Your comment regarding same-sex marriage would only be supported if you can prove that the homosexuals who would get married to another person of their sex and not have children would have had children otherwise.
Marriage Debate
- Thread starter Hardenbergh
- Start date
Your comment regarding same-sex marriage would only be supported if you can prove that the homosexuals who would get married to another person of their sex and not have children would have had children otherwise.
What evidence do you need?
Abortion kills babies. Same-sex marriages cannot procreate. The more either or both occur, the fewer babies will result.
No?
If you advocate acts which cannot produce or which kill children, children will not be produced.
No?
We have. We have also undergone tramatic culture shifts. As a result of such events, government has enacted the Naturalization Act, the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Burlingame Treaty, the Anti-Coolie Act, the Gentlemen’s Agreement, The Immigration Act of 1917, The Immigration Act of 1924, The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, The Immigration Reform and Control Act , The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.
I maintain that government has a role in population trends in this country, and that includes birth rates (which directly involves marriage).
Cleon
King of the Pod People
No.
Scot C. Trypal
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 708
That was my concern. To cite “a British medical journal” sends up red flags (not because it’s British, my fellow scientists across the Atlantic
). Then I’d worry someone made a mistake on one of these sites regarding the actual numbers or the way in which they were gathered, and it just got repeated like a game of grapevine. I could be wrong but I doubt it. I mean, 8 partners a year?! Who has the time, particularly if you’re in a committed relationship, “committed” or not?
We all should take great care when citing research on this subject; a lot of errors exist on both sides, (some intentional) because passions are high. I know I’ve been fooled before, and found many errors on the other side too.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
No. See Darat's post above. I'll add to it by pointing out that married gay couples would increase the number of suitable house holds for adopted and foster children, thus increasing procreation (using Zig's definition).
No. I don't see simply not producing children to be a problem.
Got any evidence for that?
No.
Scot C. Trypal
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 708
No, SSM does not make people gay; they'll be gay and act gay legally married or no. In fact gays are having more and more children, particularly because they are more likely to have multiple births due to the fertility treatments. Some of the largest families I know are headed by gays.
More SSM could arguably lead to more people being inclined add more children to the “culture of the West”, people from a group that would traditionally be genetic dead ends.
For example, I had a gay great uncle who married a woman; I think of him often. He produced no children, killed two people drunk driving, and died of cirrhosis. If he lived in my era, he'd more likely be a productive member of society raising kids. If I lived in his time, I'd more likely be a miserable drunk; useless, even harmful, to society, like him.
And perhaps if more homosexuals grew-up in the knowledge that they could be married, that they would not be discriminated by the state more homosexuals would decide they would like to have children.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
But why bother with marriage as a government institution at all? Why recognize its existence? What good is it?
A lot of people actually make that argument, but then they say that since they recognize heterosexual marriages, they should recognize homosexual ones, too. It strikes me as disingenuous. It's demanding more of something that someone thinks shouldn't exist at all.
As noted earlier, I would like to see any exampke of any document that described same sex marriage in the author's own culture, as opposed to saying, "In that land on the other side of the river, men marry men." The closest thing I've ever seen was some reference to a brief period in the late Roman Republic, and there wasn't any primary source documentation for that, just some seemingly authoritative secondary sources.
So, once SSM becomes legal and more numerous, even though those same gay people who might have previously married heterosexually and produced children, there will be more children, because they will be artificially inseminated (even though it may be a male-male SSM)?
Gee.......why didn't I figure that out!
No need to produce evidence. That's only required of me.
Wouldn't matter, anyway. Evidence only works if it is proof (which, of course, is impossible).
Of course! No doubt!
I.......believe!
What is it about "today" that eliminated your propensity to be an alcoholic?
I thought alcoholism was "genetic", not a matter of time.
I'm sure learning a lot....................
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Not at all. The argument goes that if the state is going to regulate marriage, it should not use descriminatory practices in doing so.
Not that this is my position, that's just the argument.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
So, what justification do you have that SSM's will not produce any new children?
The fact that, if the SSM involves two men, it is biologically impossible.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,622
There is no point in refuting your argument because your premise is flawed, moron. Are you actually proud to present arguments that are built on false premise?! You really do need to go take a forensics class.
Those of us that advocate allowing homosexuals to have the freedom to get married are talking about the real world, not the hypothetical world where the government takes interest in procreation just to satisfy your arguments.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,622
You claimed it was still going on, what happened for the last 16 years?!
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Scot C. Trypal
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 708
You know we do have “in my culture we have men marrying men and I want it stopped” and we also have “we caught some men joining in marriage and we had them burned to death”. We also have poetry, pottery, and so on describing SS unions openly, in cultures where marriage law really only was a matter of personal contracts and a gay male partner would have many more rights than any wife. I have book with reproductions and photographs of such things but know not where to find them online; I’ll look.
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
Oh, no! Hoards of homosexuals will suddenly marry and hugely impact all sorts of social organisations.
Let's put the "dramatic impact" myth to rest once and for all, using one of your own sources (PDF). It tells us that only a few percent of gay couples are likely to marry. We also know that gay people are only a few percent of the population.
Let's assume gay people consist of about 3% of the population. Let's further assume that about 3% of gay people are going to marry. That means healthcare and social security will experience an "impact" 0,09%. In absolute numbers that's an increase of 9 per 10 000. If that's what causes anything to be severly stressed, stagger and perhaps collapse then it is perhaps a good idea to reform them with or without same-sex marriage.
The problem with this claim is that the average homosexual relationship is irrelevant. What's relevant for homosexual marriage is the average homosexual marriage. Even if it is true that homosexual men are quite promiscuous, that does not prove that homosexual men who want to be married are also promiscuous.family.org via Hardenbergh said:
If we want to conclude anything about these claims, we'll either need a comparison of heterosexual relationships (including non-marriage) with homosexual relationships, or we need a comparison of heterosexual marriage with homosexual marriage.
Many Christian Democrats (the political equivalent of conservatives) in the Netherlands do believe that expanding marriage to include homosexuals strengthens marriage, even though this is not the official party view. They also believe that gay marriage encourages gay couples to be monogamous and they think it is very important to encourage particularly gay men to be monogamous, because "everyone knows they're often not". If you also believe it is a bad thing when gay men are promiscuous, tell us what you think is a good way to encourage them not to be.
BTW: The use of quotes around 'marriage' in 'homosexual marriage' is inappropriate, as marriage law in the Netherlands is open to same sex couples: pretending that it isn't really marriage is denying heterosexual marriage as well. The Netherlands also has a marriage equivalent like civil unions called "registered partnerships" and it has "cohabitation contracts", all open to people of all genders.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,622
My position is that the government should NOT recognize marriage at all. It does the government no good, but it does politicians a heck of alot of good. Bush won many votes last election over this issue.
Wrong, it's not disengenuous at all. If the government is going to give priviledges to a heterosexuals just for being heterosexual, that's wrong. The government should give the same privies to people of all sexual orientation.
I would like to see evidence that marriage was always between one man and one woman. It should also be noted that just because something has been in a certain state for a long time doesn't mean it's ok. Slavery was accepted throughout the world as an ok thing until modern times.