Non religious reasons to oppose gay marriage

[SMOGZINN]

And the rate of poverty for single parents is 5 times that for married couples. :hmm:

No, the rate of poverty for single parents is 5 times that of multi-partner parents. The state of being married has nothing to do with it.

 

[nehalem256]

No, the rate of poverty for single parents is 5 times that of multi-partner parents. The state of being married has nothing to do with it.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032011/pov/new07_100_01.htm

From the census

Married couples w/children: 8.8%
Single Father: 24.2%
Single Mother: 40.7%

So unless married couples includes multi-partner parents. That number appears to be missing.

 

[Throckmorton]

It doesn't matter whether gay and straight marriages are equal

 

[Ninjahedge]

You all are replying to n256?

Hasn't he proven to be a recalcitrant spam troll already?

 

[SMOGZINN]

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032011/pov/new07_100_01.htm

From the census

Married couples w/children: 8.8%
Single Father: 24.2%
Single Mother: 40.7%

So unless married couples includes multi-partner parents. That number appears to be missing.

Since the Family Total equals the Single Father + Single Mothers + Married Couples, that would tell us that the non-married couples are missing from that statistic. So, we can once again tell nothing about if being married actually has any meaning to poverty levels.

 

[soulcougher73]

So you are in favor of incestuous marriage? And polygamy? And object-marriage?

Im ok with polygamy but not the other two. Any object isnt a living being so it cant give consent. Incest is just bad for people.

 

[soulcougher73]

You demand others accept your view as that which must be used. You are as bad as those you decry.

Again. Have you noticed m views are non disciminitory while your views are? When you can grasp that than we can talk. Until then go on with your bad self and treat other humans as 2nd class to yourself.

 

[alzan]

Wait a minute...

Only men with at least 75% Irish heritage and women with 75% French heritage should be able to marry...

I'm all Irish and my wife is all French but we'll abide by a major portion being included...

The rest of you can be partners or some such....

It is obvious that Christ was Irish... maybe a bit French and I can't help if he was a confused Jew... but he did say not to be unequally yoked.... and you all are quite unequal.

I'm 64% Irish and 33% French; my wife is 44% Irish and 56% French. Clearly we have enough between us to be married. Or are we screwed? (Well if we are then at least we're screwing)

 

[Bird222]

I thought this was covered earlier. Women used to be considered property of their husband; their consent wasnt needed. So logically a man marrying his couch, which is already his property, is acceptable under the same constraints.

It is only liberal bigotry that demands that both sides be able to consent :\

You all are replying to n256?

Hasn't he proven to be a recalcitrant spam troll already?

Yeah, we are being trolled.

 

[soulcougher73]

I thought this was covered earlier. Women used to be considered property of their husband; their consent wasnt needed. So logically a man marrying his couch, which is already his property, is acceptable under the same constraints.

It is only liberal bigotry that demands that both sides be able to consent :\

So you an advocate of object marriage. Glad we cleared that up.

 

[Bird222]

Incest is just bad for people.

Tell that to the Old Testament.

 

[soulcougher73]

What we need is to disentangle government from religion and have them stop doing marriages and only do civil unions.

No what we need to do is untangle your interpretation of marriage from religion. Marriage is not a religious construct. They mearly adapted it to their beliefs. It existed long before the bible.

 

[soulcougher73]

And the rate of poverty for single parents is 5 times that for married couples. :hmm:

You know you could drop the word "married" from that and it would still be the same. Marriage has nothing to do with poverty or raising a child.

2 incomes is always better than one. everyone knows this.

 

[soulcougher73]

Tell that to the Old Testament.

Assuming the old testament is true. Than we are already screwed. We just dont know it

 

[nehalem256]

Again. Have you noticed m views are non disciminitory while your views are? When you can grasp that than we can talk. Until then go on with your bad self and treat other humans as 2nd class to yourself.

Have you noticed that your previous post shows you are discriminatory

Im ok with polygamy but not the other two. Any object isnt a living being so it cant give consent. Incest is just bad for people.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Im ok with polygamy but not the other two. Any object isnt a living being so it cant give consent. Incest is just bad for people.

I'm obviously okay with poly-marriage (of which polygamy is just one type) considering that I'm in a polyamourous relationship.

AFAIK the science does not really support incest being all that bad for people. While I personally find it repugnant, I don't think the genetic argument actually holds much water. If I remember correctly, the rate of genetic problems that come about from incest is not significantly higher until you get into 3rd or 4th generation incest. If that is true, I don't think that it should be illegal either.

I've not really considered object marriage, and I'm not really sure what object marriage would even mean. I think it is something I would have to consider before I could give any sort of informed opinion on it, but at first glance I can't see how it could harm anyone. In general I'm against laws meant to protect people from themselves, so I would probably fall on the same side of this.

 

[nehalem256]

You know you could drop the word "married" from that and it would still be the same. Marriage has nothing to do with poverty or raising a child.

2 incomes is always better than one. everyone knows this.

Sure then lets compare just "Only one working family member" families

Married: 18.8
Single Father: 19.4
Single Mother: 33.3

Still almost halves the rate of poverty.

 

[werepossum]

You know you could drop the word "married" from that and it would still be the same. Marriage has nothing to do with poverty or raising a child.

2 incomes is always better than one. everyone knows this.

Sometimes marriage has everything to do with poverty. If a low income couple is living together, the mother or custodial father gets a lot of government loot that a married couple (counting both incomes) would not get. That's one major reason for the decline of marriage, it often cuts off Uncle Daddy.

It's the opposite for a gay couple where only one works. Without the benefit of legalized marriage, that one earner pays more income tax than he or she would if able to claim a spousal deduction. If the wage earner is also the custodial parent the effect can be doubled if his or her income cuts off Uncle Daddy's ante for a one-parent family but would not for a two-parent family. Poverty levels being set by family size I'm guessing it's quite possible for a single wage earner parent to qualify for a particular chunk of welfare with a spouse but not as a head of household; I have not verified that so YMMV.

 

[cybrsage]

Again. Have you noticed m views are non disciminitory while your views are? When you can grasp that than we can talk. Until then go on with your bad self and treat other humans as 2nd class to yourself.

You still demand that your view be the one others are forced to use while simultaneously saying it is horrible for people to demand that their view be the one others are forced to use.

When shown, instead of realizing your error, you double down on your fail.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Smog,

It is easier to say "don't" than to say "don't for the third generation because you have an increased risk of recessives becoming dominant and causing birth defects yadda yadda yadda"

Think of society like a 3 year old kid. KISS or you will just be talking to someone who is thinking about something completely different.


Poly marriage is just a bit difficult. It has only worked in poly-one-sided kind of societies. You poly too much and you get communes, which get awfully hard to track lineage and other problems. In today's society the problem would be more along the line of financial, especially with both men and women able to earn their own way.

You also get into our own perverse contradictory instincts of "spreading the gene pool" and "keeping what you've got". Many people have no problem sleeping with more than one person, but few are willing to share.


But, OT...

 

[cybrsage]

I've not really considered object marriage, and I'm not really sure what object marriage would even mean. I think it is something I would have to consider before I could give any sort of informed opinion on it, but at first glance I can't see how it could harm anyone. In general I'm against laws meant to protect people from themselves, so I would probably fall on the same side of this.

Object marriage is where you marry a non-human thing, such as your car or your dog. It is not allowed due to marriage being a legal contract and informed consent must be provided by all parties involved. A non-human (or a human below a legally determinated age of consent) cannot give this informed consent.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Smog,

It is easier to say "don't" than to say "don't for the third generation because you have an increased risk of recessives becoming dominant and causing birth defects yadda yadda yadda"

Think of society like a 3 year old kid. KISS or you will just be talking to someone who is thinking about something completely different.

This is a reasonably good argument, and probably enough to keep the laws as they stand on this topic. I think if it was a big enough problem society could find a solution that would work. But it simply is such a small minority that it does not seem to be worth the effort.

Poly marriage is just a bit difficult.

I agree. Our laws currently are build around the assumption that there is exactly two people in a relationship. It would take a major overhaul of many laws to change it.

It has only worked in poly-one-sided kind of societies. You poly too much and you get communes, which get awfully hard to track lineage and other problems. In today's society the problem would be more along the line of financial, especially with both men and women able to earn their own way.

There are societies where poly works with out it being hierarchical, but those societies are
very different then ours, and would not be easy to adopt. I think that poly marriage is something that our society will have to address in the future, as our numbers are getting substantially larger, and I think we can find solutions. But for now, I think the poly community needs to let the national discussion remain on same-sex marriage, and only ask for decriminalization of multi-partner relationships.

But, OT...

I agree. This will be my last post on this subject here. If you would like to continue talking about it, create a new thread and we will pick it up there.

Object marriage is where you marry a non-human thing, such as your car or your dog. It is not allowed due to marriage being a legal contract and informed consent must be provided by all parties involved. A non-human (or a human below a legally determinated age of consent) cannot give this informed consent.

But at the same time we don't require a non-human object to give consent for anything else. The cow obviously didn't consent to being slaughtered for it's meat. So, the question is, IMHO, is two way consent something that is so inherent to marriage that to remove it would invalidate the concept.

 

[soulcougher73]

You still demand that your view be the one others are forced to use while simultaneously saying it is horrible for people to demand that their view be the one others are forced to use.

When shown, instead of realizing your error, you double down on your fail.

I see you still haven't grasped it yet. It's okay. Not everyone is born average.

So lets see. We can either force people to accept something that discriminates other people or we can force people to accept something that doesnt discriminate other people . Tough call.

 

[jackstar7]

Have you noticed that your previous post shows you are discriminatory

Do you understand that having rational standards is the foundation of worthwhile opinions? He's not tolerant to a fault. He's rationally tolerant of things that don't impose on his freedom and further, he champions the freedoms of others in the face of irrational bigotry.

Get a better counterpoint to someone pointing out that you are intolerant... or just STFU about it. Please.

 

[nehalem256]

Do you understand that having rational standards is the foundation of worthwhile opinions? He's not tolerant to a fault. He's rationally tolerant of things that don't impose on his freedom and further, he champions the freedoms of others in the face of irrational bigotry.

Get a better counterpoint to someone pointing out that you are intolerant... or just STFU about it. Please.

So since he is opposed to discrimination against groups liberals care about he is opposed to discrimination.

Got it.