What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Married? Again?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Re: Married? Again?

Bob Gray said:
Glad y'all concede now that this will happen. Not long ago there were a ton of deniers around here.
Click to expand...

I conceded nothing. It's a logical answer to a complex problem. What we need in this country is more problem solvers and less doomsday shouters. You can decide which one of those your acting like in this thread.
 
Re: Married? Again?

I read somewhere that an Executive Order is coming that will force all crabby old white guys in the country to partake in a same sex marriage....
 
Re: Married? Again?

ScoobyDoo said:
I conceded nothing. It's a logical answer to a complex problem. What we need in this country is more problem solvers and less doomsday shouters. You can decide which one of those your acting like in this thread.
Click to expand...
Now that's priceless. You concede without realizing it. Ha! :p
 
Re: Married? Again?

Bob Gray said:
Now that's priceless. You concede without realizing it. Ha! :p
Click to expand...


Refresh my memory. What's he conceding?


I thought your concern was people having multiple spouses or marrying their dog. :confused:

Oh yeah, and of course the whole guy on guy thing. ;)
 
Re: Married? Again?

Gurtholfin said:
Refresh my memory. What's he conceding?


I thought your concern was people having multiple spouses or marrying their dog. :confused:

Oh yeah, and of course the whole guy on guy thing. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not conceding anything. The case in California is a very specific circumstance. It's only logical to prevent kids from foster care if at all possible (as long as it is a safe loving environment) and Bob knows that. It has nothing to do with polygamy, or gay people not being able to procreate, or whatever the hell angle he's aiming at.
 
Re: Married? Again?

ScoobyDoo said:
I'm not conceding anything. The case in California is a very specific circumstance. It's only logical to prevent kids from foster care if at all possible (as long as it is a safe loving environment) and Bob knows that. It has nothing to do with polygamy, or gay people not being able to procreate, or whatever the hell angle he's aiming at.
Click to expand...


Oh, I know.

He's grasping and since he never actually explains any of his positions, I don't expect it now.
 
Re: Married? Again?

burd said:
Is it possible to dig up the original post in the first Married thread? It was a good prompt and led to some very good discussion.
Click to expand...

Sure.

[I recently] Read several extremely fascinating articles recently on this topic. If this thread gains any traction, I'll post some excerpts.

Basically, two different models which are pretty much incompatible.

One model posits that "marriage" is primarily a social institution whose main purpose is to promote inter-generational stability: love, sex, children, lifetime commitment to the other partner, all are interconnected to form a social unit called the "family" and it is a vehicle by which we bring children from infancy to self-sufficiency and adulthood so that they can then repeat the process and perpetuate a healthy society.

A different model posits that "marriage" is primarily devoted to the pleasure and enjoyment that the partners find in being with each other. The purpose of marriage is to have society recognize that these two people share a special bond between them. Thanks to birth control, you can have plenty of sex without getting married; if you can't find a decent man, you can still have children if you want and raise them on your own. The interconnectedness of the traditional model is all severed; each of the elements that had previously been interconnected now all stand separately, each on its own.




For those who like to slog through long thoughtful articles, which recognize the validity of both models for certain people and speculate about long-term consequences of one or the other....

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/201...e-of-marriage/

http://stateofourunions.org/2010/whe...disappears.php
Click to expand...


It's important to note that the two "models" discussed above are not mutually exclusive: each one of them also contains elements of the other. It's not so much that one is "right" and the other is "wrong"; it's more a matter of emphasis and degree.

One "works" better in a long-established community; one "works" better in a setting that sees substantial migration in and out [no pun intended;)]
 
Last edited:
Re: Married? Again?

ScoobyDoo said:
I'm not conceding anything. The case in California is a very specific circumstance. It's only logical to prevent kids from foster care if at all possible (as long as it is a safe loving environment) and Bob knows that. It has nothing to do with polygamy, or gay people not being able to procreate, or whatever the hell angle he's aiming at.
Click to expand...

One of the big arguments of why you all said having more than two in a marriage or as parents is that the legal complications would be massive. Now here the door is opened, admittedly for a particular purpose. But the article itself even mentions possible legal complications. Not that I expect any response I provide will stop your never-ending loop of responding the same meaningless way no matter what I post.

It is amazing how I have to connect the dots for people around here sometimes. Not that they typically notice even after the dots are connected.
 
Bob Gray said:
It is amazing how I have to connect the dots for people around here sometimes...
Click to expand...


Um, just throwing this out there Bob, but could it be you have to spend so much time connecting dots for people because most of your posts are of the nonsensical variety? ;)
 
Bob Gray said:
One of the big arguments of why you all said having more than two in a marriage or as parents is that the legal complications would be massive. Now here the door is opened, admittedly for a particular purpose. But the article itself even mentions possible legal complications. Not that I expect any response I provide will stop your never-ending loop of responding the same meaningless way no matter what I post.

It is amazing how I have to connect the dots for people around here sometimes. Not that they typically notice even after the dots are connected.
Click to expand...

Because whenever you connect the dots the picture looks like a cross, which you then climb upon, even when the picture really is a rainbow.
 
Re: Married? Again?

Bob Gray said:
One of the big arguments of why you all said having more than two in a marriage or as parents is that the legal complications would be massive. Now here the door is opened, admittedly for a particular purpose. But the article itself even mentions possible legal complications. Not that I expect any response I provide will stop your never-ending loop of responding the same meaningless way no matter what I post.

It is amazing how I have to connect the dots for people around here sometimes. Not that they typically notice even after the dots are connected.
Click to expand...
Of course there are legal complications. There always are. It was legally complicated when Christians wanted to divorce their wives when it was clearly against what "God" decreed. So, they made themselves a loophole. Even today they'd rather ***** and whine about gays getting married then work their asses off to improve straight marriage success. No one EVER said there wasn't legal complication.

In this California case some smart people decided to do the right thing and find any way possible to keep a kid out of foster care. That's the right way to approach a legal problem.
 
Re: Married? Again?

Bob Gray said:
You're trying way too hard.
Click to expand...
Actually, pointing out the logical inconsistencies that result from your tortured "logic" on this issue is quite easy. Fish in a barrel, as they say.

This California case is about custody rights, not marital rights. Or are you somehow implying that any people who share custody (divorced, unwed, etc) are actually somehow secretly married in your eyes?
 
Re: Married? Again?

LynahFan said:
Actually, pointing out the logical inconsistencies that result from your tortured "logic" on this issue is quite easy. Fish in a barrel, as they say.

This California case is about custody rights, not marital rights. Or are you somehow implying that any people who share custody (divorced, unwed, etc) are actually somehow secretly married in your eyes?
Click to expand...
Not-so-common law marriage?
 
Re: Married? Again?

I appreciate the perspective of a guy like Bob even if I don't agree with it (and occasionally have some fun with it ;)).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top