And here we will agree to celebrate the outcome.
Patently and fundamentally wrong.
No it doesnāt. Because allowing gay marriage doesnāt impact fatherless neighborhoods except in a positive way. Gay people canāt reproduce. Fatherless neighborhoods will always be hetero peopleās fault
Donāt know any of this.
No, WE are below replacement. The entire world isnāt our society
Still wrong. You know how numbers work right?
Why would the state recognize gay marriage then? Youāre argument is for hetero marriageās critical role/impact.
Nope. We are below replacement fertility rates
SPOILER
Ok, so the goobacks were Time Travelers from the future who returned to present day South Park in order to work for low wages, put that money into safe investments which the interest would compound over time thus making the goobacksā families in the future wealthy (there was economic downturns from the time that the Goobacks were from).
The present day South Park inhabitants (all blue collar workers, etc.) were upset the goobacks were undercutting their jobs by working for less and ātakin der jerbsā so, in order to stop the inflow of Goobacks from the future, they decided to gay them away ā¦ essentially preventing future generations by engaging in a massive gay orgy ā¦ which is in a way related to what you were saying about the effects on society if heterosexuality were to disappear overnight ā¦
2 Likes
For equality purposes?
Feel free to find a source to back that up. I certainly canāt find one.
The article doesnāt stand up to basic population math. Sorry about your luck lol.
Anyways. Arguing gay marriage with religious people is always both boring and hilarious. Tapping out.
Pfury, you are missing the phrase āfertility ratesā¦ā
1 Like
The āreplacementā fertility rate of 2.1 ā enough to renew the population ā is typically viewed as the optimal level for stability. But in 2017, the total fertility rate, or number of births each woman is expected to have in her childbearing years, dropped to 1.76 in the US.
To be fair, I didnāt refer once to a religious faith based argument.
I simply pointed out that the two arenāt remotely equal/the same. Then I waited for someone to start acting like we have some objective and universal moral obligation to act to the contrary. Nobody bit. Had they, they would have put forth something (lack of support for gay marriage is morally wrong/evil) they can not empircally demonstrate.
So if objectively they simply arenāt equal, and there is no moral obligation to recognize both, I donāt feel the need to support both.
@Sloth Iām curious, you seem to be implying without gay marriage gay couples would not be living the way they currently do. Do you believe legalizing gay marriage turned people gay?
1 Like
I simply donāt care. I believe the state has no more pressing interest in gay coupling than it does in fishing buddies. Or, in consenting 20 person poly-partnered non-romantic/sexual arrangements. It does have a extremely valid interest in hetero coupling.
Women should have to die and get mamed against their will too. Or be considered scumbags for dodging it (fake Rhodes scholarships and bone spurs).
1 Like
This is why I think including women will kill the draft. Society has never really cared about sending young men off to die in someone elseās war.
But if you can slap a pretty low 20s mother up there with an obituary no pol that voted for the war will be seeing a reelection.
1 Like