Again, I'm sure you can find examples of any family arrangement that works for somebody. And there's no guarantee that a child raised in a traditional nuclear family in a quiet suburb won't grow up to become a serial killer, terrorist or wife-beater. But if you need an analogy try this. Lots of temperaments or breeds of dogs can be used to pull a sled but a lead dog is required to keep them all on the same trail and at the same task.
this is totally confusing to me. why don't the children of lesbians deserve the same protection as the children of heterosex parents? why is their family unit less-than the other. why won't you help some people by giving them the tools to construct the strongest possible relationships. won't everyone benefit? isn't this good for everyone? especially the children?
No one is stopping you from living in a committed, long-term relationship and enjoying the benefits of doing so.
the state of Virginia certainly is. and if you go back and take a look at Sullivan's very personal essay, when you do finally call it marriage, you give straights and gays something very important in common, something that, when you really look at it, is the only actual difference between them.
Absolutely, radical feminists would abolish marriage... men... and razors.
what does your odd definition of "radical feminism" have to do with same sex marriage?
Thank you Irvine for proving my earlier point. That men and women are different.
yes, i've always agreed that they are different. one only has to see the differences between gay men and lesbians to see just how different. but this doesn't change the fact that it is illegal to use gender as a form of discrimination, and it's discriminatory to view gender as some sort of determinate that decides what you must do in life. all little girls must grow up to be mommies? all little boys must grow up and be firemen? come on, we were past this stuff when i was in first grade. your gender does not determine your role in society. you, the individual, determines your role in society.
which leads us to this paragraph:
Yolland wanted examples of what men and women bring to a marriage. Well, among other things, women bring a nurturing instinct, empathy and a deeper desire for stability. Which is why we would expect lesbian couples to be more desiring of children than gay men and for their relationships to be as lasting as opposite-sex relationships. But they're still a fatherless household. And what do fathers bring? One need only look to communities where fathers are all but nonexistent to see what's missing. An authority figure, an example for boys, some chivalry towards women and a family protector.
this is rooted in nostalgia, not fact. nurturing instinct? empathy? all these things can and are shared by some men, and some men have this in greater droves than many women. yes, on the whole, more lesbian couples want children more than gay male couples, but many gay male couples want children (and, as should be repeated, gay couples with kids *really* wanted those kids, they are loved and cherished and not looked upon as burdens like in some straight relationships.
tell me, INDY, where are the studies that show that the children of two lesbians suffer from the same social maladies that fatherless african-american youth in the inner cities suffer from. those kids in northampton, MA are every bit as fatherless as those kids in SE Washington DC, and so they're all suffering, right? they'd have the same tendencies towards whatever anti-social behavior.
that and the lack of chivalry where they'd actually let a woman enter a room without standing up. it's terrible, i tell you, kids of lesbians are just suffering so.
Everyone here knows women are better equipped than men to do some jobs in society and men others. So why the uproar that fathers and mothers are different and not interchangeable? Women are better listeners and better able to read emotions than men. Which is why they are slowly taking over my field, medicine. And I say great. Not that we men aren't good, but women are just plain better caregivers.
this is broadly, generally true, but let me tell you, i was a better preschool teacher than my sister ever would be. and i would happily hire some lesbians to build my back porch. and because society doesn't ascribe roles on the basis of gender, it is up to the individual to determine what it is that he or she is going to do with their life.
you have noticed, INDY, that some girls like to play in the dirt and that some boys like to play piano? that some girls are impatient and distracted and some boys are quiet and listen carefully and choose their words even more carefully? that your gender doesn't mean that you should only want to be a mommy, and that your gender doesn't mean that you want to go out an shoot a moose from an airplane.
and, gosh, if we're going to go this way, maybe all kids need a gay man instead of a mother and a father. we're all smart and neat and we dress well, and we make good bank, but we're emotional and we love old musicals so the child will certainly be exposed to music at a young age. and since we're so emotional, they'll get this motherly nurturing not from a mother but from a father. wow! what an amazing thing to offer a child. a man who isn't wrapped up in machismo and worried that he's going to sissify the boy if he doesn't throw the football in the backyard with him.
That's what "conservative" feminism is all about by the way. Women embracing their nature, characteristics and innate gifts and taking them out of the home and into the workforce for the betterment of society. Radical feminism, on the other hand, is about denying the feminine nature and the inherent differences between the sexes.
not sure what this has to do with same sex marriage. and i know quite a few people who'd disagree with your assessment.
Not germane. Should a married couple divorce should their children be tragically killed or after they leave the house to pursue their own lives?
this seems to be what your advocating. and what nathan is advocating. that the only purpose of being a man and the only purpose of being a woman is to marry and procreate and create their magical alchemy in the production of children. we don't allow any deviations from this, right, because that's the ideal. and we don't want to encourage anything but the ideal, so whether through choice or circumstance, we must not allow anyone to marry -- "since it is primarily an institution for raising children" -- who will not be having children. we should consider divorcing them if they cannot procreate, but maybe if they'll adopt it might be okay. but if they don't want children, they have no business being married.
this is what you folks are telling us when you make marriage contingent upon children, and you're doing so not because you've actually thought this out but because it's the only thing you can think of to justify discrimination.
I'd allow you everyone of them except a marriage certificate. Why not that? Ask Joe Biden or Barack Obama.
why the resistance to the word?
as for Barry and Joe -- despite the fact that SNL perfectly got to the heart of their cowardice -- they're trying to win INDYana. so they're playing the game.
but it's okay. i'm used to being political fodder.