Religious Controversies: Homosexuality

[cueball]

Sloth: My responses pulled out of that beast. Sorry. I don’t think they need to be embedded to be understood.

How exactly, as far as prosperity is concerned, does the weakening of state recognized (not religion recognized) marriage directly degrade our society? It seems your main concern is with degradation of the classic model of marriage more than how it actually affects the prosperity of our citizens as a whole.

And you feel then that the current orderly propagation of our children within intact homes will diminish because gays have a state allowed marriage? I’m not sure people in great numbers will suddenly or progressively stop marrying and raising kids in a traditional 2-parent home just because gay people are now allowed to marry.

Now, if you want to talk about the institution being degraded in a religious aspect, I would agree a lot more with you.

A question since you feel (I assume) that it’s the state recognition that makes the institution so important, Do you feel our society would not be where it is today if marriage historically was ONLY recognized by the church? if so, why?

[Makavali]

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
So you feel that without marriage being recognized by the state, our future citizen’s will be less prosperous?[/quote]

Yes. Even just the weakening of state recognized marriage has caused harm. It has changed the attitude of what marriage is.

How exactly, as far as prosperity is concerned, does the weakening of state recognized (not religion recognized) marriage directly degrade our society? It seems your main concern is with degradation of the classic model of marriage more than how it actually affects the prosperity of our citizens as a whole.

I would imagine a lot of successful people from single mothers might argue with that.

Ok.

Are you saying that the ideal scenario is that everyone marry and have children? Are citizens who choose to stay unmarried but are productive in other ways in our society, doing us and the next generations a disservice?

The ideal is a prestigious, exclusive, upon-a-pedestal, institution for men and women to aspire to. The implicit (since nature handles the rest) payoff is the orderly propogation and raising of our children within intact homes. Nothing needs to be added to my statement.

And you feel then that the current orderly propagation of our children within intact homes will diminish because gays have a state allowed marriage? I’m not sure people in great numbers will suddenly or progressively stop marrying and raising kids in a traditional 2-parent home just because gay people are now allowed to marry.

Now, if you want to talk about the institution being degraded in a religious aspect, I would agree a lot more with you.

State-recognition should never be seen as a recognition of individual rights. Indeed, the consideration of the individual is placed under greater considerations. The family, the community, the state, the nation. Marriage is not an institution for expressing individual rights/autonomy. There’s body piercing, for that.

Do you feel that allowing gay marriage will harm us as a society as a whole?

[quote]State recognized, most definitely. Why is it that it’s largely the graying, barren, declining west considering diluting (in a number pf cases, has already diluted) the very institution which has already been eroded? It’s a sure sign of just how broken we are.

It is not so much that non discriminatory state-marriage of any shape will lead us down the slippery slope, we’re already headed down it. Perhaps, already at the very bottom, in fact. Where we should be making our way despite the effort back up the slope despite effort, in order to reinvigorate the most important institution a nation has, we’re electing (have elected) to anchor ourselves down. When do we wake up and realize progress has become regress?[/quote][/quote]

A question since you feel (I assume) that it’s the state recognition that makes the institution so important, Do you feel our society would not be where it is today if marriage historically was ONLY recognized by the church? if so, why?

Edit: attempt to fix quoting, sorry.
[/quote]

Is this what you wanted?

[cueball]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Is this what you wanted?[/quote]

Yessir, it is. This happens to me from time to time and I’m not sure where I erred.

[Makavali]

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Is this what you wanted?[/quote]

Yessir, it is. This happens to me from time to time and I’m not sure where I erred.[/quote]

Bleh, I don’t think I got it quite right either, it looks like some of the stuff you said was said by Sloth instead. Quote tags are a tricky beast.

[cueball]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Is this what you wanted?[/quote]

Yessir, it is. This happens to me from time to time and I’m not sure where I erred.[/quote]

Bleh, I don’t think I got it quite right either, it looks like some of the stuff you said was said by Sloth instead. Quote tags are a tricky beast.

:([/quote]

Well, I pulled my responses out to another post. Thanks for the attempt!

[Sloth]

[quote]cueball wrote:

How exactly, as far as prosperity is concerned, does the weakening of state recognized (not religion recognized) marriage directly degrade our society?[/quote]

Wealthy people can afford broken homes (though, they may still develop some social dysfuntions). Working class people can’t. The size of the welfare state today alone testifies to how the weakening of marriage in the public mind (with state recognized establishing an incentivized model for both theist and secular) has affected the prosperity of this nation. Only a couple of weeks ago did I see on the cover of ebony magazine something like “Where are our fathers?” Guess what, whites are increasingly asking the same question, too. And who replaces daddy? The nanny state or a warden. That’s how it affect prosperity.

State recognized marriage isn’t a social club. Or, some institution to provide all manners of arrangements and relationships equal status. It is not about individual rights. It is, in fact, the opposite. If it was about individual rights, it wouldn’t even be recognized. No more so than any other private relationship. Buy some rings and write up a contract. Voila.

And you feel then that the current orderly propagation of our children within intact homes will diminish because gays have a state allowed marriage? I’m not sure people in great numbers will suddenly or progressively stop marrying and raising kids in a traditional 2-parent home just because gay people are now allowed to marry.

It will most certainly become an Equal Rights club, which isn’t what the institution is supposed to provide. It’ll will be diluted and spread thin. Instead of a pedestal (however much remains), it’ll be a curb one could trip over for not seeing. Low and wide.

Of course, we’ve already fallen so far there might not be much room for further descent. What it will absolutely do is make saving marriage impossible. There will be no reversing the erosion already present. Now, if it doesn’t become an equal rights club, then it puts the lie to state recognized gay marriage vs discrimination. Which is why I’ve challened–an have only received silence–the anti-bigots to define what a non-discriminatory state recognized marriage will look like.

Now, if you want to talk about the institution being degraded in a religious aspect, I would agree a lot more with you.

Not certain I follow.

[quote]A question since you feel (I assume) that it’s the state recognition that makes the institution so important, Do you feel our society would not be where it is today if marriage historically was ONLY recognized by the church? if so, why?

[/quote]

Yes, because our society is much more secular. The state is needed to provide a firm, non-apologetic, and secular social model. One man and woman. Why? Because it’s the smallest unit capable of naturally producing and raising it’s own offspring. No micro-managing necessary. No extraordinary measures needed. The birds and the bees. So, we single out this arrangement, out of ALL (not just two gays in an intimate relationship, all) relationships, to hold up and incentivize. Everyone else can pass out promise rings and get lawyers.

[OTS1]

This isn’t all that complicated. There is a prohibition in Leviticus against man lying with man as he lies with a woman.

You believe that this scripture is literal truth, or that you have the right to interpret, or that this is just a really old book.

Once you’ve come to a decision on that, you decide what role you want Levitical prohibition to play in government.

For me: The bible in general, and Leviticus in particular (due to it’s late addition) is subject to human interpretation. No matter how you interpret, I don’t believe that the government should be involved in this debate.

As far as “gay marriage” - Marriage should not take place in the public sphere. A civil union between any two people should be entered into by anyone who feels like it (even multiple parties as far as I’m concerned). Marriage is a religious term, and should be defined however you and your personal religious beliefs are comfortable.

[drewh]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

How exactly, as far as prosperity is concerned, does the weakening of state recognized (not religion recognized) marriage directly degrade our society?[/quote]

Wealthy people can afford broken homes (though, they may still develop some social dysfuntions). Working class people can’t. The size of the welfare state today alone testifies to how the weakening of marriage in the public mind (with state recognized establishing an incentivized model for both theist and secular) has affected the prosperity of this nation. Only a couple of weeks ago did I see on the cover of ebony magazine something like “Where are our fathers?” Guess what, whites are increasingly asking the same question, too. And who replaces daddy? The nanny state or a warden. That’s how it affect prosperity.

State recognized marriage isn’t a social club. Or, some institution to provide all manners of arrangements and relationships equal status. It is not about individual rights. It is, in fact, the opposite. If it was about individual rights, it wouldn’t even be recognized. No more so than any other private relationship. Buy some rings and write up a contract. Voila.

And you feel then that the current orderly propagation of our children within intact homes will diminish because gays have a state allowed marriage? I’m not sure people in great numbers will suddenly or progressively stop marrying and raising kids in a traditional 2-parent home just because gay people are now allowed to marry.

It will most certainly become an Equal Rights club, which isn’t what the institution is supposed to provide. It’ll will be diluted and spread thin. Instead of a pedestal (however much remains), it’ll be a curb one could trip over for not seeing. Low and wide.

Of course, we’ve already fallen so far there might not be much room for further descent. What it will absolutely do is make saving marriage impossible. There will be no reversing the erosion already present. Now, if it doesn’t become an equal rights club, then it puts the lie to state recognized gay marriage vs discrimination. Which is why I’ve challened–an have only received silence–the anti-bigots to define what a non-discriminatory state recognized marriage will look like.

Now, if you want to talk about the institution being degraded in a religious aspect, I would agree a lot more with you.

Not certain I follow.

[quote]A question since you feel (I assume) that it’s the state recognition that makes the institution so important, Do you feel our society would not be where it is today if marriage historically was ONLY recognized by the church? if so, why?

[/quote]

Yes, because our society is much more secular. The state is needed to provide a firm, non-apologetic, and secular social model. One man and woman. Why? Because it’s the smallest unit capable of naturally producing and raising it’s own offspring. No micro-managing necessary. No extraordinary measures needed. The birds and the bees. So, we single out this arrangement, out of ALL (not just two gays in an intimate relationship, all) relationships, to hold up and incentivize. Everyone else can pass out promise rings and get lawyers. [/quote]
So no divorce either with you logic.

[Sloth]

[quote]drewh wrote:

So no divorce either with you logic. [/quote]

Ultimately, outside of violation of the principle of marriage (adultery, abuse), none. Now, you could privately consider yourself divorced and move on. But the state isn’t going to recognize your next marriage–though you could aways swap rings with the your new “till death us part” partner and tell all your friends your huband and wife.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Have you stopped abusing women yet?[/quote]

WHy would I want to stop that? They all love it and those that don’t know where the door is . . . you live in Irish’s house, you play by Irish’s rules . . . of course every other wednesday and the third thursday of the month is opposite day, and all of my ladies get to turn the tables and abuse me all day - of course, I am a bit of a masochist, so I occasionaly let the fun continue on into Friday afternnon, but we always have to wrap things up by 3:00 pm on Friday so that we can get ready for the stripper dash and mudslide off the back yard down to the lake . . . it’s sort of a tradition, it was started by LaShonda about and year and a half ago and is a big hit with all of the retirees living around the lae and we would hate to disappoint them. we’ve only had one accident and that was when Svetlana’s thigh high boot was flung too far to the left and nearly blinded poor old Mr. Weisencrop, but I sent Svetlana over to apologize in person and he never pressed any charges. Svetlana is very very good at apologizing . . . so, thanks for asking, but I’ll just keep on keeping on . . .[/quote]

Trying to make points is lost on you. I’m done. Go be a jackass elsewhere.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ah, but then that means they’ve yet to adopt non-discriminatory state recognized marriage! I’ve been asking those of you who throw out nonsense like “discriminate” and “bigot” to offer up a non-discriminatory state recognized marriage. Show us the complete absence of bigotry within your big hearts. Give us this definition.

Sloth, why don’t you just admit that you’re playing the slippery slope game because you want to keep the status quo which puts heterosexuals on a pedestal above homosexuals? It would only be fair.

Unapologetically I want to keep to heterosexual marriage on a pedestal…

What slippery slope game? Look at we’re at now in marriage, divorce, intact homes, and now discussing what the hell marriage even is, if it can even have a definition which keep it from being ‘bigoted.’

Show me nations with legalized gay marriage. However, only, and I mean only, if you post their divorce/marriage rate, out of wed-lock rates, and–perhaps most importantly–their fertility. Largely a bunch of graying, barren, already at the bottom (which is why they even passed such legislation) of the slope, nations. I’m guessing another common theme would be that of populations largely going extinct (factor out the fertility rates of recent arrivals, and it’s worse), replacing themselves with immigrants who hold to larger and more traditional family values. Aint that a twist. [/quote]

Yes. Your “guess” is quite a twist, indeed. Care to back it up with any proof or fact?

Now, if you want to talk about the dangers of gay marriage on divorce rates, out of wedlock births, and fertility, go ahead. But stop playing the “If you let a man marry a man you have to let a man marry his turtle!” game. Its old and tired and just annoying at this point.[/quote]

You’re stonewalling. A turtle? Really? I started out this line of posts saying “consenting adults.” You’re the one bringing up animals.

Here’s the fertility rates. I believe it’s 2.1, if I recall correctly, to reach replacement levels. Keep in mind when looking at these numbers, it doesn’t subtract recent arrivals, which is reflected in my statement about having to replace the gray, barren, and self-destructing natives with more…traditional, people.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

List of nations with gay marriage (or even fairly limited ‘civil unions’).

http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/legalgaymarriag.htm[/quote]

Checked those lists against each other - not all of the countries are below the 2.1 threshhold, and the US is 2.06. I challenge you to find an actual correlation.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

And lets consider other factors involved: the nations listed in the latter link are generally more affluent and progressive – better sex education, use of contraceptives, family planning, etc, probably = lower birthrates.

Or, its them evil gays. What do you think, Sloth?

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But, yeah, Sloth, I’ll agree - marriage will always have restrictions. There are differences between legitmate restrictions and ones that exist as a result of, and for the purpose of, discrimination.

The issue of gay marriage is if not allowing same sex couples to marry is one or the other, and should be considered on its own.

Does this make sense? Or are you going to keep playing the TIRED, STUPID “If you allow gay marriage, then its discrimination to say 20 people cant marry through facebook!” card?[/quote]

Why did you substitute legitimate restrictions in place of discrimination? Just say discrimination. Now please, please define non-discriminating state-recognized marriage. I thought for sure the anti-bigotry brigade would be all over this.[/quote]

sigh

Seriously?

Ok, I’ll answer this AGAIN:

Nobody has bothered to answer your rhetoric because it’s just that, rhetoric. You’re hijacking the word “discrimination” and claiming that any limitation on state recognized marriage is “discrimination.”

Now, the question is, are you purposely being dense, or are you too stupid to see the differenct between a legitimate restriction and discrimination?

If you’re going to continue on with your hijacked definition of “discrimination” and make the strawman argument that “Not allowing 20 women on facebook to marry each other is discrmination!”, then just shut the hell up. Fo realz.

[Sloth]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But, yeah, Sloth, I’ll agree - marriage will always have restrictions. There are differences between legitmate restrictions and ones that exist as a result of, and for the purpose of, discrimination.

The issue of gay marriage is if not allowing same sex couples to marry is one or the other, and should be considered on its own.

Does this make sense? Or are you going to keep playing the TIRED, STUPID “If you allow gay marriage, then its discrimination to say 20 people cant marry through facebook!” card?[/quote]

Why did you substitute legitimate restrictions in place of discrimination? Just say discrimination. Now please, please define non-discriminating state-recognized marriage. I thought for sure the anti-bigotry brigade would be all over this.[/quote]

sigh

Seriously?

Ok, I’ll answer this AGAIN:

Nobody has bothered to answer your rhetoric because it’s just that, rhetoric. You’re hijacking the word “discrimination” and claiming that any limitation on state recognized marriage is “discrimination.”

Now, the question is, are you purposely being dense, or are you too stupid to see the differenct between a legitimate restriction and discrimination?

If you’re going to continue on with your hijacked definition of “discrimination” and make the strawman argument that “Not allowing 20 women on facebook to marry each other is discrmination!”, then just shut the hell up. Fo realz.[/quote]

So, no. You won’t attempt to define a non-discriminatory state recognized marriage. Anyone else?

Or, can we all agree at this point that it’s not possible? And, therefore, drop the discrimination against gays malarky, and the ‘you bigot’ stuff?

[Sloth]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ah, but then that means they’ve yet to adopt non-discriminatory state recognized marriage! I’ve been asking those of you who throw out nonsense like “discriminate” and “bigot” to offer up a non-discriminatory state recognized marriage. Show us the complete absence of bigotry within your big hearts. Give us this definition.

Sloth, why don’t you just admit that you’re playing the slippery slope game because you want to keep the status quo which puts heterosexuals on a pedestal above homosexuals? It would only be fair.

Unapologetically I want to keep to heterosexual marriage on a pedestal…

What slippery slope game? Look at we’re at now in marriage, divorce, intact homes, and now discussing what the hell marriage even is, if it can even have a definition which keep it from being ‘bigoted.’

Show me nations with legalized gay marriage. However, only, and I mean only, if you post their divorce/marriage rate, out of wed-lock rates, and–perhaps most importantly–their fertility. Largely a bunch of graying, barren, already at the bottom (which is why they even passed such legislation) of the slope, nations. I’m guessing another common theme would be that of populations largely going extinct (factor out the fertility rates of recent arrivals, and it’s worse), replacing themselves with immigrants who hold to larger and more traditional family values. Aint that a twist. [/quote]

Yes. Your “guess” is quite a twist, indeed. Care to back it up with any proof or fact?

Now, if you want to talk about the dangers of gay marriage on divorce rates, out of wedlock births, and fertility, go ahead. But stop playing the “If you let a man marry a man you have to let a man marry his turtle!” game. Its old and tired and just annoying at this point.[/quote]

You’re stonewalling. A turtle? Really? I started out this line of posts saying “consenting adults.” You’re the one bringing up animals.

Here’s the fertility rates. I believe it’s 2.1, if I recall correctly, to reach replacement levels. Keep in mind when looking at these numbers, it doesn’t subtract recent arrivals, which is reflected in my statement about having to replace the gray, barren, and self-destructing natives with more…traditional, people.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

List of nations with gay marriage (or even fairly limited ‘civil unions’).

http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/legalgaymarriag.htm[/quote]

Checked those lists against each other - not all of the countries are below the 2.1 threshhold, and the US is 2.06. I challenge you to find an actual correlation.[/quote]

I said ‘largely.’ But, what nations/regions are you seeing equal or above 2.1? I see South Africa at 2.33, but that’s pretty damn low for Africa. As for the US, we’ll we’re actually talking about the topic seriously, instead of laughing it off as we would have in times past. Then again marriage is already shot to hell in the US. NZ is 2.09. Very close. Besides that, pretty rough.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But, yeah, Sloth, I’ll agree - marriage will always have restrictions. There are differences between legitmate restrictions and ones that exist as a result of, and for the purpose of, discrimination.

The issue of gay marriage is if not allowing same sex couples to marry is one or the other, and should be considered on its own.

Does this make sense? Or are you going to keep playing the TIRED, STUPID “If you allow gay marriage, then its discrimination to say 20 people cant marry through facebook!” card?[/quote]

Why did you substitute legitimate restrictions in place of discrimination? Just say discrimination. Now please, please define non-discriminating state-recognized marriage. I thought for sure the anti-bigotry brigade would be all over this.[/quote]

sigh

Seriously?

Ok, I’ll answer this AGAIN:

Nobody has bothered to answer your rhetoric because it’s just that, rhetoric. You’re hijacking the word “discrimination” and claiming that any limitation on state recognized marriage is “discrimination.”

Now, the question is, are you purposely being dense, or are you too stupid to see the differenct between a legitimate restriction and discrimination?

If you’re going to continue on with your hijacked definition of “discrimination” and make the strawman argument that “Not allowing 20 women on facebook to marry each other is discrmination!”, then just shut the hell up. Fo realz.[/quote]

So, no. You won’t attempt to define a non-discriminatory state recognized marriage. Anyone else?

Or, can we all agree at this point that it’s not possible? And, therefore, drop the discrimination against gays malarky, and the ‘you bigot’ stuff?[/quote]

Nope. There are legitimate restrictions and there’s discrimination. There is a difference.

Putting someone in jail for speaking out against the government and putting someone in jail for stabbing another person to death are different. The former is an encroachment on the freedom of speech, the latter is the prosecution of an actual crime. A law against the former is an invalid law, a law against the latter is a valid law.

Now, lets assume for a second there were laws against both speaking against the government and murder. Some fool, in defense of the first, would claim them to both be laws, and argue them to be equally legitimate, and use the argument that “If you let people break this one law, you have to let them break the others! Eventually you’ll have no laws at all”

Is any of this getting through to you?

Probably not since you started this inane line of logic in the first place.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ah, but then that means they’ve yet to adopt non-discriminatory state recognized marriage! I’ve been asking those of you who throw out nonsense like “discriminate” and “bigot” to offer up a non-discriminatory state recognized marriage. Show us the complete absence of bigotry within your big hearts. Give us this definition.

Sloth, why don’t you just admit that you’re playing the slippery slope game because you want to keep the status quo which puts heterosexuals on a pedestal above homosexuals? It would only be fair.

Unapologetically I want to keep to heterosexual marriage on a pedestal…

What slippery slope game? Look at we’re at now in marriage, divorce, intact homes, and now discussing what the hell marriage even is, if it can even have a definition which keep it from being ‘bigoted.’

Show me nations with legalized gay marriage. However, only, and I mean only, if you post their divorce/marriage rate, out of wed-lock rates, and–perhaps most importantly–their fertility. Largely a bunch of graying, barren, already at the bottom (which is why they even passed such legislation) of the slope, nations. I’m guessing another common theme would be that of populations largely going extinct (factor out the fertility rates of recent arrivals, and it’s worse), replacing themselves with immigrants who hold to larger and more traditional family values. Aint that a twist. [/quote]

Yes. Your “guess” is quite a twist, indeed. Care to back it up with any proof or fact?

Now, if you want to talk about the dangers of gay marriage on divorce rates, out of wedlock births, and fertility, go ahead. But stop playing the “If you let a man marry a man you have to let a man marry his turtle!” game. Its old and tired and just annoying at this point.[/quote]

You’re stonewalling. A turtle? Really? I started out this line of posts saying “consenting adults.” You’re the one bringing up animals.

Here’s the fertility rates. I believe it’s 2.1, if I recall correctly, to reach replacement levels. Keep in mind when looking at these numbers, it doesn’t subtract recent arrivals, which is reflected in my statement about having to replace the gray, barren, and self-destructing natives with more…traditional, people.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

List of nations with gay marriage (or even fairly limited ‘civil unions’).

http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/legalgaymarriag.htm[/quote]

Checked those lists against each other - not all of the countries are below the 2.1 threshhold, and the US is 2.06. I challenge you to find an actual correlation.[/quote]

I said ‘largely.’ But, what nations/regions are you seeing equal or above 2.1? I see South Africa at 2.33, but that’s pretty damn low for Africa. As for the US, we’ll we’re actually talking about the topic seriously, instead of laughing it off as we would have in times past. Then again marriage is already shot to hell in the US. NZ is 2.09. Very close. Besides that, pretty rough.[/quote]

What about the countries that will probably never allow homosexual unions, but are under that as well?

Nice, also, how you ignored all the other factors I mentioned.

Look, Sloth, admit it: You’re a bigot. All you’re looking for here is an excuse to twist whatever data you can that will put homosexuals (or things related to homosexuals, such as state recognized marriage or unions of homosexuals) in a bad light, regardless of the actual causes.

When you can prove consistantly low fertility rates in countries that recognize gay marriage/unions, AFTER accounting for education, contraceptive use, economics, etc, THEN you might have a point. Otherwise you’re just grasping at anything that lets you say “Look, yup, the gays are the problem”

[Sloth]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
And lets consider other factors involved: the nations listed in the latter link are generally more affluent and progressive – better sex education, use of contraceptives, family planning, etc, probably = lower birthrates.

Or, its them evil gays. What do you think, Sloth?[/quote]

Now I’m having to repeat myself. And, for a guy who couldn’t help but stoop to namecalling. You don’t deserve the energy, but here’s a brief summary:

I said gay marriage would be a further erosion of marriage in the western world, where, largely, marriage and fertility have already been eroded. I specifically said that there wasn’t much room for further decline in the western world. That, this erosion is exactly why this stupid debate is even possible. I will not help reinforce said erosion. I want to reverse course fella, as difficult and painful as it may be.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

And, if marriage is already shot to hell, why aren’t you rallying against no fault divorce with the same intensity as you are against gay marriage?

If anything, I’d say divorce is worse for the traditional family (which can actually have a direct effect on the decisions a heterosexual person makes regarding marriage) than gay marriage.

What do you guys think: Which would be worse, a country with gay marriage and no divorce, or no fault divorce and no gay marriage?

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
And lets consider other factors involved: the nations listed in the latter link are generally more affluent and progressive – better sex education, use of contraceptives, family planning, etc, probably = lower birthrates.

Or, its them evil gays. What do you think, Sloth?[/quote]

Now I’m having to repeat myself. And, for a guy who couldn’t help but stoop to namecalling. You don’t deserve the energy, but here’s a brief summary:

I said gay marriage would be a further erosion of marriage in the western world, where, largely, marriage and fertility have already been eroded. I specifically said that there wasn’t much room for further decline in the western world. That, this erosion is exactly why this stupid debate is even possible. I will not help reinforce said erosion. I want to reverse course fella, as difficult and painful as it may be.

[/quote]

So, sex education teaches young teenagers how to avoid accidently makin babies - probably lowers the fertility rate a bit… you say nothing.

The place of women in general society changes, women no longer feel they are obligated to make babies - probably lowers the fertility rate a bit … you say nothing.

Condoms, birth control, and other contraceptive methods are popularized - probably lower the fertility rate a bit … you say nothing.

Abortion - chances are you’re against that for moral reasons that don’t include fertility rates. (though, come to think of it, makes a good point next time you get into that debate)

You “guess” that gay marriage “might” lead to lower fertility rates – OH GOD WE NEED TO STOP THIS RIGHT NOW.

This is why I call you a bigot: Other things cause the same issues that you rally against homosexuals/gay marriage for, yet you seem to have little or no problem with those other things, but only get bent out of shape over the issues when they align with an anti-gay agenda.