We want to incentivize marriage so poor people will marry and their kids, which they will have regardless, will grow up in two parent homes. The fact that they are poor says that they shouldn’t have kids.
What if they are gay and poor? I’m thinking firing squad?!
Shouldn’t? They are going to have kids.
1 Like
Now that’s extreme!
Good night folks.
And they are poor. Address the poverty and you don’t have to worry about single parent homes in the first place. You have it all backwards if you think a tax break will solve things for people who don’t pay any.
Also while we are thinking of the children we should think of the children. Like the fact that a 2010 study had a 0% abuse rate from lesbian households compared to 26%.
But at least the kids who are getting abused don’t have to worry about the vanishing straight people.
It’s not lost on me that we have an unmarried Catholic guy talking about the dangers of disappearing heterosexual people or declining births. You know the religion that keeps certain men from getting married and having babies!
Now I suppose we might have to wonder if any of these priests would actually have kids since most of them prefer forcing themselves on little boys but I digress.
/shrug.
Well, ok. Have a good night.
You too. I just thought it was an interesting point that the faith actually keeps people who could reproduce from doing it. If we are worried about declining population over time why would we want to keep over 400,000 priests (says google) from having the ability to do so?
It wasn’t always like that.
We? It’s a private religion. If men want to volunteer for celibacy that’s up to them. We’re not talking about being allowed to be gay (or not). We’re talking about the goverment elevating and recognizing gay relationships. If someone wanted to give the same sex a ring and consider themselves married, ordering their affairs to the extent other adult arrangements (say, life long bachelor roommates, or you, Z man, and myself) are limited and allowed, that’s up to them.
Could gays get married if only they could reproduce?
Your posts say otherwise. An awful lot of them talking about the horrors of declining future population. And yet you follow a religion that forces its leaders into not reproducing.
So on one hand it’s a huge deal this declining population and gays can’t have kids. On the other hand you support a faith that keeps over 400,000 men from having babies. It makes them the exact same as a gay couple when it comes to reproduction.
What if Catholicism spreads like wildfire and men join the priesthood in massive numbers? Could our population solve a massive explosion of Catholic popularity and priesthood?
That’s a fun hypothetical that has at least a plausible chance of happening unlike disappearing heteros.
You misunderstand my position still, for one.
Those are private voluntarily arrangements. The state actively forcing people to have sex/marry, who voluntarily refrain, is not something I can support. That’s rape.
The discussion is about the government (so, on behalf of the society) actively supporting a relationship that has no inherent value to society.
Again, the chance of my hypothetical occuring is not the point of the hypothetical. The chance that sunlight disappears is also remote. We can still illustrate its value with a hypothetical.
Well it has been all over the map. We spent forever talking about disappearing straight people. We moved to toys and sunlight or something like that I didn’t go back up and look. I know you and pfury went back and forth about the declining population or something.
Now you don’t mind having a belief that through indoctrination and misinformation prohibits a large amount of men from having kids. It is good to see a Catholic understand the definition of rape though even if it was not my point. I’ve always known you were one of the good ones and I’ve said so often even though we don’t agree on much. Except I don’t think either of us like Trump much.
My position is the same through out. My position dealing with a positive state action can’t be compared with private voluntary lifestyles.
Thank you. I think highly of you too.
What value did you illustrate? The value of reproduction or of marriage?
At this point if you don’t know, I think we just have to disagree.