Non religious reasons to oppose gay marriage

[Bird222]

Its not a question of can. Its a question of should. The rate of poverty of single mothers is 5 times that of married couples. But hey oh cares if children live in poverty :\

Judges care. This is why judges make both parents take care of a child (or at least tries to) regardless of how it gets here. Here you suggest you care about children not living in poverty but your posts in the other thread suggest otherwise.

 

[nehalem256]

Not you - you vote for them to be in poverty. Progressives are the ones who care.

Progressives dont care. They have promoted behavior for half a century that leads to a 5 fold increase in the likelihood of poverty.

 

[soulcougher73]

Why did they get divorced? You seem to be implicitly accepting divorce as a legitimate option.

I do accept divorce as legitimate. I could care less what their reasons were. Maybe he beats his wife and she didnt want that anymore. Does it really matter?

 

[nehalem256]

This is why judges make both parents take care of a child (or at least tries to) regardless of how it gets here. Here you suggest you care about children not living in poverty but your posts in the other thread suggest otherwise.

I suggest that if a woman can not care for her child, and is not married, she should get an abortion.

Problem solved.

 

[Ausm]

Ban divorce! that will save the sanctimony of marriage!

Your're no friend of the lawyer Lobby... 😀

 

[Atreus21]

Marriage doesn't exist because sex leads to kids. That's why the family unit evolved and led to larger societal blocks (tribes and eventually nations). Marriage is there as a contract for wealth and debt transfers. Families can exist without a marriage...

Larger societal blocks do not raise children. Parents do. And married parents do so better than unwed parents.

 

[yllus]

Except that it ends without new taxpayers being created. Not a reason to disallow it, but it is true.

Having 10% or 15% of your taxpayer base be comprised of those who pay above-average tax rates on their above-average incomes their entires lives and don't even have state resource-draining kids sounds like a great deal.

If both members of the incestuous union are sterile, there will be no genetic issues. Of course, saying they cannot be married and procreate due to genetic issues opens the door to saying anyone with a genetic defect cannot marry and procreate - but I do agree with a genetic distance requirement unless both members are sterile.

If both are sterile, the only remaining reason to prevent it is morality.

Laws aren't made for the exception, they're made to be the rule. There's no point in coming up with improbable "ifs". This just happens to be a case in which secular reasons to have a law coincide with religious/traditional ones.

 

[Craig234]

Progressives dont care. They have promoted behavior for half a century that leads to a 5 fold increase in the likelihood of poverty.

About as much as drug rehab clinics promote drug addiction - if people didn't have rehab, it would incent them not to get addicted, that'd solve the drug problem. Idiocy.

 

[werepossum]

I still dont understand why they want to get married. And I wasnt trying to be a smartass. So I was hoping for an actual reason or two.

I can't really know if I'd want to marry if I were homosexual, but I absolutely know that being denied the right to choose to do so would royally piss me off whether or not I actually wanted to marry. It pisses me off somewhat now and it affects me not at all. As to their reasons, I assume they are no different from those of the rest of us.

what if you made a silicone stap on injector penis; so they could pretend it was legitimately conceived?
I see bucks (pardon the pun!) in that!

😀 +1
Actually I think they already do have those, it's just that fertility clinics have no sense of fun and adventure.

Ban divorce! that will save the sanctimony of marriage!

If we outlaw divorce, only outlaws will have broken marriages. Or something. 😀

As far as raising kids, one man in the only gay couple I really know has kids by a previous marriage. Although as with most divorced men they live mostly with his ex-wife, they are marvelous kids, very well-adjusted, personable, more comfortable around adults than are most kids. (As someone said, if you've adjusted to having a gay dad, other social situations awkward for other kids are easy by comparison.) I don't know if there is any statistical evidence to the contrary - I tend to suspect most if not all such research in the area as intentionally biased to one side or the other from the start - but I've seen nothing in my admittedly quite limited experience that indicates that gays are on average worse parents.

 

[Bird222]

Progressives dont care. They have promoted behavior for half a century that leads to a 5 fold increase in the likelihood of poverty.

Actually progressives promote people using birth control to stop babies from being conceived because they know human beings are going to have sex regardless of what else is going on.

 

[waggy]

Disagree. The reason marriage exists is that the sexual intercourse of men and women regularly produces children. If it did not produce children, neither society nor the government would have much reason, let alone a valid reason, to regulate people’s emotional unions. (The government does not regulate non-marital friendships, no matter how intense they are.)

great! so ban people that can't have kids from getting married! no old people, no gays, no infertile people! and when you get to old or clipped etc you need to divorce!


hmm shit. i been clipped does that mean i can't get married? damnit.

 

[Bird222]

I suggest that if a woman can not care for her child, and is not married, she should get an abortion.

Problem solved.

But in the absence of this abortion, you don't want to have to provide for this child you helped conceive. Since it is here, who's going to take care of it, the government? This is getting off topic. Go back to the other thread and respond to my questions.

 

[nehalem256]

But in the absence of this abortion, you don't want to have to provide for this child you helped conceive. Since it is here, who's going to take care of it, the government? This is getting off topic. Go back to the other thread and respond to my questions.

Because I dont believe that women have a right to dictate to a man how is life will be lived.

You know the same basic right women claim.

 

[WHAMPOM]

As I recall from school she wanted to sit in the front, because the back was full. And after a long hard day she didnt feel like standing.

And, so I assume then if differentiating people is always wrong it is wrong to have separate bathrooms for men and women.



They are not acceptable as substitutes because gay people want society to pat them on the back. If it was about the rights civil unions would be acceptable. The only reason to want the name is because they want to force other people to recognize their unions as equally important.

What you remember is wrong, Parks was sitting in the "Black" seat and was told to get up and give it to a White man. There was no front seat for a Black person.

 

[Atreus21]

great! so ban people that can't have kids from getting married! no old people, no gays, no infertile people! and when you get to old or clipped etc you need to divorce!


hmm shit. i been clipped does that mean i can't get married? damnit.

Some couples that believe themselves to be infertile or intend not to have children end up having children. Government couldn't filter out applicants who are certain not to be able to have children without undue intrusion. Furthermore, we don't hold couples to other standards generally held to be eligibility criteria for marriage. Nobody believes that people should have to persuade the government that they really are capable of a deep emotional union or that they are likely to stick around to take care of an ill partner before getting legally married, because that would be ridiculous.

 

[cybrsage]

Having 10% or 15% of your taxpayer base be comprised of those who pay above-average tax rates on their above-average incomes their entires lives and don't even have state resource-draining kids sounds like a great deal.

Until you run out of new taxpayers.

Laws aren't made for the exception, they're made to be the rule. There's no point in coming up with improbable "ifs". This just happens to be a case in which secular reasons to have a law coincide with religious/traditional ones.

Sure they are, the exceptions are built into the law. For example, simply add "unless all parties to the union are sterile" to the end of the genetic distance requirement and you are done. It is rather simple to do and easy to enforce. Get your blood test and sterility test prior to being allowed to marry.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Some couples that believe themselves to be infertile or intend not to have children end up having children. Government couldn't filter out applicants who are certain not to be able to have children without undue intrusion. Furthermore, we don't hold couples to other standards generally held to be eligibility criteria for marriage. Nobody believes that people should have to persuade the government that they really are capable of a deep emotional union or that they are likely to stick around to take care of an ill partner before getting legally married, because that would be ridiculous.

Absolutely we can! Simply withhold most marriage benefits until the couple produces children.

It would never pass, though, because that's not what most people see marriage as about.

 

[soulcougher73]

Until you run out of new taxpayers.

This is the 2nd time youve said that. Why would we run out of taxpayers exactly? I was unaware if gays were allowed to marry that all hetro couples would become infertile. I may have to rethink my positiion on this one.

 

[HumblePie]

Disagree. The reason marriage exists is that the sexual intercourse of men and women regularly produces children. If it did not produce children, neither society nor the government would have much reason, let alone a valid reason, to regulate people’s emotional unions. (The government does not regulate non-marital friendships, no matter how intense they are.)

Uhh, producing children does not require marriage. Neither does raising them. Not at all.

Knowing whose child is yours as a "legitimate heir" is why marriage in every culture just about was invented. It was to know how to pass on wealth and property after one is deceased.

The government does not "regulate" marriage at all. They just ratify the choices people make in how they want their heirs to inherent after they die. Nothing more and nothing less. Which has nothing to do with friendships at all.

But keep pretending there is a deeper meaning to the term marriage if that is what floats your boat. Marriage is NOT a Christian thing at all. Nor is it the sole providence islam, jewish, hindu, or any other religion organization. It's a government tool and has always been that way.

 

[yllus]

Until you run out of new taxpayers.

Sure they are, the exceptions are built into the law. For example, simply add "unless all parties to the union are sterile" to the end of the genetic distance requirement and you are done. It is rather simple to do and easy to enforce. Get your blood test and sterility test prior to being allowed to marry.

Why would an increased number of homosexual citizenry lead to a zero birth rate?

Exceptions get built into the law when parties petition for that to occur. Pro-incest-if-both-parties-are-sterile petitioners are welcome to make their case to their representatives or the courts. I imagine that a truly fair court would have a difficult time denying their case.

But keep pretending there is a deeper meaning to the term marriage if that is what floats your boat. Marriage is NOT a Christian thing at all. Nor is it the sole providence islam, jewish, hindu, or any other religion organization. It's a government tool and has always been that way.

There are a number of Muslims who actually consider non-Islamic weddings to be invalid. The validity of marriage appears to differ solely based on what ancient book you happen to hold in high regard.

 

[Craig234]

Actually progressives promote people using birth control to stop babies from being conceived because they know human beings are going to have sex regardless of what else is going on.

And the right opposes teaching birth control, other than 'abstinence only' which greatly increases the rate of unwed pregnancy. Once again, progressives are right.

 

[jackstar7]

Larger societal blocks do not raise children. Parents do. And married parents do so better than unwed parents.

Loving parents do so better than assholes.

Doesn't change that marriage has nothing to do with raising children except for the transfer of familial wealth and debts...

Also, larger societal blocks DO raise children. Almost always have. Extended families, teachers... you really believe they don't?

 

[cybrsage]

Why would an increased number of homosexual citizenry lead to a zero birth rate?

Homosexuals routinely have a zero birth rate.

Exceptions get built into the law when parties petition for that to occur. Pro-incest-if-both-parties-are-sterile petitioners are welcome to make their case to their representatives or the courts. I imagine that a truly fair court would have a difficult time denying their case.

Why not just put it in there when the changes for homosexuals are made? Why cause the next fight while settling the current one?

There are a number of Muslims who actually consider non-Islamic weddings to be invalid. The validity of marriage appears to differ solely based on what ancient book you happen to hold in high regard.

I know this was not written to me, but this is why one has to limit their marriage discussion to a single nation at a time. Each nation has its own history involved. In the US, the religious institution of marriage was given legal powers - something which should never have been done (violates the seperation of church and state). Other countries have other backgrounds for marriage.

 

[HumblePie]

There are a number of Muslims who actually consider non-Islamic weddings to be invalid. The validity of marriage appears to differ solely based on what ancient book you happen to hold in high regard.

Only to the religious nuts. Muslims also have 24 hour marriage pacts. This is because you can't have "sex" if you aren't married by their laws. Punishable by death for the women at least.

If a woman does this then she is considered a massive slut though while the man is considered the Allah's best man or something stupid like that.


Again, marriage does not belong to any given religion. I don't care what your religious organization you belong to keeps espousing. It's flat wrong. Ancient greeks, egyptians, hindus, cannibals, and other ancient civilizations all had ways to designate people that wanted to be permanently paired off together. None of those people had anything to do with any "modern" religion we have in the world today.

 

[elitejp]

So you demand everyone else share your opinion? Your argument is like saying if one black person 'doesn't mind' segregation, he should vote for it because no one should care.

It's not just the government, it's the law, and it's society's discrimination.

What was wrong with Jews wearing stars so everyone knew who they were? Heck, they should have treated it like a privilege they could wear them, the whiners.

They shouldn't have cared what the government thought, just wear them, right?

I really dont see where your getting all uspet about my stance. I havent demanded a single gay person to become straight or to change their lifestyle. What we have here truly is a moral issue. And im morally opposed to it. Like I said earlier America is making its choice in what they want. Ive made mine. Its not like im out on the streets beating up gay people. Nor am I in their face telling them that their wrong. What we do have here is gays actively telling people how we are wrong and bigots for not agreeing with this act. Like I said im not trying to convince anyone. My first post in this thread was merely asking why gays thought it to be so important to be legally married? No one gave me an answer. I was just asked why I wanted to get legally married. The answer for me was due to religious reasons. If my religion didnt care if I got married or who i was with and who I slept with or how many people i slept with then I wouldnt care if the govt thought yay or nay of it.