Gay marriage

[Montez]

Don't get me wrong - I'm not against gay marriage, I'm just against the "sacred union between man and woman" argument being used as a justification for not allowing it.

 

[Sander]

*laughs at the silly Republicans*

There you go, one of the stupidest laws for any free nation that prides itself in carrying out a tradition of equal rights has been stopped. Silly Republicans.

 

[John Uskglass]

There you go, one of the stupidest laws for any free nation that prides itself in carrying out a tradition of equal rights has been stopped. Silly Republicans.

Oddly enough, the law did'nt even get a simple majority in the Senate, thus you're argument=bumpkus.

Marrige and the structure of the family is as much the pillar of Western Civilizaton as anything else, and it's decreptitude is just another sign of it's decay.

 

[Sander]

Oddly enough, the law did'nt even get a simple majority in the Senate, thus you're argument=bumpkus.

Ehh...it didn't get a majority, therefore it is not a stupid law. What?
If you're talking about the Republican thing: I know that several Republicans voted against the law as well. I also know that most Repubicans didn't.

Marrige and the structure of the family is as much the pillar of Western Civilizaton as anything else, and it's decreptitude is just another sign of it's decay.

Bwaha! Again: silly Republican.
1) What structure of family? Half of your nation gets a divorce.
2) Tell me why, exactly, gay marriage cannot provide for a family structure? DOes it somehow hurt the normal marriages that there are gay people getting married?
Or are you afraid that gays won't do such a good job as a man and a woman at raising a child? If so, why? Why would a woman be any better than a homosexual? Why can't there be the same roles as there are in normal marriages? And why do you think that there are that many old-fashioned family structures left?

 

[John Uskglass]

Ehh...it didn't get a majority, therefore it is not a stupid law. What?
If you're talking about the Republican thing: I know that several Republicans voted against the law as well. I also know that most Repubicans didn't.

Surely some Dutch voted against a similar law? You're point was that America was'nt a hotbed of freedom becasue we had a proposition for a law; mine was that it never got anywhere.

1) What structure of family? Half of your nation gets a divorce.

Misleading. Half of marriges end in divorce. Many of those are chronic or serial divorces.

And why do you think that there are that many old-fashioned family structures left?

There are in this country. Mexican Americans are now the largest minority, and they're records on marrige are generally excellent (thanks Catholiscism!), and most caucasian Americans grow up in a traditional enviorment.

Look, I don't really think it devalues hetero marriges. Matter of fact, I'm kind of torn on the issue. But the fact remains that most countries with similar laws have almost no marriges, absurdly low population growth and a record number of bastard children. I just think it's another trend leading against traditional marrige.

Now, I could very likely be wrong; maybe the two have nothing in common. But we'll see.

 

[Sander]

Surely some Dutch voted against a similar law? You're point was that America was'nt a hotbed of freedom becasue we had a proposition for a law; mine was that it never got anywhere.

We never had a vote to permanently block out gay marriage through constitutional amendment.
That said: that wasn't my point. My point was that the law was stupid for a country that prides itself to be a haven of democracy and freedom, no that America wasn't that.

Misleading. Half of marriges end in divorce. Many of those are chronic or serial divorces.

So? It signals a signal much worse than gays marrying.

There are in this country. Mexican Americans are now the largest minority, and they're records on marrige are generally excellent (thanks Catholiscism!), and most caucasian Americans grow up in a traditional enviorment.

True, but that's in a major decline now, a lot of women get jobs, which is their good right, and a lot children don't grow up in a traditional marriage environment.

Look, I don't really think it devalues hetero marriges. Matter of fact, I'm kind of torn on the issue. But the fact remains that most countries with similar laws have almost no marriges, absurdly low population growth and a record number of bastard children. I just think it's another trend leading against traditional marrige.

Here's a mistake you make: you equate no marriage with no family structure. Big mistake. A lot of people here simply don't want to get married, for whatever reason, and prefer to live together. This doesn't mean that any children they have grow up in a worse environment than a traditional environment. Marriage is nothing more than a vow to stay together, but that vow can be broken. There is no need to see marriage in itself as a major part of traditional society, but rather the family structure.
Furthermore, I'd argue that the rising of these circumstances you name (do you have any proof, by the way), are not connected to gay marriage. At the most, I'd say that those are symptoms of liberalisation and a change of society:
People are allowed to have more freedom, there is less pressure on them to get married, and even less pressure to get children. If people don't want children, they don't get children, and if people don't want to get married, they don't.
And this is not a bad thing. This is only a bad thing if you wish to hold onto a traditional society, but then I ask you: why? Why would you want to go back to a society where there are huge amounts of pressure on you to get children, where the family structure is holy and where you can't marry the one love? Put yourself in the position of a homosexual: how would you feel if you only loved people of the same sex (which you can't do anything about, really), but couldn't marry the one you love?
Also, I'd argue that the rise of homosexual isn't a cause of those things you name, but possibly an effect. But that doesn't mean that the effect is, in fact, bad.

Lastly, you seem to see population growth as some kind of holy grail. Again: why? Because it isn't, it depends on the state of society. If you have a large poverty stricken nation, the one thing you don't want is more children. If you have a very modernised society that is doing well for itself, then you might need more children, but this isn't always true either. The Netherlands, for instance, now have a burden of the baby boomers on them. The society is growing older and older because, simply put, people don't die as quickly. And a small number of people get to pay for this right now. But if you get more children, for the next 18 years not only will the people be paying more for elderly, but they'll also be paying more for the huge amount of children as well. Population growth can be a blessing and a burden, and isn't something that causes economic growth either.

 

[Executioner]

And this is not a bad thing. This is only a bad thing if you wish to hold onto a traditional society, but then I ask you: why? Why would you want to go back to a society where there are huge amounts of pressure on you to get children, where the family structure is holy and where you can't marry the one love? Put yourself in the position of a homosexual: how would you feel if you only loved people of the same sex (which you can't do anything about, really), but couldn't marry the one you love?

Yes, most of the problems and hype today come from conservatives trying to hold on to traditional views and roles while forcing these same ideas on everyone around them. "Mind you own business" and "live and let live" work well in these cases.

Lastly, you seem to see population growth as some kind of holy grail. Again: why? Because it isn't, it depends on the state of society. If you have a large poverty stricken nation, the one thing you don't want is more children. If you have a very modernised society that is doing well for itself, then you might need more children, but this isn't always true either ... Population growth can be a blessing and a burden, and isn't something that causes economic growth either.

I think the welfare laws are putting a good deal of strain on the American economy. There are plenty of crack whores and trailer trash out there popping out babies faster than rabbits on espresso. All they see is more chances for government money and we're all left with kids who'll grow up to be the same redneck hicks.

If only people were required to get 'reproduction licenses' before having children, but that's a whole other can of worms...

 

[welsh]

Honestly, this is a bullshit political issue but the Republicans to argue "we share your values, religious conservatives and the democrats don't."

You'd think there were more important issues out there.

As for whether marriage is one of the basis of western society-- hmmm.. marriage shows up in a lot of societies and the rules of marriage have changed depending on the society. To think marriage is "set in stone by the gospel" is not quite right. The institutions and practices of marriage have changed.

One of the arguments is that you need a man and woman to properly raise a child. I don't know about that.

But even if we were to take that as a start there are a couple of problems.

For one, there are a lot of single parent households out there- what do you want to do about that? Considering these households are usually less financially well-off due to one overworked parent, the answer would seem to be child care. Oh but that's the whole welfare thing that Executioner is against. Executioner- much of welfare was transferred to the states by the way. Some states are more forthcoming than others.

Considering the number of families that end in divorce, plus the number of families in which one spouse has died (we tend to forget widows), and if single parent families are less well-off than two parent, than should we get rid of gay marriage? At least in that circumstance you have two incomes and more time spent on childcare.

That said, the entire- "let's deny a discrete classificaton that has a history of prejudice their equal access to law because God tells us too" is really bad politics. Hello, seperation of church and state?

 

[Executioner]

For one, there are a lot of single parent households out there- what do you want to do about that? Considering these households are usually less financially well-off due to one overworked parent, the answer would seem to be child care. Oh but that's the whole welfare thing that Executioner is against. Executioner- much of welfare was transferred to the states by the way. Some states are more forthcoming than others.

I can understand single parent families with two, maybe three, children. I don't have any problems with these people in low paying jobs just trying to get by the best they can. They deserve some help.

The ones I can't stand are the ones that are constantly changing jobs because they just 'didn't like the other one' or ones fired for theft or some other crime committed while on the job. I'll just lump them in with the people that have a ridiculous number of children (5+ all conceived separately, no twins etc.). Show some responsibility like the rest of us and actually try not to have more kids.

Oh well, I'll just calm down and read up on the welfare changes. 8)

 

[welsh]

You are right though that there are a lot of poor folks that have large families.

I am not sure why. The more upperwardly mobile usually have fewer kids. So poverty and childbirth seem to go together.

But the question then becomes causal- why do poor people have more children and are the children the cause of the poverty, or is the poverty leading to increased children- perhaps because of broken homes.

I think the causal direction is complex and can't be dismissed easily. Would like to hear more about this.

 

[Executioner]

You are right though that there are a lot of poor folks that have large families.

I am not sure why. The more upperwardly mobile usually have fewer kids. So poverty and childbirth seem to go together.

But the question then becomes causal- why do poor people have more children and are the children the cause of the poverty, or is the poverty leading to increased children- perhaps because of broken homes.

I think the causal direction is complex and can't be dismissed easily. Would like to hear more about this.

Some sort of study on this would make for an interesting read.

I'd say rich people have fewer children because they don't think they have the time. They seem to be too busy enjoying their wealth. However, I don't know how the other half lives so I can only speculate.

Poor people, on the other hand, either take joy from having a larger family instead of a larger bank account or they have more free time to spend having 'fun'.

The main reason why I don't want kids is that they are expensive. That and babies are loud, dirty, and annoying. My happiness basically comes from having enough money to live comfortably and someone to share it with.

So, there's my nice in-depth reasoning on this social topic. 8)

 

[Montez]

But the question then becomes causal- why do poor people have more children and are the children the cause of the poverty, or is the poverty leading to increased children- perhaps because of broken homes.

I think the causal direction is complex and can't be dismissed easily. Would like to hear more about this.

My theory is pretty simple: The same ignorance of all kinds that keeps them from planning and maintaining their finances, getting better jobs, planning for the future, etc., keeps them from being able to realize that birth control, of any kind, would significantly ease their poverty. While there are plenty of poor people who are poor due to misfortune or circumstances beyond their control, the majority of them are too stupid to be anything but poor. It's a very harsh way of putting it, I know, but anyone who has grown up poor or "upper lower class/lower middle class" knows it's true. There are a lot of dummies in the world, and they aren't capable of being anything else. It's unfortunate, but it's a fact of life that not all people are born with equal abilities - the "Bell Curve" theory leads people to believe that the majority of people should be in the middle, but in reality it's more like a pyramid with the less intelligent forming the bulk of the bottom.

People have sex drives, and the more intelligent and careful members of the human race are able to restrain themselves or plan ahead, the less intelligent ones say "Let's fuck without a condom, they fuck with the feeling too much." (please excuse my horrible dialogue), or it never even occurs to them that they have a choice to not have kids. That's why poor people have more children and stay poor. Just take a subway ride with high school kids from poor neighborhoods for a week, you'll hear half a dozen conversations along those lines. Education is well and good, but it doesn't keep stupid people from making stupid decisions and not learning from them.

As Executioner said, there are people who just enjoy family life and have it in mind to have large families no matter what the cost. I think they are far outnumbered by those who just can't help themselves though. Stupid is as stupid does, and I don't think there's much reason to go any deeper into the issue as this is one thing where the cause is in plain sight. You might as well ask why any of our close animal relatives or rodents/cats/dogs have huge amounts of offspring, when if they would have less they could grow fat and happy with the surplus of food. Why? Because they aren't capable of that sort of reasoning (or in human's case, are unable to pursue and act upon that line of reasoning). Just because we're "human beings" instead of "animals", it doesn't mean that there are always deep psychological and sociological reasons for our behavior.

 

[welsh]

Montez, I am not sure if I would go with the stupidity argument although I would ask if the structure of circumstances limits their choices. For instance, poor schools and less education might lead to the "stupidity" as might a social culture that does not emphasize education.

However the notion of a culture of poor seems to be out.

Eliot Jakues (I think that's the spelling) says that much of this falls down to the length of discretion. Upper and middle class individuals have more ability for long-term planning. Long term investment, education, etc- focus on the long term. Many are vested in careers or are timing children carefully for when children would be best. On the other hand, the poor are often living a day-to-day existence and their time spans are very short. Since, as you both suggest, many want children and have a strong sense of value in being parents, that might lead them to have more children regardless of consequences.

Sharon Hayes- says that generally the poor have many of the same values as the middle and upper classes. However circumstances and opportunities are different. Given a choice between working 12 hours to support a child and staying home on welfare to take care of that child, they would prefer to have welfare. It is not that they don't want spouses, but that the pool of available spouses are very small.

Not sure about the education thing. I think it's harder to get a good education in a poor neighborhood than a rich one. For one it's a question of taxes. Since schools are locally paid for, education in poorer areas is more scanty- less books, less computers, poorer teachers than you would find in a middle or upper class neighborhood. But I also think it is socially more difficult to get an education in poor neighborhoods were the notion of investing in long term education is less practical than day-to-day living.

This is kind of curious. Going to take a closer look at this today.

 

[welsh]

One thing we have to be careful of, we should not assume that poverity leads to childbirth when it could be the otherway around.

I am doing work on Mauritius which shines some light on this. At the end of Mauritius's colonial experience the colonial government contracted two studies on problems of the country. At independence the country looked like it would break apart due to ethnic and class conflicts. Well the studies pointed out two critical factors to resolve Mauritius' problems-
(1) Reduce population. Higher population increases labor demands in an already saturated job market.
(2) Increase job opportunities to reduce unemployment and thus maintain social peace.

It was the increase in job opportunities that is probably the main reason why Singapore, a modern city-state, overcame it's ethnic unrest to maintain a high level of domestic peace.

In rural areas high population is often easier to deal with if there is surplus land available for new farming. However, in urban areas, especially those facing large rural-to-urban migrations, there may be fewer job opportunities available to families that would naturally have large numbers of children.