Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

[Priceless]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I think that's short for the traditional ethnic group(s) contained in much if not all of Europe. Which I'm sure you knew already.

Ah. When talking about ethnicity I usually see the word "Caucasian" used. "White Europe" and "White America" have a slightly different connotation. Which I'm sure you knew already.

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

If you can't see the possible correlation between fact of the demographic decline in Europe and the possibility that the U.S. could at least theoreticaly have something similar happen, then, ah, I'd suggest not weighing in on things like this. It's a pretty obvious and simple point.

Whew, good thing I wasn't arguing agaist such an obvious point, then. Of course something similar could happen in the US. A) So what? and B) How is that in any way, shape, or form related to gay marriage? That's where I *don't* see a possible correlation, so I'd be very interested to see you or Flagdude to take a crack at it.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Ah. When talking about ethnicity I usually see the word "Caucasian" used. "White Europe" and "White America" have a slightly different connotation. Which I'm sure you knew already.

So you think joecct was talking about European neo-Nazi demographics? That's silly.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Whew, good thing I wasn't arguing agaist such an obvious point, then. Of course something similar could happen in the US. A) So what? and B) How is that in any way, shape, or form related to gay marriage? That's where I *don't* see a possible correlation, so I'd be very interested to see you or Flagdude to take a crack at it.

You've never heard of childbearing either, eh? I really don't know when to take your seriously or not. You say something silly and then get all serious and then back and forth.

Really, you could have done better than the zero population strawman you tried to knock down.

[Priceless]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

So you think joecct was talking about European neo-Nazi demographics? That's silly.

No, I don't think he was talking about neo-Nazis.

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

You've never heard of childbearing either, eh? I really don't know when to take your seriously or not. You say something silly and then get all serious and then back and forth.

Yes, Bob - clearly the logical conculsion from all of this is that I've never heard of childbearing. That's a windmill, not even a strawman.

Serious question, I promise:

Why do you think legalizing gay marriage would reduce childbearing?

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Yes, Bob - clearly the logical conculsion from all of this is that I've never heard of childbearing. That's a windmill, not even a strawman.

Serious question, I promise:

Why do you think legalizing gay marriage would reduce childbearing?

In this particular instance that's not the question to ask (though I understand why you'd try to spin it that way), but whether a society might want to place greater value on relationships that can biologically lead to production of the next generation of the society over relationships that cannot. But, that's an very long touted and discussed point of view that I really don't believe you're not aware of (setting aside whether one agrees or disagrees for the moment).

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

No, I don't think he was talking about neo-Nazis.

Progress!

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

In this particular instance that's not the question to ask (though I understand why you'd try to spin it that way), but whether a society might want to place greater value on relationships that can biologically lead to production of the next generation of the society over relationships that cannot. But, that's an very long touted and discussed point of view that I really don't believe you're not aware of (setting aside whether one agrees or disagrees for the moment).

No, that IS the question to ask. Flagdude postulated that we shouln't allow gay marriage because we need to think about "the creation of the future of the country." So now I'm asking why gay marriage would have anything to do with birth rates - a 100% relevant question to his assertion.

If society wanted to put extra "value" on childbearing, there are infinite possibilities for accomplishing that goal directly which are not mutually exclusive with gay marriage: increase child tax credits, mandate longer maternity leaves, provide more subsidized child care. Etc., etc. How would allowing gay marriage preclude us from doing any of those things to put extra value on childbearing?

[Priceless]

Progress!

If pro is the opposite of con what is the opposite of progress?

[SJHovey]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

In this particular instance that's not the question to ask (though I understand why you'd try to spin it that way), but whether a society might want to place greater value on relationships that can biologically lead to production of the next generation of the society over relationships that cannot. But, that's an very long touted and discussed point of view that I really don't believe you're not aware of (setting aside whether one agrees or disagrees for the moment).

Bob, I've always liked reading your posts, but you seriously need to sit down and re-read this post, and whether it makes any logical sense.

Recognizing gay marriage in no way takes away the value that society as a whole may place on marriages that produce children. Not unless we assume there are some people out there who, without the recognition of gay marriage, would by default choose a hetero marriage (because they just really want to get married to someone?). Or unless we decided we're just going to force gays to enter into hetero marriages and have kids.

The impact of gay marriage recognition will be zero on the number of hetero marriages that occur.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Bob, I've always liked reading your posts, but you seriously need to sit down and re-read this post, and whether it makes any logical sense.

Recognizing gay marriage in no way takes away the value that society as a whole may place on marriages that produce children. Not unless we assume there are some people out there who, without the recognition of gay marriage, would by default choose a hetero marriage (because they just really want to get married to someone?). Or unless we decided we're just going to force gays to enter into hetero marriages and have kids.

The impact of gay marriage recognition will be zero on the number of hetero marriages that occur.

Really this is all part of a much larger conversation regarding the decline and deemphasis of the nuclear family. Mathwise, you're probably largely correct. But, this is just another brick in the wall of saying that the traditional family of two married parents with children has little or nothing special and valuable about it. This is a trend that's been going on for a long time in America, and this is just the latest manifestation. And our society is reaping the negative consequences of this in spades. The signals we send to our children as to what is important or not important in this country are just horrible.

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Really this is all part of a much larger conversation regarding the decline and deemphasis of the nuclear family. Mathwise, you're probably largely correct. But, this is just another brick in the wall of saying that the traditional family of two married parents with children has little or nothing special and valuable about it. This is a trend that's been going on for a long time in America, and this is just the latest manifestation. And our society is reaping the negative consequences of this in spades. The signals we send to our children as to what is important or not important in this country are just horrible.

How can you say on one hand that we should extol the virtues of a family with two married parrents and kids, and then on the other that we should deny that option to an entire segment of the population? According to this study by the UCLA law school, there are ~125,000 gay housholds that are currently raising children. By legalizing gay marriage, we have an opportunity to allow literally 10s of thousands of currently co-habiting households to become new "families of two married parents with children." That doesn't even account for the addtional gay people who might choose the familiy route if gay marriage is assured - the 125,000 existing households with kids are generally couples who've made that choice even without gay marriage.

It's rather odd that you fight so vehemently agasint something you say you are for...

[5mn_Major]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

This is a trend that's been going on for a long time in America, and this is just the latest manifestation.

This is correct...just over 200 years to be exact.

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

How can you say on one hand that we should extol the virtues of a family with two married parrents and kids, and then on the other that we should deny that option to an entire segment of the population? According to this study by the UCLA law school, there are ~125,000 gay housholds that are currently raising children. By legalizing gay marriage, we have an opportunity to allow literally 10s of thousands of currently co-habiting households to become new "families of two married parents with children." That doesn't even account for the addtional gay people who might choose the familiy route if gay marriage is assured - the 125,000 existing households with kids are generally couples who've made that choice even without gay marriage.

It's rather odd that you fight so vehemently agasint something you say you are for...

Exactly. Heterosexual serial monogamists who get divorced 3 times or have children with 4 different women have basically taken a dump on the institution of marriage....but all some people care about is protecting it from TEH GAYS!!