The quantification of life

I completely agree. Why would any straight person give a second thought to gay marriage?

Because they do. Many straight people are fighting the rights for gays to marry because they claim it will destroy the sanctity of marriage. Many straight people, but unfortunately not enough, are coming to the defense to allow gay marriages because it's a right all Americans should have. Too many people have the "it doesn't affect me, so why should I care" approach. They wouldn't like that approach if it was a right they were losing and everyone else thought the same way. I believe that as a citizen here, it's my duty to uphold everyone's legal rights, regardless of how I might be affected personally.
 
Because they do. Many straight people are fighting the rights for gays to marry because they claim it will destroy the sanctity of marriage. Many straight people, but unfortunately not enough, are coming to the defense to allow gay marriages because it's a right all Americans should have. Too many people have the "it doesn't affect me, so why should I care" approach. They wouldn't like that approach if it was a right they were losing and everyone else thought the same way. I believe that as a citizen here, it's my duty to uphold everyone's legal rights, regardless of how I might be affected personally.



Actually they are not "legal" rights at all. There has to be a law first; then they're legal. Now they may be inalienable, but that doesn’t make them legal.

And anyway it’s just another diversion from the real issues we face; for without economic security and opportunity, no other right or protection is of any value.

 
It doesn’t seem like men should even engage in this discussion, being as it is, completely about women.

I wouldn't go that far. Its important that men are in the discussion, but I agree in the end that it has to be up to the individual woman that is pregnant.

I think it would be terrible if a woman was planning on aborting a baby that the father wanted and was willing to raise on his own. But for him to be able to mandate she carry the baby to term seems like it is going too far. I know there will be some strange and unusual situations that will come up that could put this to the test, but I think erring on this side is better than erring on the other.

Vassago said:
Because they do. Many straight people are fighting the rights for gays to marry because they claim it will destroy the sanctity of marriage.

There are two main factors here: Human nature and religion.

It is human nature to fear the things that we do not understand. Some straight-laced folks have this fear that gay people are out there are to convert their straight children over to the other team. Add in the social pressures that such a family would face from their community, the questions they may ask, etc. and it makes sense why they fear this.

Then there's good ole' holier-than-thou religion that tells people that being gay is wrong. Which the current crop of the religious fundies have turned into "being gay is a choice". Because if being gay is not a choice, then their god made these people as abnormal sinners, which they cannot fathom.
 

Actually they are not "legal" rights at all. There has to be a law first; then they're legal. Now they may be inalienable, but that doesn’t make them legal.

And anyway it’s just another diversion from the real issues we face; for without economic security and opportunity, no other right or protection is of any value.


Okay, maybe it's not about legal rights as much as equal rights. If we don't allow everyone the same opportunity, then it's really not a free and equal country. You are granted more rights on a legal basis with a true marriage than you are with a civil union or any other terminology. For a country that based on equal rights for all legal citizens, it's definitely a hypocritical stance to not allow them that same right.
 
There are two main factors here: Human nature and religion.

It is human nature to fear the things that we do not understand. Some straight-laced folks have this fear that gay people are out there are to convert their straight children over to the other team. Add in the social pressures that such a family would face from their community, the questions they may ask, etc. and it makes sense why they fear this.

Then there's good ole' holier-than-thou religion that tells people that being gay is wrong. Which the current crop of the religious fundies have turned into "being gay is a choice". Because if being gay is not a choice, then their god made these people as abnormal sinners, which they cannot fathom.

As far as religion goes, it has no place on a legal stance. It doesn't matter to me what you believe religiously, your religion has no basis on not granting the same rights to others. The government has no right to grant something or prevent something based on a religious stance.

From a human nature standpoint, we'll call it ignorance. Ignorance also has no stance. Not too long ago, people believed that blacks were below whites and interracial couples were very frowned upon. Today, it's not so bad, but there are still rural places where ignorance still holds. I don't blame the individuals, but more the ideals of the region as a whole. People cannot help their own upbringing, but they should still research something before providing an opinion based on something they truly KNOW nothing about.
 
I know this is a slight tangent.. but... In the average human body, only 10% of the cells are actually human.
The rest are from the trillions of bacteria living on and in us..... so kill whatever you want, it's no different than washing your counter tops. (HaHaha)
 
I know this is a slight tangent.. but... In the average human body, only 10% of the cells are actually human.
The rest are from the trillions of bacteria living on and in us..... so kill whatever you want, it's no different than washing your counter tops. (HaHaha)

I remember reading about that. It's fascinating how complex our bodies really are and how much of us are not actually human that make up who we are. That these different biological cells can live mostly in harmony is complex beyond comprehension.
 
Also everyone ignored my previous post about the father having no rights in this whole process. It doesn’t seem like men should even engage in this discussion, being as it is, completely about women.

Thales, did you not read the tail end of my previous post? The last two paragraphs were exactly about men's rights.

I'll try this another way. Everyone is talking about rights. But if you study the matter, rights must be balanced with responsibilities. If a man acts as no more than a sperm donor, he should have no rights. If he takes responsibility to be with his partner and help her through the difficult time, then I'm all in favor of the man and woman together making a decision. I simply suggest that if you cut and run after you find that your former sweetie is preggers, then when you left behind your responsibilities, you left behind your rights at the same exact moment. Rights and responsibilities are yin and yang, forever paired, forever inseparable.
 
Thales, did you not read the tail end of my previous post? The last two paragraphs were exactly about men's rights.

I'll try this another way. Everyone is talking about rights. But if you study the matter, rights must be balanced with responsibilities. If a man acts as no more than a sperm donor, he should have no rights. If he takes responsibility to be with his partner and help her through the difficult time, then I'm all in favor of the man and woman together making a decision. I simply suggest that if you cut and run after you find that your former sweetie is preggers, then when you left behind your responsibilities, you left behind your rights at the same exact moment. Rights and responsibilities are yin and yang, forever paired, forever inseparable.

That is the opposite of what I'm saying. A man has no right to have his child.
 
My views which are not specifically aimed at anyone…


Other than the father’s rights to have his opinion heard on the matter, I think the mother should have the last say.

If it could be done, under what circumstance would anyone else force a woman to bear a child she did not want?
And, how would such force be applied?

Would we, at first sight of pregnancy, strap the woman to a table, put her on life support, induce a coma, wait for gestation and deliver via caesarean section?
That was meant to be absurd, reductio ad absurdum, but if we can’t face the logical consequences of our beliefs then that is what it would become. The mother’s body would have become little more than a baby factory under the control of others.

And, in the extreme, how would the birth and subsequent survival of the child be enforced?
(Please do not approach the answer to that question from the point of view that we can not guarantee the subsequent survival of any child;
I mean murder.)
Would it therefore become imperative that any mother tobe who, at anytime expressed a desire not to bear the child, should, for safety reasons, have access to the child removed from her after birth?




I think that people of both sexes, other than the mother, are living in some judgemental ivory tower that allows them to simply sleep well at night with their own beliefs. They sleep with some warm and fuzzy feeling that they have done some good for the day, by their definition of good. They may arise and see a new day, a new challenge, and a new place to force their opinion on someone else.

The mother may not share that same day to day definition of good. The warm and fuzzy’s may have moved on, gone to another tree to hug, another whale to save. The mother may be lost, nowhere to go, no help at hand. The people that required her to have the child have moved on. The righteousness of those that enforced the birth is not replaced by their responsibility for the birth; the mother is alone.




A woman’s body is not simply a baby factory and a fetus is not simply a judgemental belief;
it is an ongoing reality that, ultimately, the mother must bear… or not.
 
Then there's good ole' holier-than-thou religion that tells people that being gay is wrong. Which the current crop of the religious fundies have turned into "being gay is a choice". Because if being gay is not a choice, then their god made these people as abnormal sinners, which they cannot fathom.

It is a while since I read it but I thought that the bible considered the practice of homosexuality to be wrong, not the mere existence, and of course as women don't really count in the Bible this sanction was only aimed at men.

Brian
 
I am not personally advocating that men should have any rights in this situation. It’s just that in America the custody and child support laws are flawed.

Men have a harder time getting custody and the vast majority of them are forced to pay the woman, even if in some cases he should be the primary parent. Joint custody is becoming more prevalent lately but it’s still weighted too much towards protecting women.

There was a report on NPR the other day. 13% of the men incarcerated in one of the Southern States, I believe it was South Carolina, are locked up for neglecting to pay their child support.

13% are you kidding me?

Of that 13%, 70% are incapable of paying because they are unemployed and indigent.

I imagine none of these guys would have said “please baby don’t have an abortion”.
 
Of that 13%, 70% are incapable of paying because they are unemployed and indigent.

I imagine none of these guys would have said “please baby don’t have an abortion”.


Just because they are poor and the law jails them for it - doesn't beleive me to think that they all wish their kids hadn't been born!

Especially as financial situations can change.
 
Just because they are poor and the law jails them for it - doesn't beleive me to think that they all wish their kids hadn't been born!

Especially as financial situations can change.

I agree, I think his statement might apply to some, but I doubt it would apply to all. It was a little generalized.
 
Can I just clarify something here.?
Are you americans saying or agreeing with the statement that America imprisons people who can't rather than wont pay child support?

Brian
 
Can I just clarify something here.?
Are you americans saying or agreeing with the statement that America imprisons people who can't rather than wont pay child support?

Brian

We don't imprison those who can't. Trust me, if they did then I know people who would have went long ago. Deadbeats who don't pay any support for their kids and never keep a job.
 
We don't imprison those who can't. Trust me, if they did then I know people who would have went long ago. Deadbeats who don't pay any support for their kids and never keep a job.

Your personal experiences are hardly considered empirical.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom