Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[elektra]

The poorest Heterosexual, Man and Woman, married, as Man and Wife can give something to a child that the richest Homosexual Man and a Man can never give a child, a Father and a Mother.

Well a same-sex couple willing to open their hearts and their homes, whether they are poor, rich, or middle class can provide three things that a child without a Father and Mother can never get from an orphanage and foster care...

............... Love

...........................Hope

........................................and a Family.


>>>>

Ha, Ha, thanks good point.

Family as defined by you, is any Social Unit of people who care for one another, Orphanages are exactly that, a family by your definition.

In the Orphanage there is Hope, Hope for a Mother and Father, a child reaches the end of Hope with a same-sex couple, they will never have a Mother and a Father.

Love, there is no guarantee of love anywhere.
Yet in the Orphanage the Children develop into a family that love one another, that love will be as strong as any other love.

Same-sex couples can give love all they want, the only guarantee here is not all Orphaned Children will accept or return that love.

But hey, write a Hallmark card, nice sentiment.

Kids in "orphanages" (group homes more like) don't usually give a good goddamn who adopts them as long as they care for them. I challenge you, Elektra, to go volunteer in some group homes and, by all means, ask those kids if they care that the people adopting them are of the same gender.

There is no "guarantee" that any adoptive child will "accept and return" the love of the adoptive parents or vice versa. Parenting does not rely on gender.

Genderless Parenting? So Glad you spoke your mind.

In the Society of the Seawytch, the Eunuch parents the Child.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Common logic always prevails, and sense your argument is a pathology of internal contradictions, the reader realizes that your points have no merit. Ad homming in place of logic is all you,and Sil, have now. You have no evidence to support your claims.

You have been blabbering so long, do you remember what it is that you pretend this claim to be, do you remember what you said?

Elektra, you continue to ad hom in place of dialogue, much like Sil and EconChick. It is what it is.

 

[bodecea]

The poorest Heterosexual, Man and Woman, married, as Man and Wife can give something to a child that the richest Homosexual Man and a Man can never give a child, a Father and a Mother.

Fortunately, that is not required to be a good parent.

In 30 years, 67 studies have failed to find harm in gay parenting. Instead, study after study finds that our kids --- and I say "our" in particular because I am raising two sons with my husband -- turn out pretty much the same as anyone else’s. In fact, having invested time and effort in deliberately becoming parents, same-sex couples may work harder at being good parents.

Children do best when they are raised by adults who are loving, compassionate, responsible, dependable and committed to the children’s well-being. Families do best when parents have the support of the community and society at large. Whether a family has one parent or two, and whether those parents are of opposite sexes or the same, doesn't matter.

Same-sex parents, lacking any tradition of gender-based division of labor, may actually share parenting duties more equitably. Children of gay parents grow up without gendered assumptions about child care and housework. There is no “women's work,” and there’s no such thing as a “man’s job.” It’s unremarkable for a man to be a “stay-at-home dad” or for a woman to be a “working mom.” Whatever the configuration, these kids see two adults working in an equal partnership.
​

You post has no relevance to mine? Seawych is just using my post to pontificate a premise unrelated to the fact I posted.

Wow, 67 studies, of how many thousands? Can you produce those 67 studies, like link to the study and quote directly from it, no is that answer.

One link goes to Slate, the other link goes to the American Psychological Association, not to the studies, so go ahead and link to the study so we can see if you are telling the truth or telling a lie. And do not waste our time by following your link to an abstract, link to the study.

I stated that a man and woman are mom and dad, which is best for Children, produce the study you claim disproves this, after all, this is what you quoted and responded to.

Then why are there not laws requiring that in ALL cases?

 

[Seawytch]

The poorest Heterosexual, Man and Woman, married, as Man and Wife can give something to a child that the richest Homosexual Man and a Man can never give a child, a Father and a Mother.

Fortunately, that is not required to be a good parent.

In 30 years, 67 studies have failed to find harm in gay parenting. Instead, study after study finds that our kids --- and I say "our" in particular because I am raising two sons with my husband -- turn out pretty much the same as anyone else’s. In fact, having invested time and effort in deliberately becoming parents, same-sex couples may work harder at being good parents.

Children do best when they are raised by adults who are loving, compassionate, responsible, dependable and committed to the children’s well-being. Families do best when parents have the support of the community and society at large. Whether a family has one parent or two, and whether those parents are of opposite sexes or the same, doesn't matter.

Same-sex parents, lacking any tradition of gender-based division of labor, may actually share parenting duties more equitably. Children of gay parents grow up without gendered assumptions about child care and housework. There is no “women's work,” and there’s no such thing as a “man’s job.” It’s unremarkable for a man to be a “stay-at-home dad” or for a woman to be a “working mom.” Whatever the configuration, these kids see two adults working in an equal partnership.
​

You post has no relevance to mine? Seawych is just using my post to pontificate a premise unrelated to the fact I posted.

Wow, 67 studies, of how many thousands? Can you produce those 67 studies, like link to the study and quote directly from it, no is that answer.

One link goes to Slate, the other link goes to the American Psychological Association, not to the studies, so go ahead and link to the study so we can see if you are telling the truth or telling a lie. And do not waste our time by following your link to an abstract, link to the study.

I stated that a man and woman are mom and dad, which is best for Children, produce the study you claim disproves this, after all, this is what you quoted and responded to.

Follow the links, the studies will be there. Here's one that speaks directly to your concerns...

The lead article in the February issue of Journal of Marriage and Family challenges the idea that "fatherless" children are necessarily at a disadvantage or that men provide a different, indispensable set of parenting skills than women.

"Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception across party lines that children need both a mother and a father. Yet, there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on same-gender parents," said sociologist Timothy Biblarz of the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.

Extending their prior work on gender and family, Biblarz and Judith Stacey of NYU analyzed relevant studies about parenting, including available research on single-mother and single-father households, gay male parents and lesbian parents. "That a child needs a male parent and a female parent is so taken for granted that people are uncritical," Stacey said.

In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.
​

I've got an idea...how about YOU provide evidence of YOUR claims. You're the one that thinks gays shouldn't be parents, so YOU provide the proof to back up your claims that we are not good parents and that we cannot raise children just as successfully as heterosexuals.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[this poster said]I stated that a man and woman are mom and dad, which is best for Children, produce the study you claim disproves this, after all, this is what you quoted and responded to.

And here is the crux of the failure of the hetero fascists. They think their opinions are facts, and as evidence they are in fact worthless.

When given access to many studies, the poster simply says 'refute my opinion.' If this is what the hetero fascist crowd is reduced to, the jig is up and marriage equality is inevitable.

 

[elektra]

The poorest Heterosexual, Man and Woman, married, as Man and Wife can give something to a child that the richest Homosexual Man and a Man can never give a child, a Father and a Mother.

Fortunately, that is not required to be a good parent.

In 30 years, 67 studies have failed to find harm in gay parenting. Instead, study after study finds that our kids --- and I say "our" in particular because I am raising two sons with my husband -- turn out pretty much the same as anyone else’s. In fact, having invested time and effort in deliberately becoming parents, same-sex couples may work harder at being good parents.

Children do best when they are raised by adults who are loving, compassionate, responsible, dependable and committed to the children’s well-being. Families do best when parents have the support of the community and society at large. Whether a family has one parent or two, and whether those parents are of opposite sexes or the same, doesn't matter.

Same-sex parents, lacking any tradition of gender-based division of labor, may actually share parenting duties more equitably. Children of gay parents grow up without gendered assumptions about child care and housework. There is no “women's work,” and there’s no such thing as a “man’s job.” It’s unremarkable for a man to be a “stay-at-home dad” or for a woman to be a “working mom.” Whatever the configuration, these kids see two adults working in an equal partnership.
​

You post has no relevance to mine? Seawych is just using my post to pontificate a premise unrelated to the fact I posted.

Wow, 67 studies, of how many thousands? Can you produce those 67 studies, like link to the study and quote directly from it, no is that answer.

One link goes to Slate, the other link goes to the American Psychological Association, not to the studies, so go ahead and link to the study so we can see if you are telling the truth or telling a lie. And do not waste our time by following your link to an abstract, link to the study.

I stated that a man and woman are mom and dad, which is best for Children, produce the study you claim disproves this, after all, this is what you quoted and responded to.

Follow the links, the studies will be there. Here's one that speaks directly to your concerns...

The lead article in the February issue of Journal of Marriage and Family challenges the idea that "fatherless" children are necessarily at a disadvantage or that men provide a different, indispensable set of parenting skills than women.

"Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception across party lines that children need both a mother and a father. Yet, there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on same-gender parents," said sociologist Timothy Biblarz of the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.

Extending their prior work on gender and family, Biblarz and Judith Stacey of NYU analyzed relevant studies about parenting, including available research on single-mother and single-father households, gay male parents and lesbian parents. "That a child needs a male parent and a female parent is so taken for granted that people are uncritical," Stacey said.

In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.
​

I've got an idea...how about YOU provide evidence of YOUR claims. You're the one that thinks gays shouldn't be parents, so YOU provide the proof to back up your claims that we are not good parents and that we cannot raise children just as successfully as heterosexuals.

The links do not link to the study, that is a lie, I stated they could not be followed yet you claim they can, you follow up with what you say is a Study, which is an Article, referencing another article, the Lead Article of another magazine.

You made a claim of 67 studies yet you can not produce 1.

So between taking personal shots at me, you post unsubstantiated bullshit. Produce just 1 of the 67, go ahead, and not the abstract, and not an article you claim to be one of the studies. Your article is clearly not a study.

Your understanding of what you post is contrary to the content of your post, not to intelligent I would say.

Now tell me about the Seawytch society in which the Eunuch raises the child, that sounds fascinating.

 

[elektra]

[this poster said]I stated that a man and woman are mom and dad, which is best for Children, produce the study you claim disproves this, after all, this is what you quoted and responded to.

And here is the crux of the failure of the hetero fascists. They think their opinions are facts, and as evidence they are in fact worthless.

When given access to many studies, the poster simply says 'refute my opinion.' If this is what the hetero fascist crowd is reduced to, the jig is up and marriage equality is inevitable.

Access to? Quote a study, quit running from all your posts you get killed in, everyone of your posts you lose, and try something else, just cause you post that there are 67 studies linked to does not make it so, I followed the link and there are zero studies.

so go ahead, quote from a study.

 

[elektra]

No studies, where are the studies, all you ought to produce one direct quote from a study yet you have not, it can not be done, you never read them, you never saw them.

I will leave you with that, you all fail to support the simplest of your assertions, that there is a study.

Idiots, Articles are not studies.

Abstracts are not studies either.

Maybe when I get back that quote-linked, will be here, ha, ha, ha.

Such failures you folks are, dozens of assertions your's lay wasted behind me, now you assert 67 studies, how about a link to 5% of those studies.

That will be 67 failures if you can not quote them directly, with a link.

 

[bodecea]

No studies, where are the studies, all you ought to produce one direct quote from a study yet you have not, it can not be done, you never read them, you never saw them.

I will leave you with that, you all fail to support the simplest of your assertions, that there is a study.

Idiots, Articles are not studies.

Abstracts are not studies either.

Maybe when I get back that quote-linked, will be here, ha, ha, ha.

Such failures you folks are, dozens of assertions your's lay wasted behind me, now you assert 67 studies, how about a link to 5% of those studies.

That will be 67 failures if you can not quote them directly, with a link.

Nice try....if what you say is true, about what is best for the child....why aren't children being taken away from single parent homes?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Elektra has only opinion: tough.

 

[Seawytch]

The poorest Heterosexual, Man and Woman, married, as Man and Wife can give something to a child that the richest Homosexual Man and a Man can never give a child, a Father and a Mother.

Fortunately, that is not required to be a good parent.

In 30 years, 67 studies have failed to find harm in gay parenting. Instead, study after study finds that our kids --- and I say "our" in particular because I am raising two sons with my husband -- turn out pretty much the same as anyone else’s. In fact, having invested time and effort in deliberately becoming parents, same-sex couples may work harder at being good parents.

Children do best when they are raised by adults who are loving, compassionate, responsible, dependable and committed to the children’s well-being. Families do best when parents have the support of the community and society at large. Whether a family has one parent or two, and whether those parents are of opposite sexes or the same, doesn't matter.

Same-sex parents, lacking any tradition of gender-based division of labor, may actually share parenting duties more equitably. Children of gay parents grow up without gendered assumptions about child care and housework. There is no “women's work,” and there’s no such thing as a “man’s job.” It’s unremarkable for a man to be a “stay-at-home dad” or for a woman to be a “working mom.” Whatever the configuration, these kids see two adults working in an equal partnership.
​

You post has no relevance to mine? Seawych is just using my post to pontificate a premise unrelated to the fact I posted.

Wow, 67 studies, of how many thousands? Can you produce those 67 studies, like link to the study and quote directly from it, no is that answer.

One link goes to Slate, the other link goes to the American Psychological Association, not to the studies, so go ahead and link to the study so we can see if you are telling the truth or telling a lie. And do not waste our time by following your link to an abstract, link to the study.

I stated that a man and woman are mom and dad, which is best for Children, produce the study you claim disproves this, after all, this is what you quoted and responded to.

Follow the links, the studies will be there. Here's one that speaks directly to your concerns...

The lead article in the February issue of Journal of Marriage and Family challenges the idea that "fatherless" children are necessarily at a disadvantage or that men provide a different, indispensable set of parenting skills than women.

"Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception across party lines that children need both a mother and a father. Yet, there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on same-gender parents," said sociologist Timothy Biblarz of the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.

Extending their prior work on gender and family, Biblarz and Judith Stacey of NYU analyzed relevant studies about parenting, including available research on single-mother and single-father households, gay male parents and lesbian parents. "That a child needs a male parent and a female parent is so taken for granted that people are uncritical," Stacey said.

In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.
​

I've got an idea...how about YOU provide evidence of YOUR claims. You're the one that thinks gays shouldn't be parents, so YOU provide the proof to back up your claims that we are not good parents and that we cannot raise children just as successfully as heterosexuals.

The links do not link to the study, that is a lie, I stated they could not be followed yet you claim they can, you follow up with what you say is a Study, which is an Article, referencing another article, the Lead Article of another magazine.

You made a claim of 67 studies yet you can not produce 1.

So between taking personal shots at me, you post unsubstantiated bullshit. Produce just 1 of the 67, go ahead, and not the abstract, and not an article you claim to be one of the studies. Your article is clearly not a study.

Your understanding of what you post is contrary to the content of your post, not to intelligent I would say.

Now tell me about the Seawytch society in which the Eunuch raises the child, that sounds fascinating.

Is there something wrong with you that you have to misrepresent anything anyone says? Is this some sort of disorder like tourettes syndrome?

Because a child does not "need" a mother and a father, you get eunuchs out of that? Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

There were links to the studies, you're just too lazy to pursue them...or intellectually dishonest, not sure which.

Same-Sex Parenting Does Not Harm Children, Research Review Finds (with a direct link to the study for the lazy or dishonest)

How Does the Gender of Parents Matter? (Direct Link to the study for the lazy or dishonest)


Where is your study that supports your "gays as bad parents" theory?

 

[RKMBrown]

Elektra has only opinion: tough.

In some countries the majority of population have the opinion that electric fans suck the oxygen out of a room. No lie.

When people are taught since they were a child certain axioms such as the phrase children need their mother and father, or gays are an abomination against god, these axioms become so ingrained in simple minds, that those people can't even contemplate questioning the axioms even when told repeatedly that they are false.

 

[Silhouette]

You made a claim of 67 studies yet you can not produce 1.

So between taking personal shots at me, you post unsubstantiated bullshit. Produce just 1 of the 67, go ahead, and not the abstract, and not an article you claim to be one of the studies. Your article is clearly not a study.

Your understanding of what you post is contrary to the content of your post, not to intelligent I would say.

Now tell me about the Seawytch society in which the Eunuch raises the child, that sounds fascinating.

Here's a scientific review of over 300 peer-reviewed studies showing sexual orientation to be learned, and how it is learned [socially]. This review is a compilation of hard facts that say this about gay marriage:

1. Children/offspring look to their mentors and society at large in subconscious cues to select mates.

2. Once a type of mate is idealized, the first few sexual encounters with that prototype, graft a permanent orientation.

3. Once grafted, that orientation becomes the new "displayed norm" for subsequent generations.

4. Society as a whole can thereby morph over time into a new kink, essentially.

Read it: http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
James G. Pfaus,
1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada
Received August 9, 2000, accepted March 1, 2001

Perhaps the CDC has to look no further than this study to resolve the "big mystery" as to why there has been a sudden leap in new HIV cases in young boys and men ages 13-24 just since the big normalizing media campaign for all-things gay has started [just the past 6 or 7 years or so]

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I don't believe this topic belongs in our political discourse. I am not a fag but at the same time if I were I would have the opinion that it's none of the government's business.

You may have heard that just recently 32 states are petitioning the SCOTUS for an immediate resolution to the answer of "is gay marriage federally-protected or not"? That's huge news. It's news. It's political and it's as current and big as anything can get.

I simply don't fucking care. And it's only political because Americans are too fucking nosey to mind their own business.

Does this mean you oppose public accommodation predicated on ideological/behavioral concerns, oppose programs in the state schools intended to promote/impose acceptance of homosexuality, oppose the imposition of junk science on policy, oppose the agenda to prohibit sexual therapy for children in violation of parental authority, oppose welfare schemes that subsidize the consequences of reckless/irresponsible sexual behavior?

Or were you just pulling on our legs when you implied that lefty doesn't incessantly shove his business in everybody's faces?

 

[Flopper]

The poorest Heterosexual, Man and Woman, married, as Man and Wife can give something to a child that the richest Homosexual Man and a Man can never give a child, a Father and a Mother.

When a single parent enters a gay marriage, their partner becomes a substitute for a parent who is no longer part of the home. In most cases the child is better off with two parents than with one. I think most single would agree.

 

[Flopper]

You made a claim of 67 studies yet you can not produce 1.

So between taking personal shots at me, you post unsubstantiated bullshit. Produce just 1 of the 67, go ahead, and not the abstract, and not an article you claim to be one of the studies. Your article is clearly not a study.

Your understanding of what you post is contrary to the content of your post, not to intelligent I would say.

Now tell me about the Seawytch society in which the Eunuch raises the child, that sounds fascinating.

Here's a scientific review of over 300 peer-reviewed studies showing sexual orientation to be learned, and how it is learned [socially]. This review is a compilation of hard facts that say this about gay marriage:

1. Children/offspring look to their mentors and society at large in subconscious cues to select mates.

2. Once a type of mate is idealized, the first few sexual encounters with that prototype, graft a permanent orientation.

3. Once grafted, that orientation becomes the new "displayed norm" for subsequent generations.

4. Society as a whole can thereby morph over time into a new kink, essentially.

Read it: http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
James G. Pfaus,
1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada
Received August 9, 2000, accepted March 1, 2001

Perhaps the CDC has to look no further than this study to resolve the "big mystery" as to why there has been a sudden leap in new HIV cases in young boys and men ages 13-24 just since the big normalizing media campaign for all-things gay has started [just the past 6 or 7 years or so]

A scholarly article that certainly doesn't support your contention.

 

[jillian]

Look up the first court cases regarding marriage. Tell us what they were about.

What cases would those be, the ones during the Roman Empire? Why don't you cite one of these court cases you're referring to?

Nope...this is the US and we're talking US law. What were the first US court cases about?

Those are the first court cases regarding marriage. Marriage has existed for thousands of years. Court cases in the United States don't prove a thing about the origins of marriage.

The origins of which, civil or religious? How are the origins relevant to the discussion?

The discussion is about why marriage exists. That goes right to the subject of origins.

except marriage doesn't exist for procreation.

 

[jillian]

Pure bullshit. Wiv

So you've got nothing. Well, I should have guessed. Since you have nothing of substance to say, this discussion is over.

There was never discussion, you pontified.

Bullshit means the discussion is over, idiot. Bullshit means that what you posted is so far removed from reality as well as from the premise of the thread that the only thing left is to point that out by simply stating, bullshit.

ShackledNation, your posts are all bullshit, they are simple rubbish.

There is no response other than to call, bullshit, when someone just posts a litany of false premises.

children, they have no voice within ShackledNation 's ignorance

You speak of which you know nothing.

Like I thought, nothing. Just personal attacks. Typical.

Calling what you post, bullshit, then explaining to you what bullshit is, is not a personal attack nor an attack of any other sort.

It is telling that ShackledNation characterizes people recognizing that ShackledNation 's posts are irrelevant to the OP or simply false, with a person attack.

ShackledNation is self-centered, thinking this is about himself, Anything contrary to ShackledNation's posts or politics becomes a personal attack, so little confidence ShackledNation has in himself, he takes things personally. Grow up, it's about the children, not your perceived war with republicans.

okie dokie

and it's about reality and law... not about your wacked out religious views

 

[Silhouette]

Read it: http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
James G. Pfaus,
1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada
Received August 9, 2000, accepted March 1, 2001

Perhaps the CDC has to look no further than this study to resolve the "big mystery" as to why there has been a sudden leap in new HIV cases in young boys and men ages 13-24 just since the big normalizing media campaign for all-things gay has started [just the past 6 or 7 years or so]

A scholarly article that certainly doesn't support your contention.

That can be determined by the individual reader. Did you read the conclusion here?

"A role for learning in the sexual behavior of animals

also has profound implications for our understanding

of human sexual arousal and sexual preferences, especially

as they concern the development of extreme

forms of sexual behavior, including parphilias or deviant

sexual preferences. Deviant sexual preferences

and behaviors are thought to develop through conditioning
processes (e.g., Abel and Blanchard, 1974;

Laws and Marshall, 1990; McGuire, Carlisle, and

Young, 1965)...

...
The features of

fantasized partners could be composed of culturally
valued characteristics such that when these are paired

with sexual reward, preferences would be established

or strengthened. Thus, cultural values may also determine

what features will be preferred in a mate. This

can explain not only the status quo of physical preferences

within a culture, but also how those cultural

preferences can change from era to era. "

Here's how I recapped it. I don't see it as contradictory to the article's conclusion. Would you elaborate on how you do?

1. Children/offspring look to their mentors and society at large in subconscious cues to select mates.
2. Once a type of mate is idealized, the first few sexual encounters with that prototype, graft a permanent orientation.
3. Once grafted, that orientation becomes the new "displayed norm" for subsequent generations.
4. Society as a whole can thereby morph over time into a new kink, essentially.

 

[ShackledNation]

There's been an increase in HIV among younger demographics because HIV is no longer a death sentence and the younger generation did not experience the horror of the AIDS epidemic. This has led to more careless behavior. Not that hard to understand.

Oh, and like procreation, HIV status is irrelevant to who can marry.