Good to see you too Tirib
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I was under the impression that enjoying significant tax, employment, government, medical, estate and death benefits without providing the reciprocal compensation of a socially favored nuclear family unit, social stability, and the children to further stabilize the above mentioned society and fund it via their own taxation, was indeed something that affected me and the rest of society.
I should probably just shut my bigoted hole, though. [/quote]
So how “socially favoured” is your mixed marriage in Japan? Based on what you’ve told us about Japanese culture, you haven’t produced a “socially favoured” child or family. [/quote]
*Nuclear family unit? Check
*Children? Check (when my next son is born in August, we will actually be ABOVE the necessary average amount of children needed to insure population growth…a BIG problem here currently, with our socialized infrastructure)
*Citizen children who will eventually provide much needed taxes to the ever growing pool of retirees here? Check
Not sure what point you were trying to make with this. If I “married” a Japanese man I would be privy to a whole host of quite costly benefits WITHOUT providing the essential, reciprocal children necessary to perpetually fund such an arrangement.
And that’s not even the only good reason I have.
If is a slippery slope indeed exists, why is it none of the socially progressive European countries haven’t legalized it?
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I was under the impression that enjoying significant tax, employment, government, medical, estate and death benefits without providing the reciprocal compensation of a socially favored nuclear family unit, social stability, and the children to further stabilize the above mentioned society and fund it via their own taxation, was indeed something that affected me and the rest of society.
I should probably just shut my bigoted hole, though. [/quote]
Do you also believe that divorce should be illegal as well? After all, if your argument against gay marriage is that it doesn’t create a socially stable nuclear family unit, then you must also be opposed to the legality of divorce, which has done far more damage to the family unit than gay marriage. [/quote]
I think it should be harder to get divorced, and certainly more socially unacceptable, but I fail to see how making it ILLEGAL is in any way equivalent to NOT wanting free benefits given to a group who doesn’t deserve them. If I’m not mistaken, most of the benefits of marriage disappear upon the dissolution of the marriage contract.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Is the slope really all that slippery if I come to you, society, and say, “I love these two women and they love me and each other. All we want are the same ‘rights’ afforded other consenting adults. After all, unlike gay marriage polygamy has a very long rich history of being socially acceptable as well as completely legitimate. Please don’t make us second class citizens. Please.”[/quote]
Then why aren’t people trying to do away with all marriage in the first place? Replace this thread with regular marriage and your quote above with gay marriage and you’ve got the same argument. The idea of marriage has already made its way into our laws so its a little to late to take that back, now its time to extend them to cover everyone.
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I was under the impression that enjoying significant tax, employment, government, medical, estate and death benefits without providing the reciprocal compensation of a socially favored nuclear family unit, social stability, and the children to further stabilize the above mentioned society and fund it via their own taxation, was indeed something that affected me and the rest of society.
I should probably just shut my bigoted hole, though. [/quote]
Do you also believe that divorce should be illegal as well? After all, if your argument against gay marriage is that it doesn’t create a socially stable nuclear family unit, then you must also be opposed to the legality of divorce, which has done far more damage to the family unit than gay marriage. [/quote]
A shitty family is always worse then having a divorce.
[/quote]
Perhaps, but what makes for a “shitty family”? If it’s a abusive family i’d agree, but if it’s a family that all love each other, there is no abuse, and it’s a relatively stable family unit, would you call that a “shitty family”?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I was under the impression that enjoying significant tax, employment, government, medical, estate and death benefits without providing the reciprocal compensation of a socially favored nuclear family unit, social stability, and the children to further stabilize the above mentioned society and fund it via their own taxation, was indeed something that affected me and the rest of society.
I should probably just shut my bigoted hole, though. [/quote]
Do you also believe that divorce should be illegal as well? After all, if your argument against gay marriage is that it doesn’t create a socially stable nuclear family unit, then you must also be opposed to the legality of divorce, which has done far more damage to the family unit than gay marriage. [/quote]
I think it should be harder to get divorced, and certainly more socially unacceptable, but I fail to see how making it ILLEGAL is in any way equivalent to NOT wanting free benefits given to a group who doesn’t deserve them. If I’m not mistaken, most of the benefits of marriage disappear upon the dissolution of the marriage contract.
[/quote]
Right, but it seems like one of the major arguments against gay marriage (and one you mentioned) is that is doesn’t create a nuclear family unit and that it therefore erodes the sanctity of marriage. If that is the case, then why isn’t there a huge outcry against divorce being legal as divorce has done far more to directly destroy family units than gay marriage. Just wondering why?
And please explain why homosexuals don’t deserve the same rights as heterosexuals?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I was under the impression that enjoying significant tax, employment, government, medical, estate and death benefits without providing the reciprocal compensation of a socially favored nuclear family unit, social stability, and the children to further stabilize the above mentioned society and fund it via their own taxation, was indeed something that affected me and the rest of society.
I should probably just shut my bigoted hole, though. [/quote]
So how “socially favoured” is your mixed marriage in Japan? Based on what you’ve told us about Japanese culture, you haven’t produced a “socially favoured” child or family. [/quote]
*Nuclear family unit? Check
*Children? Check (when my next son is born in August, we will actually be ABOVE the necessary average amount of children needed to insure population growth…a BIG problem here currently, with our socialized infrastructure)
*Citizen children who will eventually provide much needed taxes to the ever growing pool of retirees here? Check
Not sure what point you were trying to make with this. If I “married” a Japanese man I would be privy to a whole host of quite costly benefits WITHOUT providing the essential, reciprocal children necessary to perpetually fund such an arrangement.
And that’s not even the only good reason I have. [/quote]
I am asking you whether mixed marriages and mixed children are something that is “socially favoured” in Japan. Isn’t there deep seated racism and xenophobia in Japan? Then by extension, isn’t your marriage and your children not meeting your criteria?
Also do you think two childless 55 year olds should be allowed to get married? I mean they would be getting a host of benefits without producing children.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
…The idea of marriage has already made its way into our laws so its a little to late to take that back, now its time to extend them to cover everyone.
[/quote]
Yes, even for polygamists. Right?
[/quote]
Right, nothing wrong with them either.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
…The idea of marriage has already made its way into our laws so its a little to late to take that back, now its time to extend them to cover everyone.
[/quote]
Yes, even for polygamists. Right?
[/quote]
Right, nothing wrong with them either.[/quote]
So you’re all for me and my 159 concubines getting hitched?[/quote]
Well it would sure save you some money. Paying 159 concubines has got to get expensive
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
…Right, but it seems like one of the major arguments against gay marriage (and one you mentioned) is that is doesn’t create a nuclear family unit and that it therefore erodes the sanctity of marriage. If that is the case, then why isn’t there a huge outcry against divorce being legal as divorce has done far more to directly destroy family units than gay marriage. Just wondering why?..
[/quote]
If you’ll go back a few short decades there indeed was a huge outcry against no-fault divorce.
It was all but drowned out by those who laughed at slippery slope arguments.
Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand.
Twain[/quote]
True, I just find it interesting that there are tons of threads here about the immorality of gay marriage, but almost none about the immorality of divorce. Just wondering why one topic gets so much attention while the other gets almost none.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:<<< immorality of divorce. >>>[/quote]Divorce is a symptom. Detroit is an economically, socially, morally and literally conflagrated wasteland. Very little divorce here because nobody gets married.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:<<< Because we are governed by laws, the discussion of whether or not gay marriage should be legal must be one of legal matters, not of moral matters. >>>[/quote]This is untrue. Just the opposite. We were founded as a nation of private morality that facilitated public liberty. We agreed on what that morality was. To a man the delegates to our first constitutional convention professed some form of Christianity. Most my exact form actually. It is simply and demonstrably false to deny that. Those men would weep if they could see that what they left us is being perverted to countenance the union of members of the same sex as a “marriage” and potential “family”.
Now you can say that we’ve gone beyond their quaint puritanical intolerance, but then that ain’t the United States anymore because that IS what we were founded on and that IS what made our limited civil government possible.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sir Slam Bam the Ethiopian Hawaiian Man[/quote]
The “Ethiopian” instead of Kenyan was the funniest part.
I couldn’t tell if you were being purposeful or not though. lol maybe that makes it funnier.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I was under the impression that enjoying significant tax, employment, government, medical, estate and death benefits without providing the reciprocal compensation of a socially favored nuclear family unit, social stability, and the children to further stabilize the above mentioned society and fund it via their own taxation, was indeed something that affected me and the rest of society.
I should probably just shut my bigoted hole, though. [/quote]
So how “socially favoured” is your mixed marriage in Japan? Based on what you’ve told us about Japanese culture, you haven’t produced a “socially favoured” child or family. [/quote]
*Nuclear family unit? Check
*Children? Check (when my next son is born in August, we will actually be ABOVE the necessary average amount of children needed to insure population growth…a BIG problem here currently, with our socialized infrastructure)
*Citizen children who will eventually provide much needed taxes to the ever growing pool of retirees here? Check
Not sure what point you were trying to make with this. If I “married” a Japanese man I would be privy to a whole host of quite costly benefits WITHOUT providing the essential, reciprocal children necessary to perpetually fund such an arrangement.
And that’s not even the only good reason I have. [/quote]
Kinda a wishy-washy answer that skipped his point though.
Question one: How long have you been here? (why do you speak Japanese?)
Question two: When are you going home?
lol