it though - I fell asleep on the couch, but when I woke up at 3:00 am and went to bed everything seemed ok. This morning I read the newspaper, scanned the web for news...looks like nothing happened. Anyone hear anything? I think we're gonna be ok...phew...

Now what we've reallly got to worry about are those cicadas - hey maybe there's a connection? Ya think?

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Artisan

Now what we've reallly got to worry about are those cicadas - hey maybe there's a connection? Ya think?

slight variation on the plague of locusts?

[CutLass]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

I don't suppose I actually have to point out the MASSIVE flaw in this logic....

-m

The Purpose of Marriage According the Catholic Church

There are three main elements that compose marriage: 1). indissolubility, 2). contractual union between ONE man and ONE woman, and 3). ordering to the generation, procreation and upbringing of children, mutual help, and remedy for concupiscence.

From the beginning of creation, God made men and women to be together in the generative union of marriage not merely so that they could be companions to one another, but also to populate the earth.


Genesis - Chapter 9:7

7. As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.

[CutLass]

Originally Posted by CutLass

The Purpose of Marriage In General

Setting aside all of the loaded arguments about raising children and heterosexual relationships, the most fundamental characteristic of civil marriage which differentiates it from other contractual relationships is the fact that it establishes, legally, socially, and morally, a new kinship - and by extension, a new family.

A group of people can sign a contract for the purpose of setting up a new business, but they don't thereby become kin or family. Two people can sign a contract assigning one the legal authority to make medical decisions for the other, but they don't thereby become kin or family. Two people can sign a contract to jointly share property, but they don't thereby become kin or a family. When two people marry, however, they do become kin - they are now related to each other. Furthermore, they also establish kinship ties with one another's families - and in some cultures, establishing kinship ties between the two families has been regarded as the purpose of marriage, not establishing kinship ties between the two people actually getting married.

All of this is makes marriage fairly unique among all other sorts of contracts that can exist in society - only adoption is at all similar. In fact, this is the one characteristic of marriage which seems to be common to all forms of marriage in all cultures and societies through time. The only natural kinship ties are biological, and the only obvious biological kinship which exists is that between a mother and her children. All other kinship ties are established through culture - even fatherhood, which is often as much a matter of social convention as it is assumed biological paternity.

Kinship and familial relationships create the smallest social units of any society. The importance of kinship as a means for structuring relationships and behavior is evinced in the way societies have had so many systems (formal and informal) for establishing pseudo-kinship between people who have no biological relationship and for whom there are no means for creating traditional kinship ties. Common examples of this would be the informal ways certain people refer to one another as "uncle" or "son" regardless of actual familial ties, the prevalence of "blood brotherhood" ceremonies in various groups, and ritual kinship bonds created by different social groups.

Kinship is an important thread in the social fabric. It isn't an "institution" like marriage because there are generally no specific legal, religious, or social rules regulating it. Kinship is, instead, an amorphous creation of many other institutions which help people structure their relationships with one another. If you know that someone is your kin, you know that you have different legal, social, and moral obligations to them than you do to total strangers. If you know that two people are kin, you know that they not only have different obligations to each other than they do to you, but also that you have different obligations to them as a group then you would to them as individuals if they weren't kin.

Marriage establishes a relationship which does not and cannot exist for people who are simply living together. However much a cohabiting couple may love each other and however long they may have been together, their relationship is not such that it can be described as "kin" and, as a consequence, they cannot make any legal, social, or moral claims on others to treat them individually and jointly as if they were kin.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

what about the people that walk into a room shooting bullets of straightness?

i don't really desire to be around the people that make a big deal about their "Gayness" .... but i have even less of a desire to be around the people who make a big deal about their "straightness".

the people who go out of their way to be very very gay are generally rebelling against the majority that tells them that straight is the only way---

what's the deal with the overly-straight people??

People who flaunt any kind of sexuality piss me off. And especially considering the rapidly-rising obesity numbers in this country, I really don't want to know about your (in the general sense - I'm not calling you fat, MP!) sex life.

The people with six-shooters of idiocy piss me off, too, especially since they generally seem to have specialized armor to protect against reason.

Same with those who carry their bazookas of left-wing liberalism...for example, classifying everyone who's against gay marriage as a "religious nut". Not to single you out or anything, noodle...

I still say get the government the hell out of marriage altogether, and let churches decide the issue however they wish.

And with that, haven't we had enough of this issue? First a seemingly endless discusison of it that got bogged down in theological bickering and pedantics regarding the morality of homosexuality. Now it's everybody who was for gay marriage sitting around congratulating each other on just how stupid all the rest of us are. Seriously. Shall we move on to something perhaps productive, or maybe even just new?

[whtouche]

Originally Posted by Soldier

The people with six-shooters of idiocy piss me off, too, especially since they generally seem to have specialized armor to protect against reason.

Same with those who carry their bazookas of left-wing liberalism...for example, classifying everyone who's against gay marriage as a "religious nut". Not to single you out or anything, noodle...

Wow.
I have to congratulate you on excellent use of metaphorical weaponry. On a scale of 1-10, that gets an 11.

[Soldier]

Thank you. Now give me a moment while I reload my Rifle of Cynicism and re-calibrate its Telescopic Sight of Creativity.

[CutLass]

Originally Posted by Soldier

People who flaunt any kind of sexuality piss me off.

You don't like the flaunting of sexuality? You don't find fun a playful glance, a wink and a smile? A whisper of scent from a gently tossed mane or the soft touch of an arm brushing against yours?

Are space aged and genderless humanoids with their assexual unis, rigid posture, and dull, lifeless eyes more to your liking and preference?

[Soldier]

Hey, don't you pull out your Bat of Pretend Ignorance on me. I'll just put on my Helmet of Literalism.

I'm all for the things you said - those are subtle. I don't like the people (especially when obese) who walk in showing far too much skin and acting in extremely lewd manners.

[CutLass]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Hey, don't you pull out your Bat of Pretend Ignorance on me. I'll just put on my Helmet of Literalism.

I'm all for the things you said - those are subtle. I don't like the people (especially when obese) who walk in showing far too much skin and acting in extremely lewd manners.

LOL. Just checking Soldier, to make sure you were human and not robo!

[The0ne]

I am for gays, but against lesbians. I am all for giving more straight guys (guys like me) the chance to get girls. Therefore, gays are great!! They cut down the competition, wonderful! And they also happen to be the best-looking, and most understanding guys. Even better! This means that mediocre guys like me get "upgraded". Lesbians are bad though, more girls that guys have zero chance to go out with. Yes, there we go, everybody's happy!

[Gav]

A lot of these definitions on what marriage is are quite funny considering that the concept of marriage changes all the time. What is considered marriage [and how you sign the contract or your right to privacy] are entirely different now than they were back in the bronze age, Iron age, Elizabethan England etc.

[DJ Apostrophe]

Originally Posted by Soldier

I still say get the government the hell out of marriage altogether, and let churches decide the issue however they wish.

But marriage isn't a completly religious issue now is it?

There are many civil and social issues that surround 'marriage'. Wether it be tax laws, insurance, or hospital visitation rights, among many other things.

In order to take the government out of marriage, you first would need to remove all the socio-economic impact of a marriage. If you were truly able to seperate 'spiritual union' and 'family structure' then you probably could get goverment the hell out of marriage, but as it stands now they are way too intertwined for one party (churches or governments) to wash their hands of the situation.

-w

[noodle]

Originally Posted by soldier

Same with those who carry their bazookas of left-wing liberalism...for example, classifying everyone who's against gay marriage as a "religious nut". Not to single you out or anything, noodle...

shoot, you misunderstood
you can be against gay marriages because you're religious, thats fine with me
but when you're marching on city hall with giant signs reading things like "******* will burn in hell" or the popular "god hates america", i tend to think you're taking it a little too far and you're no longer expressing an opinion, but expressing hate towards a group of people.

[Artisan]

Originally Posted by The0ne

I am for gays, but against lesbians. I am all for giving more straight guys (guys like me) the chance to get girls. .... This means that mediocre guys like me get "upgraded".

hmmm.... never occured to me that attrition could be a dating strategy. I always thought clothes, cars and money were the typical means to resolving male mediocrity.

[Louweasel]

Originally Posted by Artisan

hmmm.... never occured to me that attrition could be a dating strategy. I always thought clothes, cars and money were the typical means to resolving male mediocrity.

Well, didn't a wise man once say, "don't knock bisexuality, it immediately doubles your chances for a date on a Saturday night..."

Now, just in case poor ole Artisan is getting cynical about women and our priorities, can i state for the record that my boyfriend mostly wears manky jeans with various holes in (he's a handyman), has little money (just started his own business) and drives a battered Ford Transit van. And I don't want to date anyone else! Sorry to be nauseating...

[Artisan]

Originally Posted by Louweasel

Now, just in case poor ole Artisan is getting cynical about women and our priorities, can i state for the record that my boyfriend mostly wears manky jeans with various holes in (he's a handyman), has little money (just started his own business) and drives a battered Ford Transit van. And I don't want to date anyone else! Sorry to be nauseating...

Who me? Cynical? For the record: my (now) wife found me when I lived in a loft over my workshop, drove a 66 Chevy pickup I'd painted with a roller, and spent the evenings hunting mice in my bedroom with a bb gun...I did have a nice motorcycle though - alas, hers was faster.

[Louweasel]

Originally Posted by Artisan

Who me? Cynical? For the record: my (now) wife found me when I lived in a loft over my workshop, drove a 66 Chevy pickup I'd painted with a roller, and spent the evenings hunting mice in my bedroom with a bb gun...I did have a nice motorcycle though - alas, hers was faster.

Oh bless. Well at least we know that romance is not dead! It was just that your comments on clothes/money/fast cars seemed tosuggest a certain bitterness about what women want - glad I was mistaken!

Feel a bit sorry for the mice though. What's a bb gun? Are we talking mouse paté?

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by noodle

shoot, you misunderstood

Ha! I did shoot, and apparently nailed the mark - savor the bitter taste of my Bullets of Cynicism!

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by DJ Apostrophe

But marriage isn't a completly religious issue now is it?

There are many civil and social issues that surround 'marriage'. Wether it be tax laws, insurance, or hospital visitation rights, among many other things.

In order to take the government out of marriage, you first would need to remove all the socio-economic impact of a marriage. If you were truly able to seperate 'spiritual union' and 'family structure' then you probably could get goverment the hell out of marriage, but as it stands now they are way too intertwined for one party (churches or governments) to wash their hands of the situation.

-w

Marriage does have a socio-economic impact, yes, by the way that a couple or especially family interact with their area much differently than single people do. But, what business is this of the governments? If you drop the tax changes, regulations, benefits, et cetera, you still have a family structure. The "spiritual union" part is completely up to the members of that family.