skrum, since it is easy, could you tell me who the mother of this baby is?

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bvblackspin.com/media/2010/04/sandra-bullock-people-438pk042910.jpg

I am not from North Carolina (what a surprise).

Besides the raising of children marriage also includes benefits in old age pensions, visiting rights, taxes and so on. Just to name a few other partly economic aspects without accepting economics to be the reason to marry.

So, if Skrum was right, the state should take all these benefits from married people without children or after the raising of the children is done. Also these benefits should be given to homosexual couples raising adopted children or children coming from heterosexual relationships or adventures they might have had befor realising their real orientation. Furthermore these benefits should be given to single educating persons.

Staying on the economic trail of argument, marriage is an agreement on risk sharing (terrible way to see it). You share the work and the income and you will help each other in the case of catastrophes like illness, disabilities or alike. You will, in many cultures, even profit from the others old age savings. All your gains belong to both - which is not or hardly possible for other relationships.

Any religion has a togetherness of man and woman and usually this is intended to last longer than the period of breeding and raising offspring. The society benefits through educated and secured children and older people taking care of each other and being taken care of by the children. This is good for society even if no children are there. In former times good rules for society were introduced and supported by some super-human power (aka god). Our god is rationality often - the result is the same, usually.

So, what was the argument against homosexual marriage again? How does it not benefit a society to have homosexuals not live in life-long relationships with support and care for each other? How should that not be rewarded the same way heterosexual childless couples are rewarded?

And no, I am not homosexual as far as I know.

hahaha skrumgaer you are such a regressive piece of shit, I literally hope you die

sadly veta, just going to catholic school does not give you "a pretty apt" understanding of nearly everything under the sun, and then backing down on your arguments strength citing not being a "know-it-all" is just weak,

I certain that anytime a subject comes up in these forums, you quickly type in the topic in to wikipedia. Skim the article, and then regurgitate someone else's point of view.

You suck at this.

Also, I ask you, do you live in North Carolina? And, if the answer is yes, did you vote? If no, then I ask you to calmly to move this to skrum's thread.

Also, are you even married? I think it's really tough to comment on something you have never been a part of, and based on lots of your previous posts, don't respect.

Personally, I think you try and straw-man every argument with some random tidbit that supports maybe 3% of your argument, and then we gaff at that, while you run around your dorm apartment thinking how intelligent you are, and then deny later, that your whole argument rested on your straw-man.

I do believe that one day you will find people that want to claim their pets as children.

Some people love their pets and "adopt" them just like they would a child. They raise them, love them, care for them when they are sick, provide for them economically, shelter them, etc. Is it too progressive to think this will happen someday, that the definition of parenting move to include adoptive animals? You can be jailed for the mistreatment of animals. Is it too far fetched to compare this to the change wanted to be made to the definition of marriage?

Most of you condemn others for putting down the progressive view, but who are you to tear down someone else's beliefs? People feel a certain way and that is their right. Progressive views are only progressive until they're thought of as mainstream, then the next progressive thought process gets its movement. I think legal adoption of animals is next. Tax breaks to ensue.


<---------devil's advocate

GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE VIRGINIA

I work 7 miles from the NC border. Fuck you, I qualify IMO.

In case you forgot, MD > VA > NC.

By lines of latitude......yes

VA > MD > NC >>>>>>>>>> VT > WV

Thraxle, 7 miles may as well be California, ya don't vote here, so you don't get a say. Of all states the commonwealth should be accepting of this.