"It's just how I was raised."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-10-2013, 04:19 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(01-10-2013 03:54 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I was making a point that society has good reason to value heterosexuality over homosexuality....and by extension value heterosexual unions more than homosexual unions.

Your reasoning is shit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 04:23 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(01-10-2013 12:19 AM)morondog Wrote:  The whole procreation thing is a red herring anyway. Benefits of marriage that people really want are not the customary shit but e.g.

Next of kin status - what happens when your loved one dies or has to have medical treatment ?
Tax benefits.
Divorce law and its protections.

Is it *so* hard to give people these things ?

Next of kin status can essentially be had via power of attorney.
Get rid of any marriage tax benefits. Also get rid of any government benefits tied to marriage. I know two guys in sham marriages just so they can "double dip" on government benefits. If people enter into a union, have'em sign a contract which specificies what happens if that union is dissolved.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 04:26 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(01-10-2013 04:19 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(01-10-2013 03:54 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I was making a point that society has good reason to value heterosexuality over homosexuality....and by extension value heterosexual unions more than homosexual unions.

Your reasoning is shit.

My reasoning is better than yours so what does that make yours? Hmmm....whats worse than shit.....I know.....YOUR FACE!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 05:48 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(01-10-2013 04:23 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-10-2013 12:19 AM)morondog Wrote:  The whole procreation thing is a red herring anyway. Benefits of marriage that people really want are not the customary shit but e.g.

Next of kin status - what happens when your loved one dies or has to have medical treatment ?
Tax benefits.
Divorce law and its protections.

Is it *so* hard to give people these things ?

Next of kin status can essentially be had via power of attorney.
Get rid of any marriage tax benefits. Also get rid of any government benefits tied to marriage. I know two guys in sham marriages just so they can "double dip" on government benefits. If people enter into a union, have'em sign a contract which specificies what happens if that union is dissolved.


Yes, because heterosexual couples have NEVER used a marriage of convenience in order to 'game' the system for their benefit. And because of this one anecdotal example, we should discriminate against everyone that loves someone who just happens to have been born with the same equipment as their partner... Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 05:53 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(01-10-2013 03:46 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(30-09-2013 01:46 PM)morondog Wrote:  OK then, how come one group of citizens gets to force their decision about something on another group ?

You mean by forcing citizens like me to recognize gay marriages?

The best solution to solving this problem is to prohibit the state from meddling in peoples personal affairs.

I'm sure your suffering will be intense when you are "forced to recognize" gay marriages.

Your life will, no doubt, become intolerable due to the restriction on your right to be a bigot. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
01-10-2013, 06:07 AM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2013 06:26 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(01-10-2013 03:46 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The best solution to solving this problem is to prohibit the state from meddling in peoples personal affairs.

Precisely! Everyone gets equal treatment, and the government stays out of it! Finally we agree!

Don't like marriage? Don't get one.
Don't like abortions? Don't get one.
Don't like drugs? Don't do them.
Don't like birth control? Don't use it
Don't like sex? Don't have it.
Don't like your rights taken away? Don't take away anyone else's

(01-10-2013 04:15 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  In the United States the fertility rate isn't enough to sustain the population. The only reason our population grows is because of immigration. I will go further and say that the prevalence of birth control is a greater societal ill than gay marriage.

I could not find any figures on the average number of babies a gay woman bares compared to a straight woman, but I imagine its much lower.

I do not understand where in the world you are getting this data from? And more importantly, what is your understanding of how data works? Do you understand that the true data charts are generally not straight lines? You understand that there are normal fluctuations? The fertility rate is higher today than it was in the 1975, but lower than it was in 1990s. The only reason for growth is immigration? Again, please support this statement with evidence. Absent of evidence, logic and reasoning...cuz thats how we roll here.

chart

Also, in your reference to birth control being an ill effect to society, again, evidence please? Further, support your claim that any decrease to the population growth rates and fertility rates is a negative consequence for our society. I think the evidence suggests the opposite. Poverty and hunger are real problems...right here in the US.

"The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it's called the empowerment of women. If you give women some control over the rate at which they reproduce, if you give them some say, take them off the animal cycle of reproduction to which nature and some doctrine—religious doctrine condemns them, and then if you'll throw in a handful of seeds perhaps and some credit, the floor of everything in that village, not just poverty, but education, health, and optimism will increase. It doesn't matter; try it in Bangladesh, try it in Bolivia, it works—works all the time." --Christopher Hitchens

I mean, come on, would you tell a family on welfare to forget the pill tonight, sweetheart and keep on trucking? No. She can't feed the family she has. Birth control has been the best innovation of our species because it gave women access to control over the rate in which they had children, the mouths they had to feed, etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Cathym112's post
01-10-2013, 06:33 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(01-10-2013 05:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-10-2013 03:46 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You mean by forcing citizens like me to recognize gay marriages?

The best solution to solving this problem is to prohibit the state from meddling in peoples personal affairs.

I'm sure your suffering will be intense when you are "forced to recognize" gay marriages.

Your life will, no doubt, become intolerable due to the restriction on your right to be a bigot. Drinking Beverage

Missing the point entirely! You are never "forced" to recognize anything! That's the beauty of the government not being able to regulate thoughts. You can consider a marriage not to be a marriage until you are blue in the face. There are plenty of opposite-sex couples that I don't consider married because they sure as shit haven't acted like it! Some of them haven't even stopped dating yet! But that's my right not to recognize it as a marriage as a matter of opinion. My (un)willingness to recognize it as a marriage has no affect on its legal standing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
01-10-2013, 06:46 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(01-10-2013 06:07 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(01-10-2013 03:46 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The best solution to solving this problem is to prohibit the state from meddling in peoples personal affairs.

Precisely! Everyone gets equal treatment, and the government stays out of it! Finally we agree!

Don't like marriage? Don't get one.
Don't like abortions? Don't get one.
Don't like drugs? Don't do them.
Don't like sex? Don't have it.
Don't like your rights taken away? Don't take away anyone else's

(01-10-2013 04:15 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  In the United States the fertility rate isn't enough to sustain the population. The only reason our population grows is because of immigration. I will go further and say that the prevalence of birth control is a greater societal ill than gay marriage.

I could not find any figures on the average number of babies a gay woman bares compared to a straight woman, but I imagine its much lower.

I do not understand where in the world you are getting this data from? And more importantly, what is your understanding of how data works. Do you understand that the true data charts are generally not straight lines? You understand that there are normal fluctuations? The fertility rate is higher today than it was in the 1975, but lower than it was in 1990s. The only reason for growth is immigration? Again, please support this statement with evidence. Absent of evidence, logic and reasoning...cuz thats how we roll here.

chart

Also, in your reference to birth control being an ill effect to society, again, evidence please? Further, support your claim that any decrease to the population growth rates and fertility rates is a negative consequence for our society. I think the evidence suggests the opposite. Poverty and hunger are real problems...right here in the US.

"The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it's called the empowerment of women. If you give women some control over the rate at which they reproduce, if you give them some say, take them off the animal cycle of reproduction to which nature and some doctrine—religious doctrine condemns them, and then if you'll throw in a handful of seeds perhaps and some credit, the floor of everything in that village, not just poverty, but education, health, and optimism will increase. It doesn't matter; try it in Bangladesh, try it in Bolivia, it works—works all the time." --Christopher Hitchens

I mean, come on, would you tell a family on welfare to forget the pill tonight, sweetheart and keep on trucking? No. She can't feed the family she has. Birth control has been the best innovation of our species because it gave women access to control over the rate in which they had children, the mouths they had to feed, etc.

You need a births per woman rate greater than 2 to sustain a population. It actually has to be quite a bit more than 2 to make up for the children born that don't survive into adulthood and thus never reproduce...but let us for the sake of argument say its just 2 in order to sustain a population.

The reason it is 2 is because women have to give birth once to replace themselves and second time to replace a corresponding male. When ever you have a sustained birth per woman rate of 2 or less, any population growth is going to occur from people outside the population moving into it. The math is simple and undeniable.

If the whole world had a birth per women rate that the United States has had since 1975, the population of the world would have decreased significantly over that time. Right now you do not see the ill effects of the prevalence of birth control because in much of the world birth control isn't prevalent....thus overall the world population has continued to increase. However birth control is becoming more and more prevalent through out the world. Population growth is slowing down and will eventually decline. Left unchecked, birth control will lead to the extinction of the humanity assuming the rest of world follows the lead of the West and adopts a birth per woman rate of less than 2. Again it is simple math....a brute fact....that cannot be argued against.

Philosoraptor's critique of gay marriage was technically correct, but he is looking at a mole hill and ignoring the mountain. In his country birth control is creating the problem he points out and not those pesky gays.

Second you are conflating what might be good for a specific individual with what might be good for society. Just because birth control makes a woman's life easier doesn't mean it is good for society as a whole.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 06:58 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(01-10-2013 05:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-10-2013 03:46 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You mean by forcing citizens like me to recognize gay marriages?

The best solution to solving this problem is to prohibit the state from meddling in peoples personal affairs.

I'm sure your suffering will be intense when you are "forced to recognize" gay marriages.

Your life will, no doubt, become intolerable due to the restriction on your right to be a bigot. Drinking Beverage

Chas, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of his statement but you were too stupid to see that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 06:59 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(01-10-2013 06:46 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You need a births per woman rate greater than 2 to sustain a population. It actually has to be quite a bit more than 2 to make up for the children born that don't survive into adulthood and thus never reproduce...but let us for the sake of argument say its just 2 in order to sustain a population.

The reason it is 2 is because women have to give birth once to replace themselves and second time to replace a corresponding male. When ever you have a sustained birth per woman rate of 2 or less, any population growth is going to occur from people outside the population moving into it. The math is simple and undeniable.

If the whole world had a birth per women rate that the United States has had since 1975, the population of the world would have decreased significantly over that time. Right now you do not see the ill effects of the prevalence of birth control because in much of the world birth control isn't prevalent....thus overall the world population has continued to increase. However birth control is becoming more and more prevalent through out the world. Population growth is slowing down and will eventually decline. Left unchecked, birth control will lead to the extinction of the humanity assuming the rest of world follows the lead of the West and adopts a birth per woman rate of less than 2. Again it is simple math....a brute fact....that cannot be argued against.

Philosoraptor's critique of gay marriage was technically correct, but he is looking at a mole hill and ignoring the mountain. In his country birth control is creating the problem he points out and not those pesky gays.

Second you are conflating what might be good for a specific individual with what might be good for society. Just because birth control makes a woman's life easier doesn't mean it is good for society as a whole.

And if the world will not be able to support our current population if we were hypothetically able to raise the entire world to the standard of living enjoyed by the developed world? I imagine that the Earth could do with quite a few less humans on it. You're assuming that we must maintain or increase the population, that there are no positive aspects to a population decreasing. So what if it's bad for one country or another, over the planet as a whole, surely the ends justify the means right? If we're willing to trample all over individuals for single societies, then surely the global community takes even greater priority over individuals, right?

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: